On a point of order, will Deputy Molloy speak in this debate?
Resignation of Minister of State: Statements.
Yes.
Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. O'Donoghue): At the outset, I am deeply conscious that the events now under discussion will again lead to the revisiting upon the victim of the traumatic ordeal to which she was subjected over a protracted period, and which were the subject of the arrest, trial and sentencing of the perpetrator of those horrific crimes. Neither I nor, I believe, anyone in this House would have wanted such an outcome at a time when the victim deserved time and space to put behind her the awful torture to which she was subjected. I would like, therefore, at the beginning of my contribution, to offer a sincere apology to the victim in this case who is obviously suffering further pain and hurt due to the continued public controversy over this matter. I genuinely hope that after today we can move on and let the matter rest. I also hope that, with the courage the victim has shown in dealing with the past, she will now be able to build a new future for herself.
I intend, first and foremost, to set out the full facts of this matter as far as I have established them from the records in my Department but, first, I want to say, with all the force I can muster, that I have nothing to hide and that I conducted myself with the utmost integrity and propriety at all stages. I wish to state categorically that the false and baseless charges that have been laid against me by Members of this House – charges of attempting to interfere with the Judiciary, of collusion in some kind of conspiracy and of deliberate concealment of the facts are not only false, but the Deputies opposite now know them to be false. The facts show this clearly to be the case and all reasonable commentators concur.
The outcome from the statements in court by Mr. Justice O'Sullivan on 9 and 10 April has had profound consequences, including the resignation of Deputy Molloy as Minister of State after 37 years public service in this House. I believe all of us in this House will sympathise with Deputy Molloy who has paid a very high price for what happened. In this regard, I should also put on the record of the House that there was no personal contact between Deputy Molloy and myself in relation to this case, either before, during or after the statements in court by Mr. Justice O'Sullivan.
I intend, for the information of the House, to set out the facts relating to me and my Department arising from the statements made in court by Mr. Justice Philip O'Sullivan on 9 and 10 April last. First, I will deal with the issue of the telephone call made by the official in the courts policy division of my Department to Mr. Justice O'Sullivan on 19 March 2002. The reason behind this phone call was totally innocent and was not, as some have portrayed it, some sort of inappropriate, nefarious or even conspiratorial act. The officer involved was motivated simply and solely by a desire to be helpful. On 19 March 2002, the Minister's office in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform received a telephone request from an official in the office of the Minister of State for the phone number of Mr. Justice O'Sullivan's secretary. The official in my office was informed that the reason for the request was that the Minister of State wished to confirm on behalf of a constituent if the judge had received correspondence from that constituent, a Ms Anne Naughton.
It is important to state at this point that no mention was made to the official in my office that the correspondence related to an ongoing court case. This official asked a colleague in the courts policy division for a telephone number at which the then Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, or someone in his office could contact Mr. Justice O'Sullivan. The official looked up the telephone number held on file for Mr. Justice O'Sullivan. He found the number but was not entirely sure that it was the correct number for the judge. To be helpful, therefore, and to be sure that the number he would pass on to be forwarded to Deputy Molloy's office would be the correct one, he decided to ring the number he had found on file to verify that it was indeed correct. On ringing the number, the telephone was answered by Mr. Justice O'Sullivan and the official felt obliged to explain to the judge why he had telephoned his number. He told Mr. Justice O'Sullivan that the then Minister of State's office had approached the Department for a telephone number for him, the judge, and that he had telephoned to make sure, in advance of passing on the number he had on file, that it was correct. The judge indicated to the official from the courts policy division that he would be available for a short period – about 20 minutes – in his chambers.
In my statement of 10 April, I explained how the question of the judge's home telephone number arose and that the judge made it clear that he would not take a telephone call at home. At no stage was there any suggestion that a telephone call, per se, would be improper. Indeed, the notion that a telephone call to a judge is to be viewed per se as an impropriety is manifestly ludicrous. Neither the official nor the judge had knowledge, at that point, as to the likely purpose of the telephone call. It is important, at this juncture, to remind Members of the House that Mr. Justice O'Sullivan has confirmed, in so far as his knowledge and recollection of the matter is concerned, that this is a full and accurate statement of the facts. I would hope that the Members opposite, if they are still disinclined to accept my version of the events, would at least take account of what the judge has verified to be an accurate statement of the facts.
Attempts have been made to imply that as the official who placed the telephone call to Mr. Justice O'Sullivan worked in the courts policy division, he was or should have been aware that that division had dealt with representations made by Deputy Molloy in the Spring of the previous year or was dealing with further representations made by Deputy Molloy in January 2002. I want to put on the record of the House the factual position in relation to this matter. The position is that the officer in question had no personal dealings with either set of representations which were received in the division some ten months apart. The division deals with approximately 700 representations a year, from Deputies of all parties, Senators of all parties, Ministers, Ministers of State and members of the public. A majority of these representations relate to court cases. Due to this volume of representations, the represen tations made by Deputy Molloy would not particularly stand out in the minds of any of the staff in the division, much less in the mind of an officer who had had no direct dealings with them and would not, therefore, be aware of them.
As I said at the outset, this officer had no ulterior motive in calling the judge's number on 19 March. He was simply complying with a legitimate request to get a telephone number for the then Minister of State's office and he did no more than that in an effort to be helpful. To attribute any other motive to the official is a gross injustice to his integrity. I have said outside the House, and I will repeat it here, that in the five years I have served as Minister for Justice, Equality, and Law Reform I have been struck by the diligence, dedication and probity of officials at all levels. On their behalf, I will not accept any attempt to impugn their good names, either directly or indirectly, by anyone in this House or outside it.
I would like now to deal with the issue of the representations I received from Deputy Molloy about the Naughton case. In this regard, let me first say that I receive well over 12,000 representations per year from members of the public and Members of the Oireachtas – Deputies of all parties, from Senators of all parties, Ministers of State and other Ministers. These representations are formally acknowledged by staff in my office and passed on to the relevant sections in my Department for attention and for the preparation of replies. Replies are signed by me or on my behalf, but rarely would I have time personally to study the detail of such representations or replies, given the overall volume involved. I challenge any Member of the parties opposite who has had the privilege of serving as a Minister to state categorically that they read all correspondence coming into their office and each and every reply, including each and every acknowledgement emanating from their office. Those who have served as Ministers know that that is not the case. If they were to do this they would have precious little time for the discharge of their fuller functions as Ministers in relation to the business of their Departments and their responsibilities to the Oireachtas.
Some commentators outside of this House have sought to argue that it is inconceivable that a Minister would not recall correspondence – even repeated correspondence – from another Minister about an individual case. Deputies Opposite who have held ministerial office know full well that this is nonsense, especially in circumstances where all that is involved is issuing a letter of refusal in standard format. They know that especially in large Departments it is not a question of mulling over a few letters a week but of receiving and issuing thousands of pieces of correspondence a year. I had absolutely no recollection of correspondence with Deputy Molloy with regard to the Naughton case. I had no knowledge of the existence of correspondence between Deputy Molloy and myself in this matter until it was brought to my attention, following the state ment by Mr. Justice O'Sullivan on 10 April last. I will let the facts speak for themselves.
I was initially apprised on the morning of Wednesday, 10 April 2002 of the correspondence which had been handled by the courts policy division because of the focus on that division at the time in relation to contact with a member of the Judiciary. I referred to this correspondence in the statement issued on my behalf on Wednesday afternoon, 10 April. Later that day, following a search which I had directed be made of all divisions in my Department, it was brought to my attention that correspondence from Deputy Molloy had also been received and processed in the crime division and the prisons division. On learning of this I decided that all the correspondence should be put in the public domain and so instructed my officials on Thursday, 11 April. This resulted in the further statement issued on my behalf on Thursday afternoon with copies of all the correspondence with Deputy Molloy in relation to this case discovered in my Department.
It has been represented that this slight delay in discovering that there was other correspondence in the Department, aside from that in the courts policy division, is not believable and falsely represented that I was trying to hide this correspondence and only decided to release it when FOI requests were submitted. This is nonsense. As soon as I was apprised that there was further correspondence, I directed that it all be released, save for some material containing personal information about private individuals or comments which had to do with the merits of the particular court case. All the correspondence was in the public domain within a little more than 24 hours of Mr. Justice O'Sullivan's statement on the morning of Wednesday, 10 April, referring to the telephone call he had received from an official in my Department. As has been pointed out, not just by me but by various commentators in the media and elsewhere, there could be no basis whatsoever for my seeking to conceal correspondence which only went to underline the propriety with which I handled this matter.
The FOI requests – beginning with an FOI request from The Irish Times on the evening of 10 April – had no bearing on the issue. It was a matter of certainty, from the beginning, that there would be FOI requests. To the best of my knowledge, my Department receives more FOI requests than any other, most of which have to do with matters that are not the subject of public interest. That there would be an FOI request on a matter of significant public controversy was a certainty, from the beginning, and the notion that its arrival somehow came as a surprise and caused a change of strategy, in terms of what would or would not be published, is preposterous.
The charge that I would interfere with the Judiciary – I will put it as strong as attempting to pervert the course of justice – is deeply hurtful to me. As a solicitor, no less as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, I am most deeply sensitive of the importance of the separated roles and responsibilities of the Executive and the Judiciary. I would and never have done anything, either by commission or omission, to interfere with that relationship. I have too much respect for the institutions of the State to conduct myself in that way and I am greatly disappointed with the efforts of some of the Members opposite to impute to me motives and actions alien to my personal, professional and political philosophy. Apart from that, I cannot imagine the reason Deputies opposite believe, even from a purely selfish point of view, a Minister would see fit to put his head on the block in order to assist a child abusing rapist whom he does not even know. Perhaps it says more about their perception of the world and their understanding of the duties of public office than it does of mine.
I wish to address another deliberate falsehood that was allowed gain a degree of currency during last week. It has been suggested that any contact between officers of my Department and members of the Judiciary is inappropriate. I understand Deputy Noonan even suggested that there was a protocol in the Department forbidding such contact and that this was being ignored under my stewardship as Minister. This is nonsense. Officers in the courts policy division of my Department, in particular, are regularly in telephone and other contact with members of the Judiciary and this was always the case even before I became Minister, and when Deputy Owen had the honour of serving as Minister for Justice. The contact is necessary to deal with a wide range of day-to-day organisational matters. Judges initiate these contacts as often as officials do.
It is true that there is a strict rule that officials of the Department should not discuss with judges any matters relating to particular proceedings before the courts. This rule is scrupulously observed and was so observed in the present instance. There has been criticism of the fact that Deputy Molloy forwarded representations to me concerning an ongoing court case and it has been suggested that it is inappropriate for a public representative to write to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform concerning any court case. That is a point of view which perhaps is deserving of consideration for the future. However, the records in my Department suggest that a long-standing practice, going back over many years, has been for public representatives to make such representations. Many Deputies, even on the benches opposite, well know that this practice exists and engage in it. I will spare the blushes of Deputies opposite and refrain from referring to any particular instances.
There was a ludicrous proposition that no official should contact a judge for his or her number unless the official knew that the person seeking the number did not propose to discuss court business. In other words, junior officials should act as sort of protectors of the judicial ear. The notion that a junior official should take upon himself or herself the task of filtering or screening calls to judges is preposterous and would, if implemented in practice, rightly be resented by judges who must be presumed to be better placed than anybody else to tell a caller whether the subject matter of their personal conversation does or does not amount to an impropriety. What happened in this case amply demonstrates that the Judiciary knows where the line between propriety and its opposite lies.
Surely the Department should also know it.
I have given a full and accurate account of my involvement and that of my Department in this matter. I state categorically that nothing untoward was done, no rules or protocols were broken, there was no collusion and no conspiracy. I earnestly hope closure can now be made in relation to this matter, not only on behalf of Deputy Molloy, who has paid the ultimate political price, but also for the victim of this awful ordeal.
The revelations of last week were extraordinary. Like the Minister, I will commence by saying something about the appalling position of the victim in this case. For ten years this young woman as a child suffered multiple rape, buggery and sexual abuse at the hands of a vicious father who regularly threatened her life should she reveal to anyone what was taking place. She has described her home life as one of imprisonment and torture. With great courage, after the final act of abuse, which occurred when she was 18 years of age, she went to the Garda and prevailed with courage until the trial took place in the Central Criminal Court where she had to endure the stress and strain of giving evidence and being cross-examined. The case lasted in total seven days. Throughout her father denied his guilt, but she persisted in her case and was vindicated last October by a jury unanimously finding her father guilty of horrendous offences which destroyed her childhood.
The Minister stated: "I cannot imagine the reason . . . a Minister would see fit to put his head on the block in order to assist a child abusing rapist whom he does not even know." In this context the actions of the former Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, remain a mystery to me and, I am sure, not only to Members of this House, but the overwhelming number of people outside who have given any thought to this issue. Deputy Molloy intervened in this case at an early stage. Well before it came to trial he was writing letters at the behest of the sister of the man concerned to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Minister. It seems he went on some kind of crusade on this man's behalf at the request of his sister. We know letters went to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and it is disingenuous for him to say anyone is accusing the Minister for Justice of impropriety in the context of any contacts he has had with any member of the Judiciary. No such accusation has been made, nobody is saying the Minister made any improper contact and that the letters he sent in reply to Deputy Molloy were anything less than proper.
We do not yet know enough about this affair. Not everything that should be made available and published has been made available. I made freedom of information requests seeking certain information and I want the Minister to confirm that the information will be made available. I want to see copies of all correspondence between the former Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, and his constituent, Ann Naughton, and copies of all internal memos relating to this matter in the Department of the Environment and Local Government. That documentation must be published. All internal memos within the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform relating to this matter should also be published.
The Minister must tell the House whether he is aware of any contacts of any nature having been made directly by the former Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, with the local Garda Síochána concerning this case. Are there any records, be they memorandums or any other type of correspondence, which would indicate that contacts were being made by the former Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, with people other than the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform? The Minister is accountable to this House for the Garda Síochána. He has access to that information and we are entitled to it.
I do not understand why the former Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, went on this crusade. It may be that it was presented to him before the trial that this man was innocently accused of horrendous offences. By the time the trial had taken place, there could be no excuse for him continuing to lobby on behalf of Patrick Naughton. It is extraordinary that the former Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, saw fit, within days of Mr. Naughton's conviction, to send a letter to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, at the behest of this man's sister, to inquire whether this man could be given temporary release pending sentencing. What thought did he have for the victim? The Minister, the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste have said that we must have thought for the victim. What thought did Deputy Molloy have for the victim when, within days of what must have been an emotionally draining and enormously distressing trial, his preoccupation was whether he could get temporary release for the convicted father? Perhaps Deputy Molloy will explain that.
He said previously that he was merely making representations; he was forwarding letters. The Members of this House are not a postal service. We must apply our judgment to the things constituents ask us to do. We must make choices and, on occasion, moral judgments. We must choose sides. Are we on the side of the victim, who has gone through a trial in which her father has been convicted, or are we on the father's side seeking to have him released? We make choices in the context of standards in politics. We are not just paper shufflers, sending letters back and forth to give the impression that we are trying to be of assistance to a constituent, regardless of the subject matter, in the hope we might get their vote. The logic of Deputy Molloy's approach is that not only would he make such representations at the behest of somebody who is sending him letters in favour of a convicted rapist, he would also do so at the behest of somebody who thought an axe murderer should be released. It is an extraordinary way to conduct politics.
The Taoiseach said on Friday that the former Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, did nothing wrong other than telling his secretary to make contact with the judicial system. He said he knew there had been an exchange of letters and that the Minister of State need not resign. This is particularly curious because the Tánaiste said on Friday that she did not know about the exchange of letters or the detail of the letters. How did the Taoiseach know about them when the Tánaiste did not? If the Taoiseach knew about them, why did he not make the moral judgment that the letter sent in early November seeking this man's temporary release or at least giving the impression that Deputy Molloy supported the sister's request for temporary release was highly inappropriate?
What about the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform? He is accusing people of making charges against him which are not being made. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has a difficulty which he has not adequately explained. He said in his first statement that for the sake of completeness he was making reference to correspondence between himself and Deputy Molloy. There was reference to an exchange of two letters. The following day we discovered there were 15 letters. The Minister still has not published his internal departmental memos. His explanation for that was that he did not know about those letters. His explanation today is that he frequently signs letters about subjects he knows nothing about because of the volume of correspondence that comes into the Department. We now know that the official in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform who telephoned the judge was within the same section of the Department that was dealing with some of this correspondence.
Can the Minister clarify whether there is or why there is not a system for tracking correspondence in his Department? It was understood that this had been put in place. It should have been easy to discover the existence of the total correspondence at an early stage. Does the Minister accept any accountability for letters he signs as Minister? He is accountable to this House for the manner in which he runs his Department. Are representations about serious issues to the Mini ster for Justice, Equality and Law Reform nothing more than a charade for Members of this House to engage in, assuming that a serious issue will have the eye of the Minister when it never goes any further than a civil servant in his Department and the Minister will sign any old reply without having to check the substance of the issue? Is this Minister in charge of his Department or is he just a place sitter, hanging in there until the next election?
Given the volume of correspondence that took place, the phone calls from Deputy Molloy's office to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform's office, Deputy Molloy's various meetings with Ann Naughton and his clear involvement in this matter, I do not believe it is credible that these two Ministers, who sat in Cabinet together, did not on a single occasion exchange words about this issue. If they did not, it says something about the manner in which this Government works and that the former Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, without making moral judgments or decisions was engaged in a game of charades with his constituent. Perhaps he was pretending to his constituent that he had a concern but it was a heck of a pretence about an issue of huge importance. If he had been successful in the representations he was making and if he had secured the temporary release of Patrick Naughton, would he not have sent a letter to Ann Naughton claiming credit for it? Had he any regard to the victim when he was doing this and had the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform any regard to the victim when he participated in this correspondence by signing a myriad of letters about which he says he knows nothing?
I will conclude by quoting a number of sentences which are particularly apposite. "The Minister's speech contained a tremendous amount of obfuscation. It was an attempt to construct a smokescreen around this sorry saga and a blatant effort to ensure that the Minister for Justice would escape accountability and responsibility" for the nature of the correspondence he chose to engage in and for his failure to fully reveal the correspondence initially last week. "The Minister has blamed the officials in [his] Department . . . Who in this Government of so-called openness, transparency and accountability will accept responsibility and accountability for this . . .?" Will the Taoiseach accept any accountability for his failed moral judgments last week and his failure to acknowledge the wrong the former Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, did to the victim in this case by the nature of the correspondence he conducted? Will the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform accept that he is not a Minister with responsibility for justice if he does not know what is being done in his Department and if he is signing letters about whose contents he knows nothing?
The final quote is: "The Minister must carry the major responsibility for the matter because of its grave seriousness, because [he] is charged with the administration of [his] Department and because it is [his] duty to ensure that serious decisions are implemented". It is the Minister's duty to ensure serious issues – this was a very serious one – are addressed seriously. It is he who is accountable to the House for an improper telephone call made by his official to a judge of the High Court. He failed to note in the speech he made this evening that not only did the official seek to check the judge's office telephone number, but, as the judge confirmed, improperly sought the judge's home telephone number.
The quotes to which I have referred regarding accountability, responsibility and transparency are taken from a speech delivered by the Minister when in opposition on 7 November 1996. He is not even able to live up to the standards which he himself prescribed for others and for which he criticised them if he determined they did not meet them. He made that speech in the context of one letter getting lost somewhere within the then Department of Justice. He managed to lose 15 and sign nine about a subject about which he knew nothing on his own account.
Reply to that.
No problem.
That is what is wrong with him.
Zero tolerance.
Nobody likes to see a colleague in the House forced to resign from Government, but in the nature and extent of his representations on behalf of the sister of Mr. Naughton, Deputy Molloy made a serious error of judgment. All of us in the House receive representations from constituents and others on a wide variety of matters. All of us have an obligation to show some degree of judgment and discretion in determining the extent to which we wish to be associated, even indirectly, with certain matters. There are times when a public representative simply needs to say "No".
This was not a case of a constituent in trouble for failing to tax a car or forgetting to return a form or even the case of a young person in trouble with the law for the first time who might deserve a second chance. This was a case of a father involved in the most monstrous sexual abuse and rape of his own daughter over a period of ten years. Despite the appalling nature of the case, Deputy Molloy continued to make representations on his behalf, even going so far as to make an inquiry about the possibility of temporary release, after he had been convicted. This, in itself, would have been a serious error of judgment. He then compounded the error by asking that contact be made with a judge hearing a most important and sensitive case.
Deputy Molloy has paid a high price through the loss of his ministerial office, but we must never forget that the principal victim by far in this affair has been the young woman subjected to such abuse, who had her childhood stolen from her and was let down by the failure of the relevant institutions to detect the abuse and intervene on her behalf.
There are, however, many questions also for the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Why the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste did not recognise on Tuesday what they apparently now accept, that Deputy Molloy's actions merited resignation, is one such question. Let us be clear about it. Were it not for the second intervention of Mr. Justice O'Sullivan on Wednesday morning to dispute the Government spin the public would be none the wiser.
On Tuesday it was Mr. Justice O'Sullivan who first brought to the attention of the public the improper approaches that had been made to him. It was the same judge who, in an event probably without precedent in the history of our judicial system, returned to his court the following day to give the full version of events, following the selective disclosure made by the Government the previous day. Deputy Molloy may have sinned, but the smokescreen erected around it by Government since the story emerged has been considerable.
The role of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in this affair has been considerable. There was lengthy correspondence over a period of more than one year, yet, if he is to be believed, at no stage did he question or raise with Deputy Molloy the appropriateness of making representations in this case. He spent last week denying a charge, which certainly the Opposition was not making against him and which I am not making against him now. Nobody is accusing him of attempting to influence the outcome of the court case, although he must accept political responsibility for what Mr. Justice O'Sullivan described as a totally improper approach from the Minister's office in which the judge's home telephone number was sought. What he does stand accused of, however, is failing to deal with this matter fully, openly and honestly when it emerged and to disclose important public information until it was forced out of him. His attempts to deal with this affair and stand over the spin put on events by the Government on Wednesday are simply incredible. I firmly believe that the Government's refusal to allow an independent investigation in this matter has a lot to do with the fact that the Minister's story simply does not add up.
Let us consider the facts. A major news story breaks on Tuesday about the possible involvement of a Minister of State in improper contacts with a judge. The Government, including the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste, goes into crisis management mode, yet from that time on Tuesday morning we are asked to believe that it took over two days to trace correspondence from Deputy Molloy to the office of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform – representations all handled by the Minister's office from the same Minister of State and dealing with the same constituent. One does not need to be an expert on databases to know that even before the computer age a half competent filing system should be able to deal with that problem. In an age of electronic databases it beggars belief. However, it is on this thread of absolute incompetence that the Minister's story hangs and even still one might be prepared to grant him a fool's pardon were subsequent events and statements from him not so specifically designed to detract attention from his failings.
For example, why would anybody describe a statement they issue on Wednesday evening to be "for the purpose of completeness," if they seek to claim later that a trawl for correspondence was under way? Why would such a statement make reference to two letters that establish in respect of any possible charge of interference in the judicial process the Minister acted properly, yet not disclose that the letters in question were being handled by the same and, as I understand it, small section of the Department dealing with Deputy Molloy's representations?
Were it not for the Freedom of Information Act introduced by the Labour Party and the 28 day deadline which would have placed the time of disclosure close to election day for the responses that it entails, I do not believe we would have seen the other letters at all. The refusal by the press office of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to release the letters to journalists from "Morning Ireland" on the very morning they were to be eventually published lends credibility to that interpretation, yet even then it took another 24 hours to determine that the release of correspondence on Thursday evening was not complete, although there is guarded reference to it in the Minister's statement on Thursday. We still do not know what was in the letters withheld, but these may be central to a full understanding of this affair.
The Minister's statement of Thursday, 11 April, read:
The Minister does not believe that it would be right to publish material containing personal information about private individuals or comments which have to do with the merits of the Court case as the merits of the case have now been the subject of adjudication by the Courts.
This clearly means that the Minister received correspondence which contained personal information about individuals and commented on the merits of the court case. It is only reasonable to infer that these matters were contained in correspondence from the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy. On Friday last, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform told RTE that two letters from Deputy Molloy had been withheld for legal reasons. If correspondence from Deputy Molloy did make comments on the merits of the court case, then his action was even more ill-judged than we originally thought.
The public is entitled to the full story, not the partial version that is being prised out in dribs and drabs from the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I do not accept the Minister's contention that comments to do with the merits of the court case should not be published, because the court has now adjudicated. Surely, if Deputy Molloy or anyone else sought to cast doubt on the merits of the case, we are entitled to know about it. I find it absolutely incredible that this drip-feed of information amounts to a disclosure by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform of information in good faith. It is more likely that what happened here is a cover-up that was aborted. The refusal of the Government and the Taoiseach to allow an independent inquiry only strengthens my suspicions. Last week I pointed to a model that could be used to ensure that all these matters were cleared up without further delay.
There are some parallels between aspects of this affair and the Judge Dominic Lynch controversy of 1996, when officials in the Department of Justice were alleged to have failed to pass on information regarding the delisting of a judge from the judicial panel authorised to sit in the Special Criminal Court. On that occasion the Rainbow Government appointed two prominent individuals – a former senior civil servant, Mr. Sean Cromien, and an independent consultant, Dr. Edmond Molloy – to examine all aspects of the affair and to consider what procedural changes should be made in the light of their inquiry. The two completed their report in little more than a week and made a number of significant recommendations regarding administrative and procedural improvements to ensure that such an error would not happen again. There is no reason why a similarly speedy investigation could not be undertaken into this murky affair. There are many questions left unanswered. There are many documents we need to see and only on their release will the story of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform stand up.
In a statement I issued yesterday I listed the information and the items we need to see, and I now challenge the Minister to release this material, namely, the two letters that appear to come from Deputy Molloy which were omitted from disclosure to date, edited if necessary to delete any defamatory material; the acknowledgements of Deputy O'Donoghue to these two letters; the file covers relating to Deputy Molloy's correspondence and phone calls, indicating to whom the files were passed and when; a copy of any legal advice from Michael McDowell SC, Attorney General, which justifies the withholding of the material that has been withheld to date. If no such advice exists, it would be extraordinary that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform would seek to withhold vital documents based on legal advice without seeking such advice from the Attorney General; the files contained in the Department of the Environment and Local Government. Deputy Dempsey now has legal responsibility for these files and he too must make them public immediately. He must also make a detailed and comprehensive statement on the involvement of his Department and its personnel in the affair; the internal papers of the courts division, that is, any documents other than those letters already published, dealing with the Molloy letters and phone calls; the reply by the Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, to Deputy Molloy's last letter, which would have been generated on foot of the letter from the courts service of 15 March 2002; the enclosures sent by Deputy Molloy, that is, the letters from Mr. Naughton's sister, edited if necessary to delete defamatory material; an indication from the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform as to how many people in the courts division dealt with Deputy Molloy's correspondence, the number of officials within the Department and the full contents of the division file on the matter; and a copy of the printout of the file-tracking system used to identify the Molloy correspondence. This printout is vital because it will establish whether the claim that the correspondence was discovered in a piecemeal manner is credible or not. We must also have details of when the alleged further trawl was ordered, how long it took to complete and the manner in which it was carried out.
I congratulate, if that is the right word, the Government on its successful spinning campaign on Saturday last when every journalist in Dublin was led to believe that a story would break involving similar representations to those made by Deputy Molloy involving either myself and the leader of Fine Gael. To their credit, most journalists were not taken in by the spin. These stories did not emerge because they do not exist. However, the Government's spin machine is probably capable of inferring culpability from far less serious representations. That it chose not to do so is probably to do with the fact that what might have applied to either myself or Deputy Noonan would also have had to go for the Taoiseach, and for some reason it was decided that would not do.
I apologise to the victim in this case for any distress that my actions may have caused her. I am deeply sorry that actions taken by me in good faith, without any ill intention towards her, may have compounded her pain by bringing greater publicity and public controversy to the trial and sentence of her father.
I also apologise to Mr. Justice O'Sullivan. I am deeply sorry that a course of action which I initiated in good faith with no ill will or wrong motive towards him or the criminal process has resulted in his believing, as he obviously did, that a deliberate attempt had been made to influence or affect him in the discharge of his constitutional and judicial functions. I hope that both the victim and Mr. Justice O'Sullivan can accept my word that I never, at any time, intended to affect the outcome of the prosecution of Patrick Naughton, with regard to the verdict or the sentence.
As a father, I would never seek to prevent the conviction or imprisonment of a person who had savagely defiled his own child. I never took any steps with the intention of doing so. I ask my colleagues in this House to accept that my motive was to help the constituent who was distressed and who was seeking information regarding the judicial procedures, rather than to pretend to her that I could use my public office to affect the outcome of her brother's case.
When I forwarded to Anne Naughton the responses of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform of 13 April and 31 May, I informed her by letter on 15 June that "there is no further assistance that I can give you in the above matter." Anne Naughton apparently accepted that this was the case and had no further contact with me until after her brother's conviction.
No fair-minded reading of the letters I sent suggests that I ever tried to influence the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to adopt any course in respect of Patrick Naughton or his prosecution. I have been accused of persistently and tenaciously seeking to secure the release of Patrick Naughton over many months. I did not do so. The record shows that I never made any such attempt or request in any shape or form, nor did I ever pretend to Anne Naughton that I was doing so. The persons who made those accusations against me obviously never read what I wrote and relied, I can only assume, on other people's impressions of the letters' contents.
It was in October 2001, after Patrick Naughton's conviction and while he was awaiting sentence, that his sister returned to me inquiring whether he had to remain in prison until an appeal was heard or if he could be remanded on bail on the same terms as he had been remanded pending trail. She also wanted to know when the case would be finalised and when an appeal would be dealt with.
On 6 November 2001, I passed on Anne Naughton's queries to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in the belief that they were, in her mind, legitimate questions for her to ask. Again, in relaying her questions to the Minister, I was in no way attempting to influence the judicial process or to secure Mr. Naughton's release. On 31 January 2002, the Minister replied explaining that Patrick Naughton was in custody on foot of court warrants. He explained that the timing of an appeal was a matter for the courts and reiterated that the courts were independent and that he was precluded from commenting or intervening in any way. I fully endorse his response. His comments were nonetheless helpful to Ann Naughton in understanding the legal process. I received a further letter from her on 23 January 2002 which I forwarded to the Minister on 31 January. This letter inquired about an appeal date. The Minister acknowledged receipt of it on 7 February 2002.
Ann Naughton rang my Dublin office on 12 March 2002 saying she had now written to the judge and asking if I could establish if he had received her correspondence as she had not received an acknowledgement. I wrote a note on the typed note for my staff member who took her call. It stated: "Can we ring judge's secretary and inquire if he has received the letter mentioned above?" I never saw her letter to the judge.
Ann Naughton telephoned again on 19 March asking if we had found out if the judge's office had received her correspondence. The staff member in my office who took the call telephoned the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform seeking a telephone number for the judge's secretary. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has already detailed what happened, unfortunately, on foot of this request.
When my staff member rang the number provided, the judge, as we know, answered the telephone. He explained to her that her request was improper and terminated the telephone call immediately. I wish to make it clear that I never requested my staff member to ring the judge directly, nor did she seek to do so. I never asked her to speak to the judge or seek the judge's home telephone number, as was suggested in newspaper reports of the judge's initial comments. This, of course, has since been clarified by the judge. When the conversation with the judge was reported to me, I advised the official verbally, and recorded on the note of her conversation with the judge, as follows: "Never, ever approach a judge directly about any case he is involved in."
I assure the House that there was nothing sinister or dishonest in my actions in this matter at any stage. I also assure the House that at no time did I have any personal contact with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform whose conduct in this matter was and is above reproach. The same applies to the officials in his Department and also the official in my Department who made the telephone call. I regret very much that conspiracy theorists have suggested otherwise. At all times, the Minister and his Department acted in good faith and entirely properly.
The sequence of events which led to telephone calls being made to the trial judge was very unfortunate. I agree that I was mistaken in thinking that the judge had a secretary. I was wrong to think that even if he had a secretary it would ever have been appropriate to make an inquiry of that secretary as to whether the judge had received a letter, but ask the House to take my word that I never tried to have contact made with the judge. I would never have dreamed of initiating such contact and would have stopped it if I thought it was happening. Nor would I have asked to contact the judge at home. That topic can only have arisen because a well meaning official in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, who did not know the reason my office was seeking to contact the judge, was trying to be helpful.
Clearly, the two telephone calls to the judge created in the judge's mind a disturbing impression that an attempt was being made to make improper contact with him about the case with which he was dealing. I deeply regret that a judge, for whom I have the highest respect, should have been put in this position. I hope he will accept my word when I say that the contact made with him was unintended and accidental, and that no underhand motive lay behind it.
For my part, I know there are occasions when perceptions are as important as objective truth. One of those occasions is the administration of justice where, as the maxim puts it, justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. Given the perceived impropriety of the contacts in the judge's mind, it was correct that he would seek to establish on the public record that they had not affected him in any way. It is for these reasons that the circumstances which came about made it appropriate for me to resign. I realised, on a few hours' reflection, that because of a human error of judgment on my part, the public might have been given the impression that I had secretly tried to influence a judge.
I also realise that while I had not done so, the contrary impression created in the mind of a judge and the public would make it impossible for me to remain in office protesting that my error was simply made in good faith and unintentionally. I ask my colleagues in Leinster House to accept that I acted throughout only in good faith and with good intentions. I ask them also to take my word that none of my actions was underhand or dishonest.
I have served the people of Galway for 37 years to the best of my ability and, as far as I could, in a manner in which a politician should do so. I have always tried to live up to basic standards of decency and honesty which the people are entitled to expect in their representatives. Like everyone else, I have made errors of judgment during the years but ask my colleagues to accept that the circumstances which led to my resignation did not arise from any conscious departure by me from those standards. Those events were unintended in their happening and outcome. They were well motivated. They were innocent of the darker explanations which some have offered for them.
Resignation is a heavy price to pay for a public representative with 37 years' service. Resignation with dishonour, however, would be too high a price to pay because I know that I have acted at all times in good faith. For that reason, I make this statement to the House in the hope and belief that my word will be taken that these events are free of any conspiracy, bad faith or underhand motives. I have resigned an office which I was honoured to hold because I know that failing to do so would have damaged public confidence in all that I hold dear – public confidence in decent standards in public life, the rule of law, impartial justice and, particularly, the separation of powers.
I thank all Members of the House for their friendship during the years and the staff of the various Departments of State in which I have served for their kind and dedicated service, support and commitment. I thank my constituents in Galway who have re-elected me continuously in every general election since 1965. I thank the Progressive Democrats organisation in Galway West and nationally. I thank the public generally, my friends and, above all, my family for the kindness and support they have shown to me during all my public life, in particular in recent days.
Ba mhaith liom mo chuid ama a roinnt leis an Teachta Ó Caoláin agus buíochas a ghabháil le Pairtí Fhine Gael as ucht an t-am sin a chur ar fáil freisin.
This debate is a cause of sadness, particularly for the victim of this appalling abuse, but also, as we have heard, for Deputy Molloy. It is also a cause of major concern as it relates to a cornerstone of the Constitution, namely, the independence of the Judiciary from the Executive. It appears that the lessons from the Sheedy affair about the nature and extent of political representations have yet to be learned, not just by the former Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, but by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
The Minister stated:
These representations are formally acknowledged by staff in my office and passed on to the relevant sections of my Department for attention and for the preparation of replies. Replies are signed by me or on my behalf, but rarely would I have time personally to study the detail of such representations or replies, given the overall volume involved.
The time is long overdue when representations which jeopardise or may jeopardise the separation of the Executive from the Judiciary should be ruled out of order. The Ceann Comhairle, as the Leas-Cheann Comhairle well knows, has a well-established practice when replying to all Deputies who attempt to put a parliamentary question that is out of order.
Let this sorry saga at least result in the introduction by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform of measures which will avoid a repetition of this debacle. Any representation relating to a court case ought to be acknowledged with a warning about the need not to interfere in any way with due judicial process. It is shocking that this should occur after Deputy Molloy's 37 years of experience as a TD and Minister and this highlights that this warning cannot be repeated too often. The shock is compounded by the fact that Deputy O'Donoghue, as a solicitor as well as a Minister, knows the seriousness of the Sheedy affair and knows the further seriousness of this case. Yet in his speech he did not make reference to the need for reform within his Department. The flaws in the system which came to light during the Sheedy affair have now been further exacerbated by this lack of reform in the Depart ment. This sorry saga should probably be called the Shoddy affair.
Our first thoughts in this debate must be with the victim of the horrific crime at the centre of this controversy. She suffered years of torture and humiliation at the hands of her father but had the courage to proceed with a criminal prosecution of her abuser and, as with others who have taken this course in recent years, her bravery will surely have encouraged more victims to come forward and ensure that their abusers are brought to justice. It is the horrific nature of this case that makes it baffling and incredible that Deputy Molloy persisted in his repeated representations to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform on behalf of the sister of the abuser. It is equally baffling that calls were made from Deputy Molloy's office to the judge's chambers.
It must be remembered that when this matter first arose, the Tánaiste said that it was an administrative clerical error and a mistake. The Taoiseach also said it was an error and not a resigning matter. Yet within hours, the Minister of State had resigned. We then had the release of letters from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Time does not permit me to give a more detailed view of the sequence of events and all their implications but the key point is that the full truth was most definitely not being told from the outset and that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform released correspondence under the threat of a freedom of information request. We do not know Deputy Molloy's motivation for making these repeated representations but we should be told. The victim, at least, is deserving of a full explanation. It is too soon to reach firm conclusions: we need not only more information but all the information held by all involved in this affair. It should be done in a way that shows sensitivity to the victim and enhances the practice of politics.
Mar nóta deiridh, ba mhaith liom a rá go raibh an Teachta Molloy béasach liom i gcónaí ar an leibhéal pearsanta, agus é ina Aire Stáit. Deputy Molloy was always courteous to me on a personal level and aside from our recorded engagements, both in this House and at meetings of the Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government, I have always believed him to be a decent and honourable man and I bear him no ill will. That said, this matter must be addressed comprehensively and with full transparency.
Has the Minister ascertained whether the former Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, was engaged in any direct contacts locally with members of the Garda Síochána in relation to this case? Has he asked that question of Deputy Molloy? What inquiries has the Minister made with local members of the Garda Síochána about this matter? Does the Minister agree that in the context of ensuring full transparency, any memoranda existing within his Department relat ing to contacts with officials about this matter by Deputy Molloy should be published? Does he think it would be appropriate that the correspondence conducted by Deputy Molloy with Anne Naughton, and any internal memoranda within the Department of the Environment and Local Government relating to this matter, also be published?
It appears to me that there is a new rule in this House: that a person is presumed guilty and must prove his innocence. When this affair began I was accused of collusion. I proved myself innocent. I was accused of concealment and I proved myself innocent. I was accused of breaching protocol and I proved myself innocent.
I understood this was a question and answer session, not another speech by the Minister. These are serious matters.
The Chair has no control over the Minister's reply. The Deputy is well aware of that.
The Chair should have—
These are not answers.
The time for questions is limited. I ask the Deputy to resume his seat. The Minister is in possession and the Chair has no control over the Minister's answers.
On a point of order, I understood that under the orders we adopted today, this was a question and answer session.
This is a question and answer session.
I did not make a speech. I asked succinct questions.
The Chair has no control over the Minister's replies.
If the Minister wants to avoid answering the questions he is asked, then so be it.
The Deputy is abusing the time that is available. It is limited to 30 minutes.
This is not abuse.
I was accused of sending an unsolicited reply and I proved that to be false. Tonight in this House I am accused of telling lies. I want to say this before I answer any questions.
The Minister should answer the questions.
In my public life and in my private life I believe in the truth. I have tried to the best of my ability to live by the dictum that I tell the truth and I deeply resent any suggestion from any public representative in the House or any individual outside it that I would tell a lie.
Where is this coming from?
Did I ask whether Deputy Molloy was in contact directly with the gardaí? I did direct that a trawl take place and as far as I have been made aware by the Garda division, there is no trace of any such correspondence. However, should any such correspondence come to my knowledge it will certainly be published.
Was there any contact other than correspondence?
Did I ask Deputy Molloy whether he contacted any gardaí locally?
The Minister is not answering the questions.
I have not spoken to Deputy Molloy since his resignation.
Did the Minister ask the gardaí that question?
What inquiries have I made? I have outlined what they are. Will I publish any memoranda from the Department? If any further documentation comes to light in the Department which requires publication, I will certainly publish it. As far as I know, all of the documentation has been published apart from two letters from Ms Naughton. I have been advised that I should not publish those letters although there is absolutely nothing to hide in them. This correspondence, as far as I am aware, cannot be published for legal reasons. I have already stated that it relates to the merits and demerits of the case and that it also contains some private material. I could have no reason under the sun for hiding such letters.
The Minister stated that he was initially apprised on the morning of Wednesday, 10 April, of the correspondence. The Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, was subject to criticism in the High Court by a senior judge on the previous day. Did the Minister not ask his private office about that matter on the day that a colleague who sat at Cabinet was publicly criticised for improper conduct by a High Court judge? Did any member of the staff of the Minister's private office allude to the fact that there was ongoing and voluminous correspondence on this matter in his Department?
With regard to the tracking system that exists in the Minister's office subsequent to the Cromien investigation – it is a matter of record in the House that all correspondence to the Minister is logged in his office – is it credible that a minis terial colleague's correspondence would not have been identified immediately? Why did the Minister use the phrase "for completeness" when referring to two items of correspondence on the Wednesday if, as he now states, that at that stage an ongoing trawl was taking place in his Department for further correspondence of which he was aware? How is it that correspondence handled by his office from the same ministerial colleague on the same matter concerning the same case would not have been kept in the same file?
With regard to the question of why I did not check the matter on the Tuesday, the reality is that all I knew was that there had been contact by an official in Deputy Molloy's office with a judge and that he was in some difficulty over it. It was not until the following Wednesday that I learned, prior to a Cabinet meeting, that Mr. Justice O'Sullivan stated that an official from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform contacted him. The moment I learned that I—
Was the Minister not informed immediately?
—contacted the Secretary General of my Department and informed him to get to the bottom of the matter immediately for fear that there should have been any improper conduct between an official in the Department and the judge. All of the efforts in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform were concentrated in the courts division in order to ascertain whether there had been any improper conduct. It was in the course of that investigation that the documents referred to in the Wednesday statement were located in the courts division.
Those were the first two letters.
In the statement we were dealing with the central thrust of this matter, namely, whether there was improper conduct by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, for which I would be accountable. It has been established, beyond any question of a doubt, that there was no improper conduct in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, that its officials are entirely blameless and that they acted at all times in good faith. Since the officials acted at all times in good faith and were blameless, blame or mala fides could not then surely be ascribed to me.
With regard to the question of the ongoing correspondence, there was such correspondence but each reply to Deputy Molloy was essentially in the same terms: "I cannot interfere with the Judiciary in the exercise of their functions". That is a reply that is issued to everyone.
But nobody informed the Minister of its existence?
No. Everyone will get such a letter, it matters little to me whether he is a Minister, the Taoiseach, a Deputy or a member of the public. If I am asked questions in relation to the Judiciary via correspondence sent on by Deputies or otherwise, that is the reply people will receive. Deputies opposite know that to be the case; they know it is an absolute fact.
Is it credible that a colleague's correspondence would not have been identified? The reality is that I was never proactive, at any stage, on the file. I did not act on the file at all. If Members look at the file they will see that all correspondence emanating from me stated "No", "No" and "No" again.
That is not the charge.
Why did I use the phrase "for completeness"? Must it not be clear that if I was telling an untruth, there are no circumstances under which I would have put in the Wednesday statement the words "for completeness" if I knew it was not complete?
But the Department's records were being trawled at the same time.
I am not so foolish not to know that, at the very least, there would have been an FOI request in relation to the documentation. When I put out the phrase "for completeness", it reflected what we genuinely thought within the Department.
But the records were being trawled at the same time.
No, I asked that there be a trawl to see if there was further documentation. As it transpired, such documentation was found. The difficulty was that it was located in three different sections of the Department. There was documentation in the courts division – this was the Wednesday documentation – but later documentation was found in the crime division and the prisons division. All three divisions had separate items of correspondence.
The Deputy asked me about—
Does the right hand not know what the left hand is doing?
Deputy Shatter will have an opportunity to ask his question.
I have been asked questions and I will answer them honestly, openly and fairly.
Deputy Howlin asked me about the ministerial correspondence case tracking system in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. There is such a system which can be searched, for example, in relation to the sender of a letter. However, in this case it was not Anne Naughton who was registered on the system as the sender. There would be many references—
Why not just type in "Bobby Molloy"?
Deputy Howlin, we must have order in fairness to other Deputies. The Deputy has asked a number of supplementaries by way of interruption.
—on the system to representations from the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, about all kinds of matters relating to other constituents.
If the Deputy wants copies of file covers he can certainly have them. There are now within the Department myriad freedom of information requests about all political representations for the past number of years. Work is ongoing in terms of collating all of this information in response to those requests.
I repeat for the umpteenth time that there is nothing to hide. If there was the slightest thing to hide, there is no man in this House who would act more quickly than I to fulfil his public duty and say that there was something to hide.
I have four questions for the Minister. Is he now telling us that the tracking system is so badly organised that it is not useable to track representations received in relation to specific cases? The Minister stated that there is no record of correspondence, either locally in Galway or in the Galway divisional headquarters, between Deputy Molloy and the Garda Síochána. Has he inquired as to whether there are records of any description of any other contacts between Deputy Molloy and gardaí in Galway in respect of this case?
The Minister informed the House that on the Wednesday he was only aware of two letters that had been exchanged and that he discovered the 15 on the Thursday. If that is the case, will he explain why the Taoiseach, in justifying his defence of the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, on Tuesday evening and in retrospectively explaining it to The Irish Times on Friday, stated that he knew there had been an exchange of letters on Tuesday night? According to the remarks he made, the Taoiseach, when he stated that Deputy Molloy should not resign, had full knowledge of the letters the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform says he only discovered on the Thursday. Either the Taoiseach's recollection or the Minister's is not accurate. Assuming the Minister is being truthful and correct, will he explain why the Taoiseach told various journalists that he was aware of all this correspondence on Tuesday evening?
I have a final question on a matter which has remained something of a mystery throughout this affair. Most of the queries the former Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, raised with the Minister related to when the trial would take place, why Ann Naughton's brother was being held in custody, why he was not being released from custody and when an appeal would take place. I find it difficult to understand that the former Minister of State did not simply ask his constituent to contact her brother's solicitor who, as the person representing him in the criminal proceedings, should have been able to provide answers to all her questions. Perhaps the Minister will explain the reason this common sense advice was not given to the former Minister of State in addition to his quite proper advice that he could not interfere in the matter. Considering the persistence of the correspondence, did it not occur to the Minister or anyone in the Department to ask the former Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, to advise Ann Naughton to raise her questions with her brother's solicitor?
The tracking system in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform operates under the term "Sender". I did not know precisely what happened in Galway and the Garda crime division in Dublin tells me that it has no further correspondence.
Has the Minister asked the gardaí in Galway, who are accountable to him?
We want an orderly question time.
I will search wherever the Deputy wants me to search. I have published all the publishable documentation I have to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
What about the Garda in Galway?
It was late on Wednesday that further correspondence was discovered in the crime and prisons division. Naturally, on the second occasion I wanted to be absolutely certain that we had all the documentation which should be put into the public domain. I issued my statement on Thursday when I was satisfied that this was the position. I informed the Tánaiste and the Taoiseach on the Thursday of this additional information and of my intention to place it in the public domain.
The Deputy asked why Deputy Molloy did not tell his constituent to approach her brother's solicitor. The Deputy is also a solicitor, yet he chose to write to me in relation to a constituent. Why did he not tell his constituent to visit his solicitor?
The Minister is not answering the question.
I have three further questions for the Minister. In relation to the much talked about tracking system, is the Minister informing the House that the volume of correspondence he has received from a colleague at Cabinet, former Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, is such that it was not possible in a day to see a complete compendium of representations on the matter? Will he confirm that his own office had a record of all these letters on the tracking system?
The sequence of correspondence for this year – I will not go through the whole history of the case – is that former Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, wrote to the Minister on 31 January. The letter was referred by the Minister to the courts division and acknowledged to the Minister of State on 7 February. This acknowledgement was also referred to the courts division, which faxed the Courts Service seeking information on the case in question on 12 February. On 15 February the Courts Service wrote back to the courts policy division of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform stating that the details of the case were insufficient. Four days later, after this extensive involvement by four named officials of a small division in the Department, an official of the courts division telephoned Mr. Justice Philip O'Sullivan on 19 March. Given the number of officials who had dealt with the correspondence, the faxes to the Courts Service and the preparation of a reply which, at that time, was in train in the courts division, is it credible that the official who made the telephone call had no knowledge of the issues at the heart of the query from the former Minister of State, Deputy Molloy's office, despite the fact that all around him officials in his division were responding or gathering information to respond to these very queries?
Deputy Shatter quoted the Minister's response during the Judge Dominic Lynch controversy in 1996 when, in Opposition, he demanded the resignation of the Minister for Justice for failing to keep track of one item of correspondence. What shred of credibility does he now have in not applying those same standards to himself?
I can only repeat that the tracking system in the Department is in the name of the sender and that there were three separate pieces of correspondence in three separate divisions. I understand from my officials that the position is that the system failed initially in the scan for Ann Naughton.
Was all the correspondence recorded in the Minister of State's office?
The Deputy should allow the Minister to respond.
My understanding is that, while there is a tracking system in the Minister of State's office, there was a systems failure initially. That is what I have been informed.
A systems failure?
Yes. In regard to the question of whether the official who telephoned the judge had knowledge of the case because he was working in the courts division, the position is that when the call from the former Minister of State, Deputy Molloy's office came into my office, the person calling on behalf of the former Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, stated she was telephoning in relation to the possibility of contacting Mr. Justice O'Sullivan's secretary to find out about correspondence in relation to a person called Ann Naughton. The official in my office had no idea what it was about and merely telephoned an official in the courts division to say he needed the number of Mr. Justice O'Sullivan for the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy. The official in the courts division did not know anything about the conversation between the official from Deputy Molloy's office and the official in my office, other than that Mr. Justice O'Sullivan's number was required, which he proceeded to seek. In any event, as will be clear from the file, that official is not the official who dealt with the inquiry in relation to Ann Naughton in the courts division.
He had no dealings with it.
He had no dealings with the matter. With regard to the Judge Dominic Lynch controversy, I fully accept that I was Opposition spokesperson and made the speeches quoted. However, to seek to draw a parallel between that controversy and this affair is to live on a different planet.
(Mayo): This one is more serious.
The reality of the matter is—
Mr. Higgins (Mayo): A Minister resigned this time.
Surely I am entitled to reply. I know the rules of evidence and the presumption of innocence have gone out the window, but surely people still have the right to speak and to reply to questions which are legitimately put.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Deputy Owen did not get a fair hearing.
No official in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform acted improperly in this matter.
They did. They telephoned the judge. He said the telephone call was improper.
Deputy Shatter should allow the Minister to reply.
The judge fully accepted at all times that no official from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform mentioned anything about a case to him.
The judge said it was improper, twice.
Deputy Howlin, we want an orderly debate.
No official in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform acted in bad faith.
The Minister should stick to the truth.
Deputies Shatter and Howlin were given an opportunity to ask their questions without interruption. The same courtesy should be afforded to a Minister in the House.
They are looking for clarification.
The officials acted in good faith and were blameless. I have stated repeatedly that if the officials acted in good faith and if they were blameless, then one can hardly ascribe blame or lack of good faith to me. It is not possible to do so on the basis of accountability.
The systems failure over which the Minister demanded a resignation is his systems failure.
The Deputy should allow the Minister to reply.
There is a major difference between this case and the issue of Judge Dominic Lynch. I will explain it if the Deputy will allow me to do so. On 1 August 1996 a Cabinet meeting decided that Judge Dominic Lynch should be delisted as a judge of the Special Criminal Court at his own request. On 9 August that decision was published in Iris Oifigiúil. On 6 November, a full 14 weeks later, prisoners were released. There was correspondence from the Attorney General to the Minister, Deputy Owen, in the intervening period. The High Court, not I, referred to “a lamentable catalogue of errors”. One politician in this House stated that Deputy Owen's position would be untenable if any prisoners were released. That politician was the then Tánaiste and the Labour Party's former leader, Deputy Spring. The Deputy should not try to make a comparison between this case where officials were entirely blameless and the delisting of a judge in the Special Criminal Court. Officials in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform acted in good faith. They are entirely blameless and so am I.
The Minister is not.
Mr. Higgins (Mayo): What type of Department is the Minister running that correspondence is not properly filed? Does he accept that in any well organised Department the O'Donoghue, Harney, Dempsey, Higgins and Naughton letters would be kept in one file? I served in three Departments and that is the way the system operated. The Minister's trawl was nothing other than a smokescreen.
Does the Minister still stand over his and the Taoiseach's contention that there was nothing wrong with Deputy Molloy making representations to seek the release of an individual who raped and buggered his daughter, threatened to tie her up with a rope and throw her in a lake? I refer to the released correspondence of 6 November 2001. It is another "Dear John" letter from Deputy Molloy. It states—
It is not appropriate to quote during questions.
(Mayo): There are three and a half blacked out lines in that letter. What was in the letter which necessitated obliterating those three and a half lines?
I completely reject the accusation levelled against the Department. It is a vast Department with various divisions which deal with extremely complex and sensitive issues.
The Minister accepted that for Deputy Owen.
There is a prisons division, a courts division and a crime division. There were three separate pieces of correspondence in each of the divisions and there was nothing to hide in relation to that. Deputy Jim Higgins seems to know everything about systems management.
He knows many things. What about the Donegal saga?
I remind him that the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform was required to make out a reply to a pressing problem and a matter of grave public interest and pressure was applied from every quarter. A reply had to be sent out to deal with the original allegation of impropriety. We have been brought down many side roads which have been cul-de-sacs. However, the central point remains, namely, was there impropriety in relation to contacting the judge within the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform?
(Carlow-Kilkenny): The judge said there was impropriety.
(Mayo): I did not ask the Minister that.
I have said categorically on a number of occasions that no attempt was made by anyone in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to conduct his business in such a way as to seek to contact a judge in relation to a court case. That did not happen and everyone accepts that. In addition, the correspondence, such as it was, which emanated from the Depart ment of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to the then Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, was perfect in all respects. The matter was dealt with in an exemplary and text book fashion.
As regards the question of seeking release, Deputy Molloy sent on correspondence from Ms Ann Naughton. In addition, he sent the letter to which Deputy Jim Higgins referred and there are words blacked out in that letter. The words are blacked out for legal reasons, not because there is anything to hide or because anything would shed any light on the situation from his perspective. In other words, there is nothing sinister about that. In as much as the correspondence which was received from Ms Ann Naughton was deemed not to be publishable, so too the sentence which has been blocked out in Deputy Molloy's letter.