Vol. 348 No. 13
asked the Minister for Justice the date on which he was first notified by the Taoiseach of the installation of bugging devices at the house in Kilbarrack; and if he will detail the positive action he has taken since that date to have the matter conclusively investigated.
10.
asked the Minister for Justice if he will investigate as a matter of urgency, the circumstances in which wire, the property of the State, came to be used in the installation of a listening device in a private house at Kilbarrack.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 9 and 10 together. I will take the reply as being directly given by the Minister. I made a statement in the House on 28 February. The statement included the information that the complaint was given to me on 18 November 1983. While I volunteered that information, and am now repeating it, I think it is necessary, in view of the terms of the question, to make it clear that I do not accept that it is information to which the Deputy had any entitlement by custom or otherwise, since communications between the Taoiseach and myself are matters of internal Government administration.
As regards subsequent action, my statement in the House on 28 February was a detailed one and I do not propose to expand on it beyond saying, in reference to the phraseology of the Deputy's question, that no police force should guarantee that a particular investigation will end conclusively.
As for the second question, which alleges that the wire used was State property, I am informed that there is no proof that that is so but, that point apart, I have already stated more than once that the Garda investigation into the whole matter is still proceeding.
I appreciate the position of the Minister of State in attempting to answer this question in which she has not been directly involved, but I resent the Minister saying that the House has no right to inquire into these matters. "Goodbye, I am off to America and to hell with the lot of you."
A question, please.
It is not good enough for the House that that is the nature of the answer.
The Deputy should put whatever he wants to say in the form of a question.
Would the Minister of State agree that the Minister for Justice was informed on 18 November? Would she further agree that it was December 6, a delay of 18 days, before an inspector called to a P & T official? Would she further agree it was 11 January, 54 days or eight weeks later, that a report was given to the Taoiseach and to Séamus Mallon on this affair? Does she further agree that January 12 was the first day gardaí called to the Moyna family to collect the equipment which was 55 days after November 18 when the Minister was informed? Would she further agree it was February 19 when the cover-up was exposed, 38 days after the report was given back to the Taoiseach and 93 days or three months after the Minister was initially informed? Why was the Taoiseach kept in the dark for this long period? Would the Minister of State confirm that a senior official in the Department of Justice offered to sign a sworn affidavit that the Taoiseach was not informed about the extra investigations which were going on after 11 January?
I am not in a position to answer the questions asked by the Deputy but I suggest that when the Minister informed the House yesterday that he would not be here today the Deputy had the option to defer questions if he so wished.
Until next year. I appreciate the Minister of State's position but the last time we were able to ask questions was before the Summer Recess. They were not reached before December so there is no question of putting them back.
Has the Deputy given any thought as to the reason for that? Sitting here, it is obvious that we cover only about a dozen questions now whereas it used to be possible to do 40.
If a Deputy gets only a dozen questions in once a year they are very important to him. It is also important in terms of democracy and the operation of the House. I am sure the Chair agrees with that. Were the Department of Justice trying to conceal from the Taoiseach the fact that there was a bugging? The tone of the Minister's reply suggests that we have no right to inquire into this. In relation to Question No. 9, the Taoiseach ordered an inquiry on 19 February. Can the Minister of State tell us when the result of that inquiry is expected? Another month has already gone by since the Taoiseach ordered a second inquiry. He ordered one and indicated that it would take place on 16 November. Having given it to the Minister on 18 November, he ordered a further one on 19 February. Can the Minister of State give——
That is not a question.
It is a question.
It is a long statement.
I asked when we could expect to hear from the inquiry which the Taoiseach ordered on 19 February.
I do not have that information. I have nothing further to add.
In relation to Question No. 10, in her reply the Minister stated there was no evidence as yet that this was P & T wire. That has not yet been substantiated. Does the Minister not agree that the wire in this case is brand new P & T type wire and that there were at least 50 yards of it? Would the Minister of State tell us what is the value of the wire? I understand it is quite an expensive type. Would she further tell the House how she explains the extraordinary coincidence that when a complaint about a telephone was lodged at 9.30 a.m., at 10.30 a.m. it fixed itself, as we learned in the debate in the House, and at 11 a.m. three allegedly P & T men called with a van and installed these devices and this new wire?
Surely the Deputy can ask a question.
I am asking the Minister can she explain the coincidence.
That is not a question.
It is a question of how the wire got into the house.
It does not arise.
It does. It is in relation to the question of an investigation into this wire, where it came from, who put it there and what the wire was about. Would the Minister of State further agree that most of the equipment here——
The question asks the circumstances in which the wire, the property of the State, came to be used. As the Chair understands it, the Minister of State said there was no evidence that such wire was the property of the State.
The Minister of State has not denied that it is the property of the State. If she can say that it is not the property of the State, then I will accept what the Chair says and that will be the end of the question. The Minister of State has not said that. She said there was no evidence yet. In view of her reply, would she not consider the circumstantial facts which indicate that the material came either from a State source or a source close to the State? Did the P & T investigation branch carry out an investigation into this issue and, if not, why not?
I can only refer the Deputy to the answer given and that is that there is no proof that the wire used was State property. I further repeat that there is a Garda investigation going on into the whole matter. That is still proceeding.
I appreciate the Minister of State's position. I am sorry that this is the only opportunity we have to raise the question. The Government suggested that this was a Provisional IRA operation.
A question, please, Deputy.
If this was the case, is the Minister suggesting that there is an IRA cell in a key section of P & T?
That does not arise on Question No. 10.
We are talking about the circumstances surrounding the placing of the wire.
We are talking about wire.
May I say in conclusion——
You may ask a question.
Would the Minister of State agree that the fact that the Minister is not here to answer these questions leaves the matter in an unsatisfactory position?
That does not arise.
