The Minister for Social Welfare, Proinsias De Rossa, said at column 53 of the Official Report of 15 November 1994:
What message does this convey to the unfortunate victims of Fr. Smyth, many of whom are still attempting to cope with the trauma of their ordeal? What message does this cavalier attitude convey about the degree of seriousness with which the constitutional office of Attorney General regards the crime of sexual abuse of children?
What are the victims to think when the official at the centre of the controversy was still handling correspondence relating to this matter on 8 May? We were told that the Attorney General would deal with every file involving child sexual abuse. Yet, a letter received on 10 January was still on Official A's desk on 8 May. What message does this convey?
At column 59 the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa said: "Any new Government must learn the lessons of the past two years and avoid repeating the mistakes". Surely the first lesson would be that the official at the centre of the controversy, who did not seem to understand the nature of paedophilia, should not have been still dealing with this case on 8 May. I find that incredible, as, I think, will most people. The public is bewildered that what is called the Smyth affair is back on the agenda of the Dáil, at the forefront of political debate. Many people wish it had gone away. As the Tánaiste said, the key issue throughout this episode is one of accountability, the right of the public to secure adequate explanations and responsibility of the holders of high office for their actions — I could not say it better.
What should have happened? The committee should have been told about the conflict of interest. I emphasise, as I did on 25 January, that Dermot Gleeson is a man for whom we have great regard. He is a man of enormous ability, a dedicated and hardworking individual but he has been badly compromised. The Taoiseach informed the Tánaiste and the Minister for Social Welfare of the conflict in the Smyth case, but why was Dermot Gleeson dealing with the file and with the committee? If, as the Taoiseach said, independent lawyers will deal with any matter in which the Attorney General could remotely have a conflict of interest, surely the committee that inquired into what went wrong should not have dealt with Dermot Gleeson, Attorney General. He should have had nothing to do with that matter.
In his speech the Taoiseach said: "All barristers, especially the Attorney General, who is the head of the profession, are required to follow the most strict rules requiring them not to disclose clients' business". He went on to say: "The obligation of a barrister to reveal such potential conflict of interest, only comes into play when the conflict actually arises or if he reasonably foresees that it will arise." I believe that the conflict arose during the time the committee was making its inquiry. The Taoiseach said that the public was told only when it was absolutely necessary. It was only when the public was going to be told through a journalist that the Taoiseach told it.
Why did the Taoiseach not assume the necessary powers before last Tuesday night? Why did he not take those powers last December or January? If he had done so, he would have had to tell the House. If the journalist had not found out about the conflict of interest, in view of the fact that the committee was not told and the Taoiseach did not take the powers until last Tuesday night, I believe that we would never have known. Why did the Taoiseach not take those powers when Deputy O'Donnell put down the question on 5 May, which was answered on 11 May? The Deputy was interviewed on "Morning Ireland" on 12 May. Why did the Taoiseach not take the powers then? Why did he take them only on 23 May when the journalist intended to expose the conflict of interest? Those questions must be answered.
The Attorney General did not appear before the committee. The Taoiseach said that he expressed the view that to appear before the sub-committee would be pointless. Perhaps the committee had valid questions to ask him, but obviously the Attorney General could not have appeared before it given his professional relationship with Mr. Russell. The committee was entitled to know about that and to decide whether his appearance would be pointless.
We have been told about a conflicts book in the Attorney General's office — there should be a conflicts book in many offices — but that is no assurance to the public. The conflicts book did not work in this case because the only people handling the Smyth file were Mr. Russell and the Attorney General. A conflicts book is useless in that kind of scenario.
In his speech the Taoiseach complimented Mr. Fitzsimons. He seems to adopt a different attitude now from that adopted a few months ago. I remember listening to the Sunday news on RTE on 3 December in which Mr. Fitzsimons was castigated. I was astonished and in a subsequent conversation with the Taoiseach told him I did not agree with what he said because Eoghan Fitzsimons is an honourable man. Today, however, the Taoiseach said that Mr. Fitzsimons acted with propriety during the whole controversy.
The Taoiseach said in his speech: "In the light of the limits on time for Dáil questions, I would have to advise this House that it would not be wise to start placing Ministers under a general obligation to anticipate every conceivable supplementary". That is not the attitude adopted by the Taoiseach last November and December. Let us be consistent. We cannot have one set of rules for Fianna Fáil Taoisigh and Attorneys General and a different set of rules for others. There must be accountability and it is through this House, in a parliamentary democracy, that we ensure accountability. The Taoiseach promised a review of Dáil questions and a review of the procedure.
The Programme for Government refers to a Government that must belong to the people. The Taoiseach said that the relationship between Government and the people it serves has been damaged by a lack of openness, that that relationship must be renewed and so on. He spoke about the need to reform institutions at national and local level to provide service, accountability, transparency and freedom of information. He said that one way he would do that was by making the Executive fully accountable to the Legislature. He said he would ensure that various organs of the State and the holders of high office are more answerable and accountable to the Legislature. What happened in that regard? We are promised the same thing today.
The Taoiseach said that anybody who is senior at the Bar and becomes Attorney General would have conflicts of interest. They would have dealt with hit and run cases, but no Attorney General was in a position where cases were evident the day they were appointed. I ask the Taoiseach to quote precedent. If precedents exist we would have been told. Is there a precedent for the kind of conflict that arises in ten major cases, serious fundamental cases against the State?
The Taoiseach said he had to involve himself in due process. I do not believe there is a conflict between due process and being fair to an individual and giving the facts to this House. The committee should have been told about the conflict between the Attorney General and official A, Mr. Russell. The Taoiseach should have assumed the powers he assumed on 23 May last December when he took office. The Attorney General should not have dealt with the matter when it was before a committee of inquiry of this House.
Last week the Taoiseach said he did not answer the question because Deputy O'Donnell and others had not asked it and that he could not do the Opposition's job for it. That is a very weak response from a Taoiseach who said that the truth must not come out in instalments. We must learn lessons from this case and throwing money at a problem does not solve it. An additional £800,000 was allocated to the Attorney General's office this year. Despite making available PCs, strategic management plans, consultants and the three wise men, despite the fact that a Government fell, a President of the High Court was forced to resign and the Government took office on the basis of what happened in the Smyth case, we have not learned the lessons which the Minister, Deputy De Rossa, said in this House on 15 November last we should learn. Let us hope we learn the lessons now.
If somebody is involved in a controversy and errs, as official A did, they should not be allowed to continue handling the case. There should have been procedures in place to ensure that did not happen. It is not acceptable that an official who erred, whose resignation the Taoiseach felt compelled to seek, is given a golden handshake — that happened in a few other instances recently. What signal does that give to the victims of crime in society? The victims of serious crime, including Fr. Smyth's victims receive nothing for their pain and suffering, but those whom we want to get rid of to save our own political bacon receive golden handshakes. The Taoiseach had to do a deal, he bought off the official and he thinks the chapter is closed — he said at the beginning of his speech that he set out with three motives and is now happy it is all behind us. I do not believe it is all behind us. We have not learned the fundamental lessons of last year.
I will put questions to the Taoiseach later but I want him to tell me in particular why he did not take on the powers in regard to personnel functions in the Attorney General's office until late last Tuesday evening. What was the reason for not fully answering Deputy O'Donnell's question? If that question had not been put down, if the family involved had not made contact with us, if it was not for the resilience of the family, a family whose trust in society, in the institutions of State and Church have been totally and utterly betrayed, we would never have known about the Fr. Smyth case. For more than 30 years that man was a perpetrator of the most awful crimes against children in Ireland and other countries, including America. If it had not been for Deputy O'Donnell's question we would not have the facts we now have and Mr. Russell would probably be still in situ in the Attorney General's office, handling letters and these types of cases. Obviously there was no intention to get rid of him. That is disappointing from a Taoiseach who promised so much.
When the Taoiseach took office he spoke of transparency comparable with a pane of glass, but the glass is very shattered now. The glaziers are probably on their way to fit a new pane because that is what is required. The Taoiseach promised so much in terms of accountability, and I believe he intended to deliver, but something went wrong along the way. The attitude of the Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, earlier in the House when he tried to rubbish the Opposition and accuse me of playing games with the victims reminded me of the attitude he adopted to the famous Masri file he looked at, and saw nothing wrong with either. Then there was the silence of Deputy De Rossa. Sometimes there are those who are so blind that they never get a chance to see the obvious. It is not acceptable that a different attitude, a different set of standards is applying. That has left the public bewildered.
I hope we learn lessons from all of this and that from today the Fr. Smyth saga can be put behind us. Because of the serious wrong done to the family in question, the Taoiseach should meet them as a matter of courtesy in the first instance. That would be appreciated. I know he apologised to them in his contribution and that will be welcomed and understood but he should meet with them as they are genuinely bewlidered. They wonder if somebody in the Attorney General's office has something against them or if they are being used. I am not withdrawing what I said earlier, I did not mean to say it but I said it because of the attitude adopted by the Tánaiste.