Vol. 453 No. 3
2 Ms O'Donnell asked the asked the Taoiseach, regarding a reply to Parliamentary Question No. 14 of 11 May 1995 by the Minister for Justice relating to correspondence from the solicitors representing the victims of a person (details supplied), if he will state who dealt with the letter dated 14 November 1994; if the contents were passed on to the new Attorney General; if he was informed of the contents; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [
The issues arising in answering this question relate directly to the Fr. Brendan Smyth case.
Arising, in particular, out of the seven month delay in dealing with the extradition warrants in the Fr. Smyth case, I had, shortly after the conclusion on 26 January 1995 of the hearing of evidence by the Dáil select committee, instituted an inquiry — including, inter alia, seeking formal and independent legal advice — as to what action, if any, might appropriately be taken arising from the manner in which the case had been dealt with in the Office of the Attorney General during the seven months in question.
I was in the process, on foot of a study of the advice I had received, of finalising my deliberations on the matter when the information about the way the correspondence referred to in this question was dealt with in the Attorney General's office came to my attention. This new information, which I regard as serious, required that I institute additional inquiries. These are ongoing, and as soon as they have been completed and I have considered the outcome, I will inform the House of the action, if any, I am taking.
I assure the House that this matter is being pursued as expenditiously as possible, but Deputies will understand that there are difficult issues involved including, in particular, the entitlement to fair procedure. In the light of that, I believe that I cannot give further information to the House at this stage without running the risk of prejudicing my capacity to deal with the matter properly and fully in due course.
Arising from the Taoiseach's procrastinated response, will he indicate who received the letter of 14 November from the solicitors representing the victims of Fr. Brendan Smyth? Who dealt with it? Was it the former Attorney General, Mr. Eoghan Fitzsimons, or the original official who dealt with the processing of extradition warrants in the débâcle? Was the new Attorney General made aware of the contents of the letter when appointed to that office on the formation of the new Government and was the Taoiseach made aware of its contents? Is it true that a response was only sent to the solicitors representing the victims on foot of a parliamentary question tabled by me to the Minister for Justice two weeks ago?
As I said, I instituted inquiries in this matter which may require me to take action on foot of them being concluded. In regard to a matter of this nature it is important, as all Deputies will be aware, that I do not say or do anything that could in any way prejudice or prejudge the final decision I will make on this matter.
The Taoiseach is running for cover.
For that reason while I could answer all questions posed by the Deputy I am not proposing to do so at this stage as I want to hear all points of view relevant to the matter without having said or done anything in public that would prejudice fair procedure in this matter. That, essentially, is the position.
That is a change from last November
The Deputy's parliamentary question was a relevant and crucial factor in bringing the delay in dealing with this correspondence to light. That is undeniably the case.
The Taoiseach is refusing to answer my questions for his own reasons, but the matter is not sub judice and he is imposing restrictions on answering questions.
He is running for cover.
Will the Taoiseach agree that the special review group he set up chaired by the secretaries of three Government Departments, including the Department of Justice, resulted directly from the original delay in processing extradition warrants? Will he also agree that one of the guiding and learning points which emerged from that débâcle was that in future all matters regarding the safety of children and related matters of child sexual abuse should receive the highest priority in the Office of the Attorney General? I received a letter this morning, posted yesterday from the general office, indicating that the Taoiseach intended to refer this question to the Minister for Justice and that it would be deferred for oral reply until the next time questions to the Minister for Justice are taken. Could it be true that yesterday when the Taoiseach was dispensing accountability within the Cabinet that he was seeking to evade answering this question by transferring it to the Minister for Justice?
I have no problem in answering this question and I will answer it in full when I have considered all the evidence that it is proper for me to consider before coming to a decision in this matter. As the Deputy said, it is correct that the report on the Attorney General's Office commissioned by the previous Government recommends that extra special care should be taken regarding child abuse cases. That is certainly true and in assessing this matter I will obviously take that into account.
When was the letter of 14 November shown to Mr Gleeson?
That is one of the matters which I believe it would not be appropriate for me to inform the House about at this stage——
Why?
Let us hear the Taoiseach without interruption.
Will we need another committee of inquiry?
——because it raises questions regarding the position of a number of people. In making decisions about individuals I must be able to show I acted without in any way prejudicing my consideration of all the facts and views about the issue in the interests of fair procedure.
There is a row going on about that.
My requirement to act in accordance with fair procedure is one that applies in regard to any individual who might be affected by any decisions that I might take in the matter. I would be acting unwisely in giving any indication of my view about any of the material facts in this issue before I have concluded my deliberations on the matter.
When?
Why?
I will conclude those deliberations as quickly as possible and I will be more than happy at that stage to report back to the House on my findings——
These interruptions must cease.
——and to give all relevant information to the House.
The Taoiseach had no problem last November. He did not worry about fair procedure then.
It was politically fair as far as the Deputy was concerned.
I am calling Deputy O'Donnell for a final question.
I suggest to the Taoiseach that he is concealing matters from this House. I will repeat my question. Why is it that at lunch time yesterday the Taoiseach was minded to evade accountability on these matters by transferring the question to the Minister for Justice? At what point yesterday did the Taoiseach change his mind and decide to take the question which is on today's Order Paper?
We are clearly having repetition.
The Taoiseach did not answer the question.
I was never minded and never will be minded to evade my responsibility on this or any other matter.
Answer the question.
That disposes of questions to the Taoiseach for today.
The Taoiseach did not answer the question.
An appalling performance.
Why did the Taoiseach decide yesterday to transfer my question to the Minister for Justice?
Two standards, depending on what side one sits.
We proceed to questions nominated for priority to the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs.
A Cheann Comhairle, on a point of information——
No, Deputy, I have ruled on the matter.
A Cheann Comhairle, what is the value of these communications from the General Office if Deputies are informed, on the Taoiseach's instructions, that something will happen which does not subsequently happen?
The Deputy will now resume his seat.
What is the value of these communications?
Deputy Molloy, you will not be allowed to disrupt our proceedings.
How can we accept the word of the Taoiseach?
Deputy Molloy, resume your seat forthwith.
You have not required the Taoiseach to answer a straight question put by a member of our party.
If Deputy Molloy does not resume his seat, he must leave the House.
It is a shame. More cover-up.
