I move:
That it is expedient that a Tribunal be established under the provisions of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Acts, 1921 and 1979 for—
1. Inquiring into the following definite matter of urgent public importance:
the circumstances in which listening devices were placed in a private house in Del-Val Avenue, Kilbarrack.
2. Making such recommendations, as the Tribunal having regard to its findings, thinks proper.
The motion calls for the setting up of a tribunal of inquiry into the placing of listening devices in a private house and that the tribunal make appropriate recommendations.
We are demanding in this motion that the Government set up immediately an independent judicial tribunal to inquire into the circumstances surrounding the placing of listening devices in a house where the deputy leader of the SDLP stayed while attending the Forum. We are also requesting that this tribunal make such recommendations as it considers appropriate The events which have unfolded since the disclosure in a Sunday newspaper, Sunday Tribune, 19 February 1984 of the bugging incident, the subsequent statements made by the Taoiseach, by the Department of Justice, and by the Garda, and the personal silence of the Minister for Justice have created such concern and mistrust that only an independent judicial inquiry will restore confidence and order necessary in the handling of these affairs.
The Taoiseach and the Government say that there is no need for an inquiry. The Government have refused to provide time for a debate on the Mallon affair and when we have set aside our Private Members' time for such a debate they have attempted to pre-empt the discussion by stating in advance that no inquiry will be held. What a stark contrast this is to the manly performance of the former Taoiseach, Deputy Charles J. Haughey, and his Government who, when allegations were made against the last Minister for Justice, approached the President of the High Court to request that an independent judicial inquiry be established and a judge be released to undertake this important function in relation to the administration of the affairs of that Department. Indeed, the Coalition promised on coming to office that such an inquiry would take place but that has not happened and the initial arrangements fell by the wayside.
Much has been said in the course of the last week in connection with the Mallon affair and yet because of some initially misleading statements; and a lack of frankness and clarity on the part of the Government, it has fallen to the Opposition and to some investigative journalists in the media to search for the truth and establish the facts. There have been many false trails laid before us. Initially we were led to believe that the whole affair was an attempt to burgle the dwelling. Then we were given the suggestion of the family's association with a nephew who was involved in a demonstration outside the British Embassy. Then we were told that the bugging attempt was the work of the Provisional IRA, even though the Government were admitting at the same time that they had no proof that this was so. The media and the public were skilfully led up these various culsde-sac and the headlines reflected the desired false leads put out by Government sources. Indeed, it is regrettable that this long process of investigation and discovery had to take place because it meant that the entire affair since the public became aware of it on 19 February has been drawn out further because of the lack of frankness and forthrightness in regard to it.
For the Moyna family this saga began on 29 October 1983 when their phone went out of order. Since this was a bank holiday weekend they reported the fault on Tuesday, November 1 at 9.30 a.m. That was a reasonable approach on their part, because naturally they assumed that they were unfortunate it had gone out of order on the bank holiday weekend. Mr. Moyna reported the fault from his place of business at 9.30 a.m. on 1 November the first opportunity he had. At 10.30 a.m. the phone was working again and at 11.00 a.m. three men, allegedly from the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, arrived to instal a new wire. Late on the same evening Mr. Moyna discovered the microphone because he had bored a hole through the main outside wall and wanted to redirect the wire to behind the wall panelling.
A great deal has been said about the alleged crudity of this arrangement. We have heard a lot about this aspect of the matter in recent days. I should like to make it clear that the only reason the three men who called to this job could not bore a hole through the window was because Mr. Moyna's wife said, "No way". She knew that her husband would be upset if a hole had been bored through the aluminium window and that he would have had other ideas about how to handle the situation. That was how the wire was put through the base corner of the window rather than through a hole in the framework. That is a crucial point because it upset what might otherwise have been a reasonably tidy arrangement but not one that would come up to the standards Mr. Moyna would set for himself in his house. As was discovered later, he is a particularly meticulous type of person and everything about his house and his garden are of that nature.
Mr. Moyna found that the wire went through his back garden and trees and on to what he thought was a telegraph pole. In fact, it was an ESB cum telegraph pole which is unusual. We are talking about the dark nights of November when the Moyna's did not have much opportunity to do much more at that stage. On the following Saturday he took trouble to get up the pole to see where the wire at the top of it went to. He wanted to see where it was tied into the telegraph system, as he assumed. It was at that stage that he found that the wires went from the telegraph pole to a hideout in the back behind blackberry bushes in a neat little corner. Most people would have assumed that when the wire joined the telegraph pole that was the end of it. Mr. Moyna, being the meticulous type, climbed the pole to investigate further and made the discovery I have outlined. In the corner he discovered the transmitter and other arrangements for listening. On Tuesday, November 8 he called to Posts and Telegraphs sections at Distillery Road, Russell Street and Belcamp to see whether his phone fault had been recorded and from whence the three men came. The same day the senior Posts and Telegraphs man arrived following his inquiry, and later that evening Mr. Séamus Mallon arrived and set in motion the placing of the entire matter in the hands of the Taoiseach for full and immediate investigation.
People have asked why Mr. Moyna did not hand over the packages to the Posts and Telegraphs official. I do not think I have to explain to Members of this House why he did not do that. Obviously he had communicated with Mr. Mallon who had considered how the matter should be handled, at what level and with what confidentiality this matter should be handled because it affected security. Consequently when the official arrived Mr. Moyna showed him the wire but kept the other material until Mr. Mallon arrived later that evening. Mr. Moyna prepared as full an account as he could of what had happened and this was given to the Taoiseach by Mr. Séamus Mallon. The matter was so sensitive, occurring in the midst of the Forum deliberations, that he considered this to be the only sensible approach since the matter obviously involved security.
These, very briefly, are the events which preceded the Taoiseach's involvement in the affair. It has since been confirmed officially that on 16 November the Taoiseach got Mr. Moyna's report, read it and transmitted it to the Minister for Justice. Questions which still remain unanswered are, first, did the Minister for Justice read the report which contained reference to the microphone and the transmitter? That report was published in one of the weekend's newspapers, I have a copy here which I can show anyone who wants to see it. One could not read the two pages without seeing very clearly one-third of the way down "a microphone" and two-thirds of the way down, in block capitals, "a transmitter". Mr. Moyna spelled out in a very simple and straightforward way the events as they occurred. That report was handed to the Taoiseach and he handed it to the Minister for Justice. Second, did the Minister for Justice read the report which contained reference to the microphone and transmitter? Third, when did he pass the report to the Garda Commissioner for action?
We know that on 6 December, Detective Inspector Hawkshaw called on the senior Posts and Telegraphs technician and took his statement. This means there was a gap between 16 November and 6 December. The questions I ask are: did the Minister consider that this delay was warranted? Is this the way he would normally deal with such a serious security matter? On 11 January the Minister for Justice gave reports from Posts and Telegraphs officials, plus a covering letter from the Garda, to the Taoiseach. Here we must ask: had he read these reports? Why did he not question the fact that even at this late date the Garda had not called on the Moynas to collect the listening equipment and investigate the alleged bugging? Did he tell the Taoiseach he was satisfied that the report was comprehensive? Was he himself satisfied? In this respect we can refer to the statement issued by the Department of Justice and the Garda Síochána which must be regarded as the Minister's official view since it is the view of the Department and the Garda as expresed at that time.
This statement which was released by the Government Information Services says that it transpired that the Posts and Telegraphs official had already received a complaint from the occupants and that there had been two visits to the house by Posts and Telegraphs officials who had been given what seemed to be detailed accounts of the events. Statements were taken by the Garda from the Posts and Telegraphs officials concerned. That was a reasonable thing to do but we know now that those officials came before the case was presented to the Taoiseach.
The investigating garda assumed that what had been said to the Posts and Telegraphs official was a full account of what the occupant had to say. The Garda were conscious of the fact that the only allegations the occupants had made at official level had been to Posts and Telegraphs officials and not to the Garda and they had no reason to think that any information had been withheld from those officials. The Garda assumed that an earlier reference to a microphone, etc., must have been due to some misunderstanding.
The statement said that: "the gardaí were conscious of the fact that the only allegations the occupants had made at official level ...." Is the Taoiseach not official level? Is the Minister for Justice not official level? What does that statement mean? That statement cannot be true because we know that Mr. Mallon, recognising the need for confidentiality, had placed the matter solely in the hands of the Taoiseach, who placed it in the hands of his Minister. It is very difficult to understand how the Garda took that approach to the report. Somebody at some level in the Garda Síochána and the Department of Justice must have had a copy of the report which the Taoiseach received and which he said he gave to the Minister for Justice.
That statement goes on to say that a report was supplied to the Department of Justice by the Garda and the substance of it was brought to the notice of the Taoiseach. At that point it was not known that any further investigation would be made and no mention of such a possibility was made to the Taoiseach. Shortly after that the Garda decided to seek an interview with the occupants of the house. They had earlier hesitated to seek such an interview because the occupants, presumably deliberately, had not raised the matter with them.
To whom should Mr. Mallon have given the report? Was he not being responsible and conscientious in the way he handled this matter by presenting it to the Taoiseach and the Minister? Apparently the view was that since the matter had not been raised directly with the Garda there was hesitation about calling on the occupants of the house. In evidence of this it was suggested that the occupants, when approached by the investigating Garda inspector made it clear that they were not expecting that approach and he was asked who had sent him, why he was investigating this matter and so on. The facts are that the Garda officer rang in the morning, asked to come, was told he could come and when he came after tea he met Mr. Moyna who asked him who he was and who had sent him. That was all. That was a very reasonable thing to ask given the fact that other people had been there before. He was entitled to be a little surprised when the Garda inspector arrived on 12 January when the report had been made on 16 November. Would you not be surprised if a Garda inspector came at that stage? The whole story was given to the Garda at that time.
Then we go on to other statements dealing with the technical assessment of the matter. On the last page it says that "a Garda report about the matter had not been sent to the Taoiseach before the matter was raised this week-end by a newspaper". On 12 January, Detective Inspector Hawkshaw rang Mrs. Moyna to ask if he could come out to their home. She suggested he wait until after 7 p.m. when her husband would be home. This was the day after the report had been given to the Taoiseach. Is this not very significant? Why not call before the report was given to the Taoiseach? Was this a proper way to serve the Taoiseach? The Taoiseach has said in the Official Report of 21 February 1984, Volume 348, column 288 that when the Garda report was received in the Department of Justice:
... it was immediately sent to me because I was about to meet Séamus Mallon but after that, as a result of an evaluation by the Minister for Justice, it was suggested to the Garda that there could be no real objection to their seeking an interview with the occupants and that it would be better to do so.
This was a strange time to say that there was no objection to their seeking an interview with the occupants. It was surprising that it was left until the day after the report had been given back to the Taoiseach, which was 12 January. The coincidence of those two dates is quite remarkable — the 11th January, the day on which the report was given to the Taoiseach by the Minister for Justice, and from the Taoiseach it goes to Séamus Mallon. Then on 12 January the Garda called to the home of the Moynas to collect the equipment and also to carry out an investigation. Why did the Minister for Justice wait until the Posts and Telegraphs reports had been given to Séamus Mallon before sending the Garda to the Moyna home? Surely Séamus Mallon could have been expected not to accept the Posts and Telegraphs reports when the Garda had not even called to collect the equipment? Was it not a case of the Minister for Justice hoping that the matter would rest at that? It was obvious that the Taoiseach recognised from his statement, as contained in the Official Report of 21 February, 1984 at column 286, the discrepancy between the Minister for Justice's report of 11 January and the original Moyna statement given to him by Séamus Mallon on 16 November which clearly mentioned the existence of the microphone and transmitter. Surely it was obvious to the Taoiseach at that stage that there was a glaring omission in that report. Had he looked at the date he would have seen that the Posts and Telegraphs officials had called before he had passed on that document. It is obvious that the Taoiseach and the Minister either knew that there were clear indications of a cover-up attempt or they were themselves involved in it.
The Taoiseach's statement suggests that once Séamus Mallon received the Posts and Telegraphs reports he was satisfied and did not wish to pursue the matter any further. Clearly this was not the case. Séamus Mallon rightly regarded the investigation by the Posts and Telegraphs official as being largely irrelevant since it had been conducted on 8 and 9 November before the Moyna report had been given to the Taoiseach on 16 November, before the Taoiseach had promised Mr. Mallon a full Garda investigation and long before the Garda called to the Moyna home on 12 January to investigate the alleged bugging and take away the listening devices which were kept there for them. I find it very difficult to believe that the Taoiseach was not aware of the representations being made by Séamus Mallon to get a full report of the investigation which he knew to be in progress.
My information on the events is as follows: on 12 January the detective inspector investigating the case called to the Moyna home to get their verbal account of the events and to collect the microphone and transmitter. On 1 February Séamus Mallon told his direct Foreign Affairs contact that he wanted answers concerning the promised investigation by the Garda of the planting of the listening devices. This is his direct and immediate line to the Taoiseach. He expects that his increasing concern and annoyance at the long delay in getting an answer will be conveyed immediately to the Taoiseach and the Minister for Justice. Naturally he would expect that because that is the reason such a contact is provided — for immediate and direct contact. So immediate and direct is this contact in normal terms that the Taoiseach refers to it from time to time as he having received something from Mr. Mallon, or having given something to Mr. Mallon, which in effect is given to the contact who gives it to Mr. Mallon or is received through the contact from Mr. Mallon. There are a number of errors in that respect which are natural errors in some of the comments that have been made by the Taoiseach and in some of the statements that have been made. But in effect it is through this direct contact that this is done. That was 1 February that Mr. Mallon protests that he wants answers concerning the promised investigation.
On 2 February Moyna's nephew, Donal, is arrested under section 30 of the Offences Against the State Act in circumstances which on the information available so far raise questions of a most serious nature. On 4 February Moyna's nephew is charged under the same Act with an alleged offence. On 7 February Séamus Mallon tells his official contact that he is still demanding to know what is being done about the investigation by the Garda into the bugging incident. This is a second instance of Mr. Mallon making his position very clear, that he largely regarded the Posts and Telegraphs report as prior to the items and the Moyna report being handed over and that he was waiting to have the matter cleared up. He stresses that this is his wish notwithstanding the alleged charge being pursued against Moyna's nephew in a totally unrelated matter. He believes that his concern is again relayed to the Taoiseach in the normal way as a matter of urgency and priority because that is the normal way any of those contacts are handled and that is the reason for having that arrangement. At that stage he was becoming particularly frustrated with his attempts to have the matter closed off, concluded and put away, however it was to be put away.
Then on 19 February the Mallon affair was reported in the Sunday Tribune having allegedly been leaked by a “confidant” of the Taoiseach. Was this a “deep throat” or a concerned civil servant? The Taoiseach claims in the Official Report of 21 February at column 291 that up to that date he did not know that the Garda had made further inquiries after 11 January and that a report of these inquiries existed. I emphasise: the Taoiseach did not know at that late stage that a further investigation had been carried out after 11 January and that a report of these inquiries existed. The Taoiseach claims also in the Official Report of 21 February at column 293 that Séamus Mallon:
...accepted what was in the report
— that is, the Posts and Telegraphs report —
and that the earlier suggestion
— of the existence of a microphone and transmitter—
must have been without foundation.
The Taoiseach continued to say:
I presumed if he
— that is, Séamus Mallon —
felt the earlier suggestion was valid, despite what was said in the report, he would take up the matter further with me.
It appears that the Taoiseach had in mind that Mr. Mallon might be taking up the matter further with him because, of course, the Taoiseach would have known very clearly from the report he had on his file and desk that these two major items, the microphone and transmitter, were clearly spelled out in the report.
Again, in a further reference to this central issue the Taoiseach said in the Official Report of 21 February, at column 298:
... at no stage did Séamus Mallon suggest to me that the original allegation made was substantial or that he was dissatisfied with that report which, on the face of it, showed no evidence of any microphone or transmitter.
But Séamus Mallon understood that he had taken up the matter further with the Taoiseach via his Foreign Affairs contact. Is the Taoiseach saying that he was not informed of these further representations? Was the Taoiseach not aware of the Garda activity taking place? Did the Minister for Justice not inform his Taoiseach of these events? Are we witnessing a saga of incredible incompetence and carelessness on the part of our Taoiseach and Minister for Justice, or is this something more sinister and even more disturbing? That is a question Members of this House must face.
The next point at which the Taoiseach's approach is highly questionable is when he issued his early morning statement on the Sunday. His Press Secretary, Mr. Peter Prendergast, apparently informed the Taoiseach that the Sunday Tribune article was coming. His Press Secretary was always sensitive to the impact of the media. In my view he panicked and got the Taoiseach to prepare a rebuttal by way of a statement of the facts. This would appear to have been a cardinal error for two main reasons.
First by so doing the Taoiseach exposed to the nation the fact that his Minister for Justice had allegedly not bothered to inform him of the visit of the Special Branch to Moyna's home and of the fact that they were in possession of the listening devices. If the Taoiseach's statement is true, then his Justice Minister was either grossly incompetent or he was involved in a cover-up in concealing this important evidence even from his Taoiseach. The Taoiseach later said that he was unaware — this was the Official Report dated 21 February 1984, col. 291 — that listening devices had been obtained, and that the Moyna report had been correct. His Minister for Justice can hardly have been so unaware of these facts since on his suggestion the gardaí collected the listening devices and interviewed the occupants of the house — I refer to the Official Report 21 February 1984, col. 288. Is it any wonder that the Minister for Justice has been so silent, refusing to be interviewed?
Secondly, the Taoiseach's decision to open his statement on Sunday 19 February with a reference to a private and confidential request from Séamus Mallon, Deputy Leader of the SDLP — I quote from The Irish Times, 20 February — that “the application of sections of the Offences Against the State Act that precludes someone convicted under the Act from being in State employment, be lifted in respect of a person (Mr. Moyna's nephew, Donal) who had been convicted of an offence in connection with the British Embassy riot”. This was a clear and very obvious attempt to smear in public the Moyna family and, by implication, Séamus Mallon himself. This attempted smear was successful in the short term. I know the community in which the Moyna family live: in fact, they live not very far from me. I know them to be a very honourable and peace-loving family and I know the impact it has had on them. When someone tries to suggest it has not had this effect, I will bring them to the scene and let them see the effect this smear campaign has had in the short term.
Is it possible that the Taoiseach inspired such a smear campaign? If he did not inspire it, then who has the Taoiseach on a string? Whose grip on the Taoiseach is so strong that he can be enticed to conspire to destroy the reputations of two decent and upright citizens whose only apparent crime was to provide a safe refuge for a man in constant danger of assassination because of his strong defence of constitutional politics? This first statement, apparently made at the request of the Government Press Secretary, represented the worst kind of character assassination in which a Government can be involved. Séamus Mallon has sought an apology from the Taoiseach. He deserves at least that. The Taoiseach betrayed a confidence for shallow political expediency. Who would now be foolish enough to entrust a confidence to this man?
The Minister for Justice showed no respect for the Deputy Leader of the SDLP, or for those who provided him with hospitality and a safe house. This was a strange contradiction in standards for a man who only a year earlier purported to be so highly sensitive to the tapping of the phones of two journalists. Séamus Mallon asked that the matter be investigated in a secure and confidential way. For his co-operation he was treated with contempt. He did not seek publicity or attempt to jeopardise the State's security. Contrast Mallon's statesmanship with the Minister for Justice who just a year previously did not hesitate to destroy the careers and reputations of two senior Garda officers for petty political advantage. He has now further damaged the morale and reputation of our Garda force, a force of which we can be justly proud, by leaving this cloud of uncertainty caused by his obvious lack of direction in this most serious bugging incident.
Following receipt of the Moyna report in mid-November, why did the Minister not immediately order the investigation of the bugging incident? Was it because he already knew all the answers? Why has the Moyna house to this day not been "swept" for listening devices? Does the Minister not consider the Deputy Leader of the SDLP to be worthy of his personal attention? Had he so little regard for Séamus Mallon's intelligence that he thought he could be fobbed-off with a facile report? Was he too busy persecuting a hapless member of the force who had already been found innocent by the courts in connection with a car crash in Kerry? What are this Minister's priorities? The Mallon affair should have been at the top of his list. Are we now to assume that anybody who makes the Minister uncomfortable or disagrees with his views will run the risk of having his family and friends suffer from the vindictiveness of the Government?
Did the Minister for Justice authorise the tapping of the Moynas' telephone? Has this tap now been removed? Can the Minister give me a categorical assurance that my home telephone is not tapped? I demand to know the answer because I also receive communications from "deep throats" who are concerned at strange happenings in the Minister's bailiwick. Is it true that having failed to get the information he wanted on Séamus Mallon, the Minister authorised or turned a blind eye to an attempt to plant a listening device under the breakfast table where Séamus Mallon dined?
This whole saga of the Mallon affair has done much to undermine confidence in the ability of the Government to handle security. The story being put about now is that this bugging was done by some maverick group within the specialised branches without the prior knowledge of the Minister. If this was the case, then who is in control of security? If this was so, then why did the Minister not immediately, thoroughly and conclusively investigate the matter and report, with appropriate assurances, to Séamus Mallon? All Séamus Mallon wanted was to have the matter investigated and have the appropriate assurances given. If the Taoiseach and the Minister had done this in the first instance when they were asked to, then we would not be discussing it this evening and nobody would know of it.
If it was the Provisional IRA, why did he not immediately investigate and provide security for Séamus Mallon and the Moynas? But then would the Provos be in a position to cut off the phone, fix the fault, supply all the Posts and Telegraph equipment involved, synchronise the arrival of the three men and a Posts and Telegraphs-type van? This is hardly likely.
The most likely explanation, given all the information at our disposal, is that Moyna's phone was tapped and this failed to yield the information desired by the Taoiseach and his Minister for Justice. It was then decided to install a listening device in the House and this job was bungled mainly because of the meticulous nature of the houseowner. The attempted cover-up failed. The attempted smear failed because of the honesty and forthrightness of Séamus Mallon, and his decency and concern for the Moyna family. To his these good people were not expendable. It would have been far easier for him to withdraw and protect his own character from the smear but this was not his nature. He stood by his hosts. With such a man you can surely sit down to talk with confidence of a new Ireland and know that your trust will be respected.
No matter who was involved, the Government stand condemned for their incompetent and vindictive handling of the affair. The only recourse now is to salvage public confidence and the confidence of this House through an independent judicial inquiry as suggested in our motion.
