The Chair understands that Deputy Niall Andrews has been given permission to raise on the Adjournment the question of Deputy Jim Mitchell's interference with the Garda. I understand that Deputy Andrews has been advised that, in this matter, he should confine his contribution on the subject matter of his Private Notice Question to this topic.
Adjournment Debate. - Interference with Garda Authorities.
Is it in order to raise on the Adjournment a matter concerning a particular Deputy as distinct from a matter of policy, particularly in view of the fact that we have had no notice ——
You do not have to have notice. I have been taking debates on the Adjournment for some months past. The fact that I am informed that permission has been given is enough for me.
I am raising a point of order.
I am calling on Deputy Andrews to proceed.
I am raising a point of order.
How do you know that?
You do not know either.
Would you keep quiet, please, Deputy Bruton? What is the point of order, Deputy O'Keeffe?
I wonder whether it is in accordance with the principles of natural justice that a matter can be raised on the Adjournment in relation to a particular Deputy when that Deputy is not present and has not been given any notice whatever of the intention to raise it. The fact that it has been allowed on the Adjournment seems to be a breach of——
You are completely out of order, Deputy O'Keeffe. It is not in order for you to question the right of the Ceann Comhairle in allowing debate on a question. I am asking you to resume your seat, please.
If you do not accept my point in regard to the principles of natural justice, may I ask, in this unusual situation where a matter is being raised on the Adjournment by a Member of the Government side, where normally the Minister replies, what arrangements are available to Deputy Mitchell, or indeed to anybody else——
That is not a matter on which I should be asked to adjudicate. I am indicating to you that you are being disorderly in not allowing me to proceed with what has been ordered. Will you kindly resume your seat? I hope that these interruptions are not indicative of the type of debate we are going to have, because I will not tolerate it from either side of the House.
I wish to raise another point of order——
I advise the Deputy that if he is not raising a point of order, I will be asking him to leave the House forthwith. You are not entitled to raise a point unless it is a point of order. You must give me an assurance that you are raising something on a point of order. If you are not, I will ask you to leave immediately. You are not going to use that as a ruse to interfere with the business of this House.
I am not interfering with the business of the House. The point I want to raise is what opportunity——
That is not a point of order, and please resume your seat.
What is not a point of order?
What you are raising is not a point of order. I am calling on Deputy Andrews to proceed with his contribution. You have already taken five minutes of Deputy Andrews's time. Deputy Andrews to proceed without interruption.
Are you refusing me the right to make a point of order?
I will not allow you to interrupt, and I will not take interruptions from Deputy Bruton either. I will ask you, Deputy O'Keeffe, to leave the House if you persist in interrupting.
I will not interrupt.
(Dublin North-Central): May I raise a point or order?
You will appreciate that if it is not a point of order I will deal with you in exactly the same fashion as I have indicated I will deal with any other Deputy.
(Dublin North-Central): Perhaps I am out of order and, if so. I apologise.
If you are not sure it is a point of order, I would ask you not to raise it or I will be asking you to leave. Deputy Andrews to proceed without interruptions from either side.
Could you tell me how much time I have left?
The order of the House is that debate should commence at 8.30 p.m. and conclude at 9 o'clock with 20 minutes for you and ten minutes for the Minister to reply.
And nothing for the Opposition.
I have attempted to raise this matter during the week. I have given every opportunity to Deputy Mitchell to be present in the House. I have given notice to the Ceann Comhairle and put down Private Notice Questions. I have given every opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition to reply to the statements that were made and reports that were published in the media. I have given every opportunity to Deputies on the other side of the House to reply.
(Interruptions.)
Excuse me. Deputy O'Keeffe, could I ask you to repeat what you said about the Leas-Cheann Comhairle?
I said the Leas-Cheann Comhairle was not aware of the fact that we were given an opportunity to reply.
I will take no further interruptions from Deputy O'Keeffe, and I do not repeat myself in matters of this kind.
I consider this issue to be very serious and which, as a public representative. I consider in all conscience I must bring before the House. I have never questioned the motivation of any politician. I regard our profession as an honourable one. I regard the Members of this House with great respect and I never intend to question their honour. I admire Members of all parties who have made sacrifices to represent the people to the best of their ability. I had to go to the Minister, as a last resort, to seek clarification of the allegations that were made in The Irish Times on Tuesday last. I have given every opportunity to the Members on the other side of the House to reply through a press conference, in public, or in the House and they did not take that opportunity. This issue affects the entire command structure of the gardaí, the discipline of the gardaí, the authority of the courts and demeans the office of the Minister for Justice. It makes a mockery of the self-righteous posturing of the Leader of the Opposition who has remained silent throughout. The publicity machine which is operated on his behalf claiming he is leading the whiter than white brigade has suddenly collapsed because of this scandalous performance by him. He has taken no action or made no statement to restore confidence. He has not denied that these actions have taken place.
The Official Report of Tuesday, 1 June 1982, column 631, Volume 335, states as follows:
The Taoiseach:... I also know that when Deputy Mitchell was Minister for Justice he made no effort in this area. In fact, his personal activities in many cases were detrimental to law and order and to the activities of the Garda Síochána.
(Interruptions.)
Dr. FitzGerald: First, that is an unworthy remark for which there is no basis, and, secondly, there is wide concern at the Minister for Justice's remarks which are widely interpreted as meaning that the Government do not propose to proceed in the near future with the necessary legislation...
Further on at column 632:
Mr. J. Mitchell:... The Taoiseach has sought to impugn my reputation. I ask him to withdraw any suggestion that anything which I did as Minister for Justice was anything less than good in the public interest ...
There were further interruptions.
Mr. J. Mitchell: The Taoiseach told an untruth ...
Subsequently the Taoiseach, in order to behave in an honourable and decent fashion and to be fair to Deputy Mitchell, withdrew that remark. Unfortunately, the generous spirit in which that withdrawal was made was not reciprocated by Deputy Mitchell. I believe that Deputy Mitchell has led a propaganda smear campaign against many members of the Fianna Fáil Party with the ultimate goal of destroying Fianna Fáil in the public mind and in the media. I do not suggest for one minute that we on this side of the House have not erred in the past or that we will not err in the future. I do not pretend that we are angels of mercy. We have a difficult job which we carry out to the best of our ability. A man is entitled to one error. If this case which I have referred to is the one and only time that Deputy Mitchell has interfered with the Garda, on his own admission——
(Dún Laoghaire): On a point of order, an allegation has been made against Deputy Mitchell that he interfered with the law of this State. Has the Deputy evidence that he interfered?
Deputy Barrett, that is not a point of order. Please do not rise again on such an alleged point of order. Deputy Andrews to proceed without interruption.
As I said, it is a good, decent and honourable thing that a man should admit his faults and errors. Deputy Mitchell has done that in this case, but I believe he was known among the gardaí and in public in his own constituency as "Jimbo will fix it". I believe that is an expression that I heard many times when I canvassed in the Ballyfermot by-election.
(Dun Laoghaire): Is that permissible?
This man is now down in Galway as director of elections and as shadow Minister for Justice and Jimbo is fixing it good-o as he did in Ballyfermot.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Andrews, earlier I reminded you that you had been given advice that you should confine your contribution to the subject matter of your Private Notice Question in which you sought details of the inquiry being carried out, and I ask you to avoid as far as possible any emotive terms that might not do any credit to the case you are making.
I refer to the report in the Sunday Independent of 20 December 1981 dealing with the McCartin affair where we know interference has taken place, but I will come to that in a moment. Can the Minister indicate the exact number of times his predecessor met gardaí to intervene to subvert the due process of the law on behalf of his constituents while he held the office of Minister for Justice? That must be clarified to the satisfaction of all the Members of this House. The honour of the Members of this House is at stake. I have listened over the past year to rumours and counter-rumours about Members on this side of the House and Members on that side of the House. I might have taken the line that I do not believe any of them. I have listened to falsehoods, untruths and scandalous rumours about Members on this side and I know where they are coming from and I have denied them, but there comes a threshold where that is very difficult when we find a Minister admitting freely that he has interfered with gardaí to prevent justice taking its course on behalf of a man who is a well-known criminal who, I understand from my inquiries, is lodged for three years in a jail. I am not sure which jail, but I think it is Portlaoise or Mountjoy.
When the gardaí approached this man he escaped and in a conversation as reported in the newspapers between one of the Garda officers and Deputy Mitchell, Minister for Justice, Deputy Mitchell referred to the Garda as a posse. It is important at this stage that I quote from the newspaper report. "I have a man here" said Deputy Mitchell, "who complains of trouble caused in his house this morning". "I was there, Minister", replied the man, "but I did not cause trouble". "You were in charge of the posse" said the Minister. "The man's wife was very distressed and the baby was pushed around". "I did not see any baby". "It is a pity —" this is the Minister speaking "— that there is not more co-operation with people who wish to cooperate with the police. We would well end up with another Liverpool on our hands". With such a Minister I have no doubt that we would.
As I said, three bench warrants were issued for this man, and his brother, who attacked one of the arresting officers with a sword, was subsequently brought to court and convicted on a charge of assaulting the Garda with a sword. Yet the Minister who was supposed to be upholding the laws passed by the Oireachtas goes to a sergeant, a relatively junior figure in the Garda Síochána, orders him to by-pass his superior, his inspector, superintendent, assistant commissioner, commissioner, officers in charge of the whole operation, and undermines the forces of law and order. At the same time, despite repeated requests from me during this week, the former Taoiseach remains silent. Did the former Taoiseach know about this incident when he was Taoiseach and when Deputy Mitchell was Minister for Justice? Did he know before he appointed him spokesman or afterwards? What action does Deputy FitzGerald intend to take? Does he intend to allow Deputy Mitchell to continue in his very responsible position as front bench spokesman on Justice? If he does, the people will bring the rap upon him.
I ask the Minister if this was the only incident to his knowledge in which Deputy Mitchell was involved with the Garda, or were there other incidents? I believe there were. The Sunday Tribune and the Sunday Independent, December 1981, referred to Deputy Mitchell calling in senior gardaí and telling them to ease off on the McCartin brothers in Leitrim.
I do not think that the Deputy is entitled to move beyond the one specific case for which permission is given to him.
I am asking the Minister if he is aware whether Deputy Mitchell intervened with the Garda in the McCartin affair, asking them not to pursue the action that the law demanded. I should like the Minister to let us know if that is true and also if the admission in the Official Report of 1 June 1982 but which has been denied is only the tip of the iceberg. I am asking the Minister to give an undertaking that a sworn public inquiry will be held into the performance of the previous Minister for Justice, into the question of his subversion of the Garda, his subversion of the laws of this land, into his behaviour to the courts and his lack of respect for the decisions of the courts and for warrants issued by them.
The Deputy is taking to himself licence which was not granted to him when he was given permission to raise the question.
Referring to the interference of Deputy Mitchell in the specific case in question and in view of the implications of that interference for law and order, for discipline and for decisions and warrants of the courts, for our prison service and for the honour and integrity of Members of the House, it is very important that the Minister should clarify the issues.
I must remind the Deputy that his time is up.
Some of my time has been taken by the interjections from the other side.
I regret that. I had no control over the manner in which the Deputy was deprived of his time.
I will respect your ruling, but I merely wish to protest at the behaviour of Members on the other side who tried to prevent me not only today but during the week from getting at the truth in this matter. They know that from the beginning of this week I was attempting to get Deputy Mitchell into the House to face up to his responsibilities. He has not done that and neither has his Leader.
(Dún Laoghaire): On a point of order, Sir, you have allowed a statement to be made in which Deputy Andrews alleges that we prevented him from raising this matter during the week.
(Interruptions.)
The Deputy will withdraw that remark. I am not responsible for anything a Deputy will say.
(Dún Laoghaire): The Deputy has made an incorrect statement.
I am not responsible for that.
(Dún Laoghaire): Can he say on what occasion we tried to prevent him from raising the issue?
(Interruptions.)
The Deputy is not permitted to do that, and I will ask Deputy Barrett to withdraw the accusation of partiality that he has made against the Chair.
The Chair must not have been listening to what the Deputy said.
The Chair was listening very carefully and I assure Deputy Barrett that he has reflected on the Chair. I am asking him to withdraw the remark in question.
(Dún Laoghaire): If I have reflected on the Chair, I withdraw whatever remark the Chair is referring to. What I said was that Deputy Andrews should say on what occasion we prevented him from raising the issue.
That is not my business. The Deputy knows that he is totally out of order. I am calling on the Minister to reply, and I would remind all present that debate should be conducted here with the order that is required of the House.
There is no debate since there is no right of reply. We protest at this type of star chamber trial.
Deputy O'Keeffe has been here long enough to know the rules that govern debate on the adjournment, that is, that 20 minutes are allowed for the Member raising the matter and ten minutes are allowed to the Minister to reply. If the Deputy does not know that he should not be here.
In order to satisfy the House and the Opposition Deputies in particular I am prepared, with the permission of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, to give two minutes of my time to a Deputy from the other side. I would not like to think that another presumption would be drawn from my failing to make such an offer.
That is a form of magnanimity for which I should not like to create precedent. I will carry out the duties of the Chair as they are and, consequently, I am calling on the Minister to conclude the debate.
It is with regret that I find myself here this evening as Minister for Justice having to make comments on a matter that I must accept as having very serious implications and dangers in so far as the public perception of the office of Minister for Justice has been affected and will be affected in future. I must take this opportunity of putting the record straight in so far as I have established certain facts about the incident in question. In doing so I want to make it clear again that I genuinely regret having to make any comment on the behaviour of any Member of the House, but particularly on my predecessor.
In his absence.
I wish to make it clear also that I believe genuinely the concern expressed properly by Deputy Andrews this evening. I have had considerable communications personally in endeavouring to establish what my position should be in the handling of this affair. Having read the article in question in one of our national newspapers on Monday last I established by way of request that the member of the Garda involved did receive a phone call from the then Minister for Justice who required from the garda in question that a report be sent directly to the then Minister. I have endeavoured to find any trace of that report in the Department but without success.
Another Watergate.
I have established also that the persons involved in the Garda inquiry on the morning in question were the persons described in the newspaper report. At the time of the Garda visit to the house in question there was a warrant for the committal of one of the residents. Subsequently that warrant was enforced, and later still the crimes that the Garda were investigating resulted in a court hearing at which the accused was sentenced to three years. He is now serving that sentence.
The other situation related to a brother of the person the gardaí went to arrest on that morning. Deputy Andrews has quoted from the newspaper in this regard. I am satisfied now that that other person assaulted one of the gardaí, in the course of his duty, with an antique sword, that he resisted arrest, fled up a staircase, jumped out a rear window and escaped through the back garden of the home. Subsequently, he was arrested at the Garda station and charged with assault. Recently he pleaded guilty in the District Court in Dublin and was given the benefit of the Probation Act.
Deputy Andrews asks whether there are any other instances of which I am aware in which the Minister became involved. I can only reply to that by saying that I consider it incumbent on me — in the public interest and in order to assure the public that I consider the freedom of the Garda a very essential part of the protection of the public at a time when I have made every effort, as have my Government, in the past two months to bring about a situation where ordinary people of this city and of the country as a whole can walk safely and freely both during the day and at night — to investigate any other instance of the type in question that may be brought to my attention or that I for one reason or another may suspect has occurred.
The Dáil adjourned at 9 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday, 16 July 1982.