Bernard Allen
Ceist:14 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will make a statement on the leaking of an inspector's report on the Greencore investigation to the Irish Press newspaper.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Greencore Inspector's Report.
The report in question was presented to the High Court by the court appointed inspectors. The report, therefore, is within the jurisdiction of the court. I understand that the court immediately considered the matter of an apparent leak based on a submission by the inspectors concerned and reached a determination which, inter alia, reemphasised the confidentiality of the interim report. In these proceedings, Counsel on my behalf indicated that there was no breach of confidentiality by my Department.
In view of the fact that the first interim report of the inspectors was, under the order of Mr. Justice Lynch, made available to the Minister only and no one else, can the Minister explain how the deputy business editor of the Irish Press, Miss Geraldine Harney, was the only journalist to receive that leaked report? Has an in-depth departmental investigation been carried out to establish the name of the mole who leaked the report?
I was very concerned from reading the article in the Irish Press that there was an apparent leak of some of the matters which may have been in the report. I might add that most of the items which purported to have come from the report were in fact matters of public record in affidavits which were opened in court anyway. Nonetheless, I was concerned because the journalist involved claimed to have seen a copy of the report or part of it. I immediately asked the Secretary of my Department to institute an investigation in the Department to see if there was any possibility that the report or any part of it might have got out of the Department. I am assured that the report was seen by only three senior officials within the Department. I did not divulge the contents of the report to any person. I am at a loss currently to know how this could have happened.
While I am the only person to whom a copy of the report was formally given, other than the court, it is a fact that a large number of lawyers would have access to the report in the course of their duties. It is not correct to suggest that I am the only person who had a copy of the report. Nonetheless I am, of course, very deeply concerned and anxious to ensure, if at all possible, that we discover the source of the alleged leak.
A number of exclusive stories concerning Greencore have appeared in the Irish Press from time to time. It is somewhat sinister that extracts from this report which had been sent only to the Minister should also have appeared in the Irish Press. Can the Minister give me an assurance that the Government deputy press officer, Stephen O'Byrne, did not have access to the report? Obviously a problem has arisen in this regard and it is no good for us to hide behind journalists or the Irish Press.
I very deeply resent the implication that the Government deputy press officer leaked this report. That is an unworthy and disreputable suggestion for Deputy O'Keeffe to make. I am happy to be able to tell the House and Deputy O'Keeffe, who may be disappointed by the information, that there was no possibility of the man he mentioned giving the report to the journalist concerned or anyone else because he never had it.
Would the Minister not agree that it is totally unacceptable to say that he cannot find the source of the leak when only he, three senior officials in his Department and a number of senior legal people in the courts saw the report? Surely it should be easy to identify the source of the leak in such a very confined circle if there was a will there to do it?
The Deputy made that point earlier.
I have done what I can in relation to my Department to find the source of the leak. I am not able to find it and I can only conclude that it must have come from somewhere else. I cannot pursue the matter any further at present.
Would the Minister not agree that the simple and easy answer to this problem is to publish the report? Can he say why he will not publish it?
The reason it is not published is because the court ordered its non-publication.
May I——
A brief question, Deputy Hogan. I want to make progress on other questions.
I am astounded at the Minister's statement that he has no responsibility in regard to this matter. In view of the fact that the only copy of the report available was sent to him and he and three senior officials were the only people who saw it, ultimate responsibility to find the source of the leak rests with the Minister.
Ceist, le do thoil.
In view of the fact that the High Court stated today that the second interim report should not be published — indeed the Minister has stated that he has no problem with the publication of the second interim report — may I ask the Minister what steps he has taken to ensure that the contents of the second interim report will not be made available to any specific journalist?
I understand that within the past few hours — I am not terribly familiar with the matter — the High Court decided against the publication of the report generally but I believe has allowed the company concerned to circulate the report to various people, for example, advisers and others. The High Court has allowed me to circulate the report to all members of the Government, the Attorney General and, I think, some other named officials. I propose to do that this evening. It is my earnest wish that the wishes of the court in this respect would be adhered to and that we would not have a situation, if any journalist did become aware of its contents, whereby the report would be published in defiance of the order of the High Court, as happened on the previous occasion. I would draw people's attention to that fact.
I want to bring the question to finality. There are three Deputies offering. I will call them if they will be very brief.
Is the Minister aware that there is a certain amount of public disquiet at the fact that the only journalist who received the report was a former Progressive Democrats general election candidate? Will the Minister reject the assertion being made in certain quarters that there was a direct link between that journalist and the Progressive Democrats?
That point was made earlier.
Fortunately or unfortunately, the Progressive Democrats Party contain among their membership or former membership many very able and distinguished people.
Exactly.
Privileged people.
I do not think they should be unable to follow their calling simply because they are members or former members of that party.
Are they friends with the Minister?
I can think of many journalists who would be disqualified if membership or former membership of a political party was to operate as a disqualification.
It is good to have a direct link.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Ned O'Keeffe was offering.
May I ask the Minister if this issue was discussed adequately by the Cabinet? In view of the fact that other more serious issues had to be discussed that day, it may only have been referred to briefly. Can the Minister assure the House that this will not happen in future?
I have no intention of disclosing to Deputy O'Keeffe matters which were discussed by the Cabinet.
I was about to ask the Minister if he thought there was any chance he might be joined by Deputy O'Keeffe at any stage in the lifetime of this Government. May I ask the Minister if he regards the court strictures on the publication of the report as permanent? Does this mean that the report will not be published at any stage in the future? At what stage can the public who have a genuine interest in the contents of that report expect to see its contents?
I believe, on the basis of oral information which was given to me very quickly just before I came into the House, that the High Court fixed 18 December as the date for the final report. I envisage that the final report will be published on that date and the two interim reports will be published at the same time.