asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the way in which the herd file from the district veterinary officer concerning a person (details supplied) in County Tipperary came into the possession of another person in view of the fact that the person to whom it pertained was refused access to it himself; and if this person can have access to his herd file.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Access to Herd File.
4.
In 1985, at the outset of the High Court proceedings in this case the official department files relating to the matter were subpoenaed by the defendants. On the basis of legal advice given to the Minister at the time both plaintiffs and defendants were offered access to the relevant papers. Only the defendants availed of the opportunity at the time.
Approximately two years after the conclusion of the High Court proceedings access to the herd file at the District Veterinary Office by the plaintiff was refused in line with normal official policy in these matters.
The Minister need not be coy about it, we are talking about the John Hanrahan v. Merck, Sharp and Dohme case.
I was only respecting the confidentiality of the person.
I regret that names of personalities have been used in the House.
I know this is a sensitive matter and it is close to your position.
It is a reflection on Deputy Griffin.
I suggest that the Deputy treats this with the seriousness it deserves.
The Deputy specifically framed her question in the time honoured fashion not to name the person concerned. The question is worded, "the herd file from the district veterinary officer concerning a person (details supplied)" and goes on in the same fashion. I honoured that confidentiality. The Deputy is confusing herself.
With respect, Minister, that is not the question I tabled.
Order.
May I make a point of order?
No, the Chair is on his feet dealing with a point of disorder. I depreciate the use of the name of a person outside this House. It ought not to have happened.
This matter was the subject of a question disallowed by you, a Cheann Comhairle, but it seems that the subject matter of my question is now being allowed to be discussed in the House——
The Deputy ought to take this up with my office, and I will be glad to have the matter explained in detail to him.
——and is now being discussed on the floor of the House.
Please desist Deputy, I do not know what the Deputy is adverting to.
It is with Mr. Hanrahan's permission that I have used his name.
That is not good enough. This is a privileged assembly.
I have said that it was with his permission that I used his name as otherwise I would not do so.
Please do not accuse me of being coy when I am only honouring the anonymity in which the question was cast.
I accept the question the Minister received was not the question I tabled. The question was subsequently re-arranged and the names were deleted. I accept the Minister's explanation in that, but it is far more important that the substance of the question be addressed.
Would the Deputy declare any personal or other interests in the matter?
I have none whatsoever, Mr. Stagg.
Deputy.
None whatsoever Deputy Stagg.
In view of the fact that the said named gentleman and his solicitor, both orally and in writing were refused access to his own file in the district veterinary office in County Tipperary I would like an explanation, if the Minister is in a position to give me one why the file was not forwarded to him even if the request was a couple of years later? We had a High Court and a Supreme Court case on this matter and the parties were refused access to information on themselves in the DVO file, yet that information was liberally supplied to another party — other than Mr. Hanrahan's team.
I have indicated that at the time of the High Court proceedings, on the basis of legal advice given to the then Minister, access to the relevant papers were offered to both the plaintiff and the defendant. In the event only the defendants availed of the opportunity at that time but two years later the plaintiffs requested the information. It is not for me to engage in matters relating to legal procedures but, as the Deputy will be aware, the Supreme Court hearing is merely on evidence given in the written transcripts of the High Court therefore there was no new evidence to add at that point. The legal advice to us at that point was that there was no reason for giving access two years later. In the event of the matter now coming to be determined by compensation, I will of course be quite disposed to letting them have access to the files.
A question by me on this matter was refused by the Chair. I am asking that my question be reinstated as a priority question.
The Deputy should raise that in another way. I have already advised him how to proceed in the matter.
You refused on the grounds that it was sub judice.
If Deputy Stagg persists in baiting the Chair in this fashion he must be prepared for the consequences.
I am asking the Minister whether the DVO in Tipperary received a letter from a Mr. Menton, solicitor of the aforenamed, requesting access to the file and a copy of it. Is it in order that information on private DVO files is available to third parties as a matter of course within the Department of Agriculture?
It is not for me to give the Deputy a lecture on legal procedures. She must have heard me say that what was done in the first place was in response to a court order and sub-poena. It is not a matter of the Department's using discretion. Two years after a request was made, permission was refused because there was nothing to add to the court determination at that point.
Who made the decision that there was nothing to add?
It was made on the basis of legal advice given to my Department. If, for the purpose of information in regard to compensation access is now sought, I am disposed to ensure that it will be given.
The Minister must be aware that a photocopy of that file is in circulation. I do not understand why he refused, even a year or two later, the representatives of Mr. Hanrahan access to his own information on his herd file. That was said under oath in the High Court.
I think the Deputy does not understand the position.