Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 4 Feb 1992

Vol. 415 No. 3

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Tapping of Journalists Telephones.

Proinsias De Rossa

Ceist:

4 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the suggestion made by the former Minister for Justice, Senator Seán Doherty, that members of the then Cabinet were aware of steps he took to have the phones of two journalists tapped in 1982.

John Connor

Ceist:

5 Mr. Connor asked the Taoiseach if his attention has been drawn to the statements of members of his Cabinet between February and November, 1982 concerning the decision to tap the telephones of a number of journalists during the period of that Government; and if, in view of the fact that these statements involve and concern him, he will make a statement on the matter.

Proinsias De Rossa

Ceist:

6 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if, in regard to the statement he made at his press conference on 22 January 1992 his attention has been drawn to the subsequent statement made by EC Commissioner Ray McSharry that he was not in a position to confirm the content of a conversation between the Taoiseach and the former Minister for Justice, Seán Doherty, in January 1983, regarding the tapping of the phones of two journalists; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Proinsias De Rossa

Ceist:

7 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if, in view of potential damage to the Office of Taoiseach arising from the statement made by Senator Seán Doherty at a press conference on 21 January, 1992 he will outline the steps, if any, he is taking to clarify matters and to restore the credibility and prestige of the Office; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Proinsias De Rossa

Ceist:

8 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the allegation made by Senator Seán Doherty at a press conference on 21 January 1992 that the Taoiseach was not only aware of the tapping of the phones of two journalists in 1982, but also had been supplied with transcripts of the taps; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Dick Spring

Ceist:

9 Mr. Spring asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the allegations made by Senator Seán Doherty that (a) he was fully aware of the improper and unconstitutional tapping of two journalists telephones in 1982; and (b) he made no effort to stop this activity.

Dick Spring

Ceist:

10 Mr. Spring asked the Taoiseach if he wishes to change the statements and comments he made at his press conference on Wednesday, 22 January 1992 in light of the subsequent statements by EC Commissioner Ray MacSharry and by Deputy Pádraig Flynn; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 together.

I would refer the Deputies to the statement I made on 22 January which I propose to circulate in the Official Report. I have nothing further to add.

The following is the statement:

The statements made by Senator Seán Doherty yesterday to the effect that he showed me transcripts of telephone conversations by two journalists whose telephones were tapped in 1982 are absolutely false.

They are in stark contradiction with a number of statements made by Senator Doherty at the time.

I wish to state categorically that I was not aware at the time of the tapping of these telephones and that I was not given and did not see any transcripts of the conversations. I also wish to say that I have always abhorred the principle of phone-tapping except where absolutely necessary to prevent serious crime or subversion by paramilitary organisations.

Senator Doherty subsequent to the revelation of the telephone tappings made a number of statements to the effect that I was not aware of his actions in tapping the telephones concerned, and was cross-examined on them at length on a radio interview and subsequently by an internal Fianna Fáil Commission of Inquiry.

Unfortunately, when Senator Doherty seeks long afterwards to substitute for what he now claims to have been a premeditated blanket of lies, an entirely new version of events, the public have no means of judging the truthfulness of any of his statements by themselves. It is perhaps significant that four years ago Mr. Doherty admitted to a journalist that his "memory about that period is getting a bit hazy" (Sunday Tribune, 24 May 1987).

I also regard it as significant that Mr. Doherty, if he has an interest in telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, declined to be questioned by the press yesterday about the inconsistencies between his different versions of events.

I wish to reaffirm the statements, which I made at the time, and to recall the background to these events. Even before leaving office on 14 December 1982. I was sufficiently concerned about some of the serious allegations about the conduct of Mr. Doherty as Minister for Justice and about political interference with the gardaí to set in train arrangements for the setting up of a judicial inquiry, which was the best means of independently and impartially ascertaining the truth. This has been confirmed by the President of the High Court.

The first I learned of the suggestion that the phones of journalists had been tapped under my administration was from an article that appeared in The Irish Times on 18 December 1982. I took the first opportunity in a radio interview the following day on 19 December to call publicly on my successors to formally establish the judicial inquiry which I had set in train. I also stated without equivocation on the principle of tapping two political correspondents that “I would not countenance any such actions” and that no politician should ever initiate such action, because that would be an abuse of a procedure, which was only justified to combat crime or subversion. It is hardly plausible to suggest that I would have called for such an inquiry, having forthrightly condemned the phone-tapping of journalists, if I had nevertheless approved of it in Government only a short time earlier.

A few days subsequently I asked Mr. Doherty briefly after a dinner for ex-Ministers of the Fianna Fáil Administration on 21 December, about the revelations and received general assurances that there was nothing of any significance involved.

Following a short cryptic statement by the new Government in the early hours of 19 January 1983 I went on radio to repeat the call of the Fianna Fáil Frontbench for a full scale judicial inquiry. I stated: "I want to make it crystal clear that the Government as such and I as Taoiseach, know absolutely nothing about any activities of this sort and would not countenance any such abuse". The Government minutes and records of discussions at Cabinet contain no reference whatsoever to any phone-tapping: and persons who were members of the Government at the time have confirmed that they have no recollection of any reference to the subject.

Shortly after this Mr. Doherty came to see me in the company of another colleague and revealed to me his involvement in these events, of which he subsequently gave a detailed account on RTE's "This Week" on 23 January, and which were outlined in Minister Noonan's later statement on 20 January.

His revelations came as a profound shock to me, as others are in a position to testify. It was all the more of a shock as I had sought to leave affairs in as good order as was possible at that time to my successor, who on taking office had paid tribute to some aspects of our economic management in the Dáil on 14 December 1982.

On 21 January, Mr. Doherty issued a first public statement in which he said: "My actions as referred to were motivated solely by my concern for the security of my country and were not at any stage discussed by the Government or with the Taoiseach". The truth of the first part of that statement relating to the Government has been confirmed by every member of it who has been asked, despite insidious claims by Mr. Doherty on the "Nighthawks" programme that "people" (in the plural) knew, and despite inspired leaks to the papers in recent days by sources close to him that at least two other members of the Cabinet knew what he was doing. I confirm that the second part relating to me is equally true.

If as he alleges he gave me transcripts, where are they now? They are not, and never were in my office, nor were they seen by the members of my Department or by my personal staff, who handle my papers. If he gave them to me, as he alleges, it is inconceivable that I would not have discussed such a very serious matter with at least one or two close colleagues. There is no record of any such discussions and no colleague has any recollection of them. His statement also implies that he was given transcripts on an ongoing basis, rather than as other evidence suggests, they were shown or given to him together at one particular time.

It would appear that Mr. Doherty's choice of allegations relates far more to his own perceived political convenience at the present time and not to any exacting standard of truthfulness. I find the implication strange that he should claim that he would not wish to lie to the Senate, while having apparently been quite prepared to tell lies years ago to his collegues in the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party, and to allow those allegedly untruthful statements to stand at the time of the Supreme Court action taken by the two journalists in 1986-7.

Mr. Doherty repeated under close cross-examination his two part statement in an RTE interview on 24 January 1983 that `the Government was not informed of what I was doing' and, that `Mr. Haughey did not know that I was tapping these journalists' phones'. The suggestion was made to Mr. Doherty in the course of that interview by Mr. Gerald Barry as to why he didn't ask the Taoiseach about it, and was it `because he would have stopped it'. Mr. Doherty evaded the answer, by saying that he was totally convinced of the propriety of his actions. The truth of the matter is that Mr. Doherty did not dare to inform me of what he had authorised, until his actions were on the point of being exposed by the Fine Gael-Labour Coalition Government. The whole affair was shortly thereafter examined by an internal FF committee of inquiry, which concluded that I did not know of the phone-tappings. It can also be taken that the Coalition Government of the time conducted its own thorough investigation, with the opportunity to interview senior Garda officers, and despite every motive to do so was not in a position to contradict or impugn my statements denying any knowledge of the matter as Taoiseach. The official statement dated 20 January 1983 issued by the Minister for Justice, Michael Noonan, after a very full and detailed inquiry into the whole affair contains no reference to transcripts having been given to me or to my being aware of their existence. Surely if there had been any scintilla of doubt about this at the time, this inquiry conducted by the Government which took over the administration a short time before would have adverted to it.

When two years later in March 1984 transcripts of telephone conversations were leaked to the public, shortly after Mr. Doherty had called on the Minister for Justice to release them, they were a revelation to me. However, despite some negative comments about some of the content, I reiterated that there were strict guidelines governing the use of telephone taps by the security forces and that I would always wish to see those guidelines adhered to.

My position both with regard to the general principle of phone-tapping and with regard to my rejection of any suggestion of personal involvement in or particular use of it has been entirely consistent over my entire period of office, including my time as Minister for Justice. This Government intend to proceed with legislation which the Fine Gael-Labour Coalition inexplicably failed to enact during their term of office to prevent any further abuses with regard to phone-tapping. Is Mr. Doherty seriously now suggesting that the Government should have refrained from or delayed carrying out its clear public duty to protect the rights of the citizen, out of regard for his personal position as Cathaoirleach of the Seanad? I have never felt beholden in any way to Mr. Doherty for statements that he made in 1983, nor have I ever acted as if I were.

I also find it clearly ironic that Mr. Doherty who in what he claims was his desire to protect the Fianna Fáil Government and the Taoiseach of the time and in other actions singlehandedly did more than anyone else to damage the reputation of both, should now without any obvious compunction act in a manner calculated to inflict the maximum damage to the present Fianna Fáil led Government and the Taoiseach out of transparent personal political motives. There is to say the least a flagrant inconsistency between his stated motivation for phone tapping in 1982 and the intent of his actions today. Is it not obvious to everyone that he has become obsessed with the belief that it is in his electoral interest to present himself to the people of Roscommon as an innocent victim or scapegoat, who was made to carry the can for others? The truth of the matter, however, is that he was the author of his own downfall in 1982. Having been given a position of high responsibility and the utmost sensitivity, requiring correct behaviour at all times, he engaged in a multiplicity of actions which when a full picture of them emerged at the end of the 1982 Administration he could not convincingly justify or explain and which no one else could defend. With regard to the phonetapping affair, his actions have been duly censured by the Supreme Court in 1987, which would have been an obvious occasion to have put forward any defence in mitigation or to have corrected any inaccuracies in previous statements.

The Government have an important job to do, and it is ridiculous to be raking over the events of 10 years ago, which are absolutely irrelevant to the problems of today. I am forced to the conclusion that Mr. Doherty is attempting to bring down both the present Fianna Fail/Progressive Democrat Coalition Government and the Taoiseach for personal political gain, and perhaps for other political motives, regardless of the short or long term consequences for his party. It is clear from the debate on the motion of confidence in me at the Parliamentary Party that renewed allegations of illegal phonetapping or surveillance are now regarded as the most effective means of achieving this objective, even though such allegations were unsubstantiated and untrue. It is not true, as Mr. Doherty's statement seeks to imply, that he has not discussed the gist of what he has done with others. I have been informed that he has talked to several people about it, and indeed there is clear evidence of this in recent press articles.

I would now like to summarise some of the other false statements in Mr. Doherty's statement yesterday. It is quite clear, despite Mr. Doherty's claim to the contrary, that Mr. Ainsworth did not recommend the option of tapping the telephone of Mr. Bruce Arnold. Mr. Ainsworth stated in the course of the investigation conducted by the new Government, and I quote: `He (the Minister Mr. Doherty) then said in the interests of the security of the State that we should have an intercept on Bruce Arnold's telephone'. Far from being advised to do this, he was specifically advised against it. His suggestion that a further tap should be put on Mr. Arnold's phone in October some months after it had been removed was rejected.

Secondly, he claims that the transcripts were taken to me as Taoiseach over a period of months. This is contradicted by all the evidence. Mr. Ainsworth stated that he showed the intercepts to Mr. Doherty on a specific occasion. The copies that Mr. Ainsworth gave to Mr. Doherty, were given back by him to Mr. Ainsworth, who shredded them.

I would be quite happy, however, if there is any responsible public demand for it to institute a judicial or any other sort of inquiry into this affair.

Would the Taoiseach not agree that there is a total conflict between the version of events which he himself has given and the one Senator Doherty has given about these events? Given that he has indicated that he would be prepared to have a public inquiry into these matters and into the conflict between their positions and views does he intend to establish such an inquiry before he leaves office as Taoiseach?

I have nothing further to add.

I am calling the Deputies in the order in which their questions appear on the Order Paper. I therefore call Deputy John Connor.

On a point of order, is it in order for the Taoiseach——

Please, Deputy; you know that it is quite the wrong time for a point of order. I am dealing with questions.

The question should be answered.

I am calling Deputies in the order in which their questions are tabled.

May I raise a brief point of order?

What is the point of order?

May I suggest to you, a Cheann Comhairle, that it is a well established precedent in this House that points of order may not be raised at Question Time?

It is also a well established precedent that when the Taoiseach is asked a question he stands up and gives the answer so that it is on the record.

I hesitate to entertain points of order at Question Time; doubtless they will be of a spurious nature.

I wish to inquire if it is in order at Question Time for the person who has been designated to answer questions to remain seated and simply say they have nothing further to add? That is not an answer.

The Deputy should well know that the Chair has no control over Ministers' or Taoiseachs' replies in this House and never had.

A Cheann Comhairle, if Question Time is to mean anything we should expect answers to questions which have been raised. It is not proper that they should not be answered.

As Deputy John Connor is not present I call Deputy De Rossa again if he wishes to intervene.

My question is whether the Taoiseach is going to have the public inquiry he indicated he was prepared to have. It is a simple question but if the Taoiseach does not wish to answer it we cannot force him to do so.

May I ask the Taoiseach if he was either disappointed or surprised that Commissioner McSharry failed to support the version of the story given by the Taoiseach in his statement?

I have nothing further to add.

Let us proceed then to Question No. 11.

This is a disgrace.

Perhaps we should adjourn the Dáil until next week.

Do you feel better now?

I am determined, a Cheann Comhairle, not to engage in any demeaning partisan exchanges today.

Or tomorrow.

Barr
Roinn