We will now proceed to questions to the Minister. I call Deputy O'Donoghue.
Independent Inquiry in the Department of Justice: Statements (Resumed).
In his letter of 2 October 1996 the Attorney General wrote to the Minister that in a recent conversation with Mr. Justice Harvey Kenny, who was reviewing the availability of judges for different work, Mr. Justice Harvey Kenny had indicated to the Attorney General that the impression among the Judiciary was that Judge Lynch was still on the Special Criminal Court. Will the Minister enlighten the House as to when, prior to 2 October 1996 she had a conversation with the Attorney General about the delisting of Judge Dominic Lynch?
I did not have any conversation with the Attorney General. I have already made that clear. I do not know what date the conversation between Mr. Justice Harvey Kenny and the Attorney General took place. The Attorney General wrote that letter on 2 October and raised some queries about whether the notification had been sent. The Deputy has a copy of the letter. The Attorney General was clarifying that Mr. Justice Harvey Kenny did not know about the decision. It would not have been appropriate to the role of Mr. Justice Harvey Kenny that he be informed about that decision. He was brought up to do a particular job in the Circuit Court. I do not know when that conversation took place.
Prior to 2 October, my understanding is that the Attorney General did not have any knowledge about whether the decision had been implemented. It was not his business to inquire about it. He had a conversation with Mr. Justice Harvey Kenny and wrote that letter as a result of it so that he could inform Mr. Justice Harvey Kenny of the situation.
I put it to the Minister that the impression that Judge Lynch was "still" on the Special Criminal Court would indicate to any reasonable person a continuum of correspondence or of a conversation in that he referred to something that was continuing. In that context, perhaps the Minister will advise the House whether she considers it would have been, at the very least, expedient of the Attorney General to move to act the moment he had that conversation with Mr. Justice Harvey Kenny, the date of which the Minister is entirely unsure. In that context will the Minister also explain to the House why in a matter of such grave seriousness as this she did not ask the Attorney General subsequent to October, or even in the past week, when exactly he had a conversation with Mr. Justice Harvey Kenny regarding the improper composition of that most important court dealing with the most serious and sensitive of cases.
As the Deputy is aware, the Special Criminal Court was closed until 8 October. The Attorney General wrote a letter stating he had a conversation and that the impression was still abroad that Judge Lynch was on the Special Criminal Court. He said in the first paragraph that he thought a decision was made at the end of July but, as the Deputy is now aware, it was made on 1 August. As far as I know from this letter, and I know for certain from the Attorney General, he was not aware that Judge Dominic Lynch had not been informed about his delisting from the Special Criminal Court. The purpose of the letter was to seek to do no more than ask if that decision had been notified to Judge Dominic Lynch so that he could get back to his colleague, Mr. Justice Harvey Kenny, with whom he had that conversation, to tell him that Judge Dominic Lynch had been told and that he was available for the Circuit Court list.
In respect of the answer the Minister gave to my colleague, Deputy O'Donnell, before Question Time, is it the case that a member of the Chief State Solicitor's office, which is under the control of the Attorney General, notified the registrar of the Special Criminal Court of his suspicion that Judge Lynch was not properly sitting on that court and as a consequence the registrar contacted the Department? Has the Minister, speaking on behalf of the Government, satisfied herself as to who in the Chief State Solicitor's office, which is under the control of the Attorney General's office, and in the Attorney General's office was aware prior to that conversation with the registrar of the Special Criminal Court, that Judge Lynch was functioning in that court after he had been delisted?
The report presented to the House and the Government describes a situation which could be charitably called an administrative shambles. It has been going on for years and its details must have been apparent to everybody in the Department of Justice. How, without total hypocrisy, can the Secretary of the Department, whose job it is to ensure that the Department is run efficiently, bring disciplinary proceedings against those who failed to operate procedures in the shambles which it was the secretary's responsibility to ensure did not exist?
Deputy O'Donnell gave me a list of questions this morning, one of which asked if the Department was contacted at any time by the registrar of the court. I have answered as I did on 12 November. On Tuesday, 5 November the registrar of the Special Criminal Court telephoned my office. I understand the registrar asked whether Judge Lynch had retired from the Bench.
He did not.
That is the information given to us this morning by the registrar.
It is wrong. From the Bench?
The registrar was telephoned today, he was interviewed by the people who carried out the inquiry. He told them he had made a call on Tuesday, 5 November to the Department. He made the call arising from the conversation he had with a solicitor in the Chief State Solicitor's office on 5 November.
The Minister did not answer the question. Was any inquiry made in the Chief State Solicitor's office as to why this young solicitor seemed to be of the opinion that Judge Lynch should not be on the Bench?
At what stage?
He obviously had a conversation with the registrar of the Special Criminal Court and raised the status of Judge Lynch with him.
He did.
This man is in the Chief State Solicitor's office which is under the control of the Attorney General's office. Has any inquiry been made at any point as to who in the Attorney General's office and the Chief State Solicitor's office knew there was a problem with Judge Lynch's membership of the court?
I have been informed by the Attorney General's office that nobody in the office knew that Judge Lynch had not been delisted. By 5 November when the registrar rang my Department I had already received, earlier that day, the letter from the Attorney General which I had indicated to an official in my office. The next day the issue was being untangled. The call on the evening of 5 November was subsequent to my call to the Department. Everything that happened after that was concerned with getting the prisoners involved released and rearrested.
The registrar was told on Tuesday, 5 November that there was a question about Judge Lynch. He rang my Department and an official took the call. The next day in the course of conversations it was clarified for him that Judge Lynch had not been properly informed about his delisting. At that stage the system was being put in train. All that went on during 6 November, leading up my being informed of the Attorney General's advice that the people involved would have to be released, is all part of the court case that will be coming up. At that stage the information was available.
What about the Secretary of the Department?
The question was about the function of the Secretary of the Department.
How can he initiate disciplinary proceedings against people subordinate to him for operating the shambles he was responsible for keeping in existence?
The report indicates there was human error and that those who made the errors should be confronted with them. A disciplinary procedure is in place. Nobody has actually been disciplined because the procedures are set out in regulations. The complaint against the person must be prepared, after which the person has 14 days to reply and there are various other procedures which follow with which I am sure Deputies are familiar. The Secretary of the Department is responsible and is taking responsibility for those procedures.
With regard to the letter of 2 October 1996, if we accept that the Minister did not have a conversation with the Attorney General concerning this matter prior to 2 October 1996, will the Minister at least accept that the phraseology used in the second paragraph of the letter would indicate a continuum, at the very least, in the Attorney General's mind, of something that had been learned prior to the conversation with Mr. Justice Harvey Kenny?
The Chief State Solicitor's office is inextricably linked with the Attorney General's office. Will the Minister tell us who told the solicitor in the Chief State Solicitor's office that Judge Dominic Lynch had been delisted from the Special Criminal Court by a Government decision of 1 August 1996? We are entitled to that information.
Incidentally, will the Minister tell us how exactly the letters from the Attorney General and the Judge Lynch were sent to her?
The letter of 2 October from the Attorney General indicates that there was an impression abroad that Judge Lynch was still on the Special Criminal Court.
It stated "is still abroad".
Yes. It refers to the decision of 1 August and the Attorney General indicates that Mr. Justice Harvey Kenny had not heard about it — he is one of the people who make up the "still abroad" impression. The Attorney General is doing no more than asking me if Judge Lynch had been notified. The court had not sat in the meantime. The Attorney General gives no indication or impression that he knows it for a fact. He is asking if we can get rid of the impression that is still abroad by making sure the judge had been notified of his delisting.
With regard to the Chief State Solicitor's office, I do not wish to name individuals. On the evening of 5 November a solicitor in the Chief State Solicitor's office told the registrar that he thought Judge Lynch had retired, or words to that effect. The registrar rang my office with a query. My Department was already aware there was a problem because I had already asked the question on the afternoon of 5 November.
As to how the letters came to the Department, I can only assume they came by the postal service or by hand delivery. The copy of the Attorney General's letter is date stamped 3 October. It does not have the word "personal" on it so I assume the envelope did not have it either. It arrived in the office, it was stamped and processed, as recorded in the report. It was seen by my private secretary, by somebody in the personnel department and in the courts section. Action should have been taken there and the report makes it clear it was inexcusable that it did not solicit action when received on the file.
With regard to the letter from Judge Lynch, I did not know it was sent on 10 October until informed by the judge. I can only assume it came in by ordinary post.
Not by registered post.
No.
How did the Attorney General's letters arrive?
They are not sent by registered post. I do not know whether the letter of 2 October arrived by post or hand delivery. I gather they have a system like most Departments whereby some correspondence is hand delivered and some is sent by post, depending on the letters.
Am I to understand that a solicitor in the Chief State Solicitor's office became concerned about Judge Lynch's membership of the Special Criminal Court that, independently, an official in the Director of Public Prosecution's office became concerned about this matter and that, independent of this, the Attorney General wrote the Minister a letter which arrived on 5 November? Is the Minister saying all of these are unconnected and that there was no knowledge in those offices that something was awry?
I got the letter from the Attorney General. My office got a telephone call from the DPP's office on the Wednesday——
Independently?
I can only assume the DPP got a telephone call or heard something somewhere.
Has the Minister investigated the matter? Has she asked him?
The inquiry team tried to find out why the decision of 1 August was not implemented. The failure to implement it was brought to my attention in the Attorney General's letter of 1 November. I immediately rang my office and started the chase to find out what had happened. A telephone call was received from the DPP's office the following day. It was obvious from 5 November that nothing had been done since 1 August.
Who told the DPP?
I do not know.
Why will the Minister not ask?
It is immaterial in terms of what is needed to remedy the situation.
It is not.
All of the actions taken on 6 November were taken with that in mind. I have just been informed that the Chief State Solicitor's office told the DPP's office on 6 November, the day the DPP's office rang the Department. All this happened within a 24 hour period on 5-6 November. I understand the Taoiseach has already given this information to the Dáil. The report states that the DPP's office rang my office around or after 4.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 6 November. The call was taken by official C.
How did the Chief State Solicitor's office learn of this matter?
I must dissuade Members from putting questions in omnibus form.
A solicitor in the Chief State Solicitor's office told the registrar something——
From where did he get the information?
Deputy McDowell said that three people became aware of this incident at a particular time. The Minister is not able to say how the person in the Chief State Solicitor's office became aware of it. She stated that she was advised by her Department that shortly before 5 p.m. on 6 November an assistant secretary, not in the courts division, became aware that a serious problem had arisen in relation to the position of Judge Lynch. How did that person become aware of it?
I can explain that.
On the role played by the Minister in transmitting the Cabinet decision of 1 August to the Department, there are gaps in her speech and in the report. Did she speak to the Secretary of the Department, her programme manager or anyone else immediately after the meeting and convey the Cabinet's decision?
The Deputy should not ask too many questions together.
It appears from the Minister's speech and the report that the decision was communicated through the Cabinet secretary. What input did the Minister have?
The acting assistant secretary in the courts division examined this issue on the Wednesday to find out what had gone wrong and whether people had been notified of the decision etc. The Secretary of the Department was in Belfast with me on that day. The acting assistant secretary in the courts division informed the assistant secretary in charge of personnel that a problem had arisen. That person then rang the DPP's office for advice. There was constant contact between the DPP's office and the Attorney General's office to see what action would have to be taken. As the Deputy knows, this culminated in the decision later that evening to release the prisoners.
The Deputy said there are gaps in my speech and in the report. On my return from a Cabinet meeting my normal practice is to distribute Cabinet papers to my private secretary. Files on matters which have been deferred are put in the safe until the following meeting. Completed files are given to my private office. Decisions are acted upon once conveyed by the Government secretariat. This was the practice before I became Minister. I now intend to change it. The normal practice is that my private secretary attaches a note indicating the relevant people to be informed. In this instance, they would have included the Secretary of the Department and my programme manager who would have received it for their information.
As a general rule, I do not go through Government decisions with my programme manager. About 80 decisions have been taken this year, all of which have been communicated in the same way by the Government secretariat. As those Deputies with Cabinet experience know, decisions are communicated once they have been properly recorded by the Cabinet secretary.
Did the Minister have a conversation with the Secretary of the Department or her programme manager about the memorandum that she took to Cabinet and brought back with her immediately after the meeting? Am I correct in stating she did not have a conversation in this instance?
I do not recollect having a conversation with my programme manager. My normal practice is to give Cabinet papers to my private secretary who was on holiday on 1 and 2 August. The Cabinet meeting was held on the afternoon of Thursday, 1 August. The decision was communicated by the Cabinet secretary, probably on the Friday, and circulated without delay to the relevant section. That was the procedure before I and my predecessor, I understand, became Minister.
Did the Minister communicate the decision to the Secretary of the Department?
I am sorry but that was not the procedure in place. It is now.
Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn outlined the procedure.
I do not want to get into a dispute with a former Minister who has only recently left that office. I have checked and have been told that the procedure for receiving Cabinet decisions and circulating them is the same procedure that existed when the previous Minister was there, and perhaps other Ministers before that. It worked in 79 of the 80 Government decisions. It should have worked here. It went to the relevant section, the people in that section knew it was a decision they had to implement but it was not implemented. That is what the report has found.
Somebody somewhere told a solicitor in the office of the Chief State Solicitor that there was a serious problem in the Special Criminal Court. Again I ask the Minister to say who told that solicitor of the existence of the problem, whether that solicitor was interviewed by the inquiry and, if not, why not. The Minister for Justice must answer these questions because they are material to this public investigation of a most serious matter.
I do not know the answer. I know who told the registrar — it was a solicitor from the office of the Chief State Solicitor. I do not know how much before the registrar was told this by the person in the Office of the Chief State Solicitor; I do not know how much before that person knew. I do not know the answer to that question and I cannot speculate on it because I do not know the answer.
Why did the inquiry not ask that?
The inquiry was told to inquire into all relevant matters. Its members interviewed the registrar, who said they had rung the Department for their own reasons. Clearly they felt it was not necessary to put that into the report. The details of all of Wednesday, when it was suddenly realised that there was a problem with this case, are, I believe, germane to the court cases, because all the people taking cases claim the State knew about this since 1 August. All that material — if there is any material of interest from 6 November onwards — will obviously be part of a court case. I do not know who told the solicitor in the office of the Chief State Solicitor and how soon before he was told. My understanding is that he told the registrar in the late afternoon or early evening of Tuesday 5 November. That is all I know about it.
Does the Minister agree that one of the Attorney General's functions is to ensure the enforcement of statutes? Considering that the sitting of an invalidly constituted Special Criminal Court is in breach of the Offences Against the State Act, should the Attorney General not have taken swift and urgent action as soon as he became aware of that matter, some time on or before 2 October? Did the Attorney General inform the Taoiseach of the existence of an invalidly constituted Special Criminal Court and its possible legal consequences and, if so, when? Assuming he knew on 2 October or some date before that — his correspondence shows he knew the urgency, the importance and the dangers of this — when after 2 October did he inform the Taoiseach of that matter?
I can only repeat that the letter written by the Attorney General on 2 October was not a letter telling me or my Department that Judge Lynch was sitting on the bench illegally. It was a letter saying that an impression was abroad and that Mr. Justice Harvey Kenny did not know whether Judge Lynch was available to be listed for Circuit Court hearings because he might have to sit on the Special Criminal Court.
Did the Attorney General speak to the Taoiseach?
His letter was no more than to ask whether that information had been transmitted. It was not a letter saying something, therefore there was no reason or need for him to ring. He asked whether certain steps had been taken to inform a judge of his delisting. Through the Secretary of my Department I informed the Taoiseach, who was in Cork when I first became aware, at about 10.15 on Wednesday evening, of the need to release these prisoners. We immediately arranged that, as soon as the Taoiseach was available, he would be told about this. I spoke to him at about 12.30 a.m. on Thursday morning. The Taoiseach has already made this clear in the House in answer to other questions. I explained the background to him and I was in touch with him constantly until about 3.30 a.m., at which stage I went to bed.
I remind the Minister that her own report, the Cromien Molloy report, stated that this letter was of a nature which should have been recognised by everyone who dealt with it as being urgent and that must apply to the sender of the letter as much as the recipients. I take it she is aware that the Attorney General is in charge of the office of the Chief State Solicitor. Does she consider it satisfactory that an inquiry has taken place in this matter and no attempt has been made to interview a member of the staff of the Office of the Chief State Solicitor, under the control of the Attorney General, as to how that person came to be of the view that the Special Criminal Court was improperly constituted? Will the Minister explain how any satisfactory inquiry could proceed without addressing that fundamental question? One does not have to be Einstein to work out that it is vitally important to deciding who knew what, and when, and where responsibility lies in this matter.
I can confirm categorically that the Attorney General, even in his letter of 1 November, did not know categorically that Judge Lynch was serving on the bench——
He suspected it.
He wrote a letter, which is the subject of privilege, making an inquiry and giving some advice on 1 November.
The Minister should not quote selectively from the letter.
I do not know why the inquiry did not do as asked, I can only estimate. The inquiry was trying to ascertain why, from 1 August, nothing had happened. By the night of 5-6 November something was happening. The inquiry went into great detail to try to find out why there were huge failures along the way, with many opportunities for staff in the courts section to deal with this matter and delist the judge. It spells out where and why it thinks things went wrong. That was the nature of what I wanted to find out so I could make sure this never happens again. By 5-6 November the matter was known and the inquiry did its examination until then. The members of the inquiry interviewed the registrar, who informed them he had rung the Department on 5 November. I cannot say with certainty whether he informed them of the call he received from the office of the Chief State Solicitor but I think he probably did. They clearly decided that was something they did not need to check.
Why not?
In an earlier reply, the Minister stated she did not know "how much before" the solicitor in the office of the Chief State Solicitor knew about the problem in the Special Criminal Court. Could she advise the House "before" what, and how she knew that he knew before?
I think the Deputy is inquiring about the registrar informing my staff, arising from the question Deputy O'Donnell handed me this morning. He received a call on Tuesday, 5 November. I do not know whether other topics were discussed in that conversation. He was made aware that there was a query about Judge Lynch. That is all I can assume because, having got that information, he then rang the Department of Justice. I am making an assumption because for someone to tell him something he had to know it.
So why not ask about that?
I do not know when the person who told the registrar knew about it, or even the nature of what he or she knew, other than that query the registrar put to the staff person in my office in the Department was whether Judge Lynch had retired. The next day the registrar, in the course of various conversations — obviously phones were ringing all the following day — was informed that Judge Lynch had been delisted. That was on Wednesday. The whole matter was being handled at that stage.
Did the Taoiseach seek or suggest the resignation of any official or officials from the Department of Justice?
The matter as it unfolded was of such a serious nature that I informed the Taoiseach that I would ask for a full, open inquiry into the matter. There were no procedures prior to that which anybody could take. No resignations were sought from any of the staff in my Department before the inquiry and I cannot say whether any will be sought as a result of the inquiry. As I made clear yesterday, the report states a number of times that there was human error and that where failures occurred the people involved should be confronted. That is being done and those concerned will face the full rigours of the code of discipline. I am not certain whether disciplinary action will be taken. I must be fair in following the existing procedures.
Some Government spokespersons say that the people involved will be disciplined.
I did not say that in the Dáil yesterday.
People said it on the Minister's behalf.
I said that the code of discipline is being commenced. The first step is that the personnel manager in the Department will outline to the relevant people whatever faults must be confronted and there will be 40 days in which to reply.
The Minister has no faults.
I am not a civil servant.
The Minister accepts that she was fully aware of the extent of the knowledge of the solicitor in the Chief State Solicitor's office. Will she advise the House why she did not ensure that that solicitor, who is clearly pivotal to the truth in this matter, was not interviewed in the Cromien inquiry, by her or by the Attorney General and was left to play a secondary role? Will she confirm that she will publish the letter from the Attorney General of 1 November 1996? It is clear that document is not privileged because we know the essence of the advice in it. Can the Minister put up any credible reason that solicitor was excluded from all investigation?
I did not indicate, direct or tell the inspectors who they could or could not interview. I did not carry out the interviews or compile the report. I did not enter into the matter other than to make myself available to the two eminent people who carried out the inquiry. They came to see me and indicated how they would do their work — that is essentially the conversation I had with them. In their wisdom they interviewed 14 people, including the Attorney General, the registrar of the Special Criminal Court and myself. It was up to them to assess the information they received from the officials. They made the inquiries and outlined in the report where mistakes were made and why the decision was not enforced.
The letter of 1 November — the Taoiseach already stated this — contains legal advice and since senior counsel retained by the State to deal with the habeas corpus applications has advised that privilege be claimed in respect of the letter, I am not in a position to make it public.
Since the letter of 1 November contains legal advice, which the Minister accepts, will she explain why the Attorney General would bother compiling advice on one of the most complex matters which came before him since taking office if he was not aware that there was a very serious problem in the Special Criminal Court, that the Government decision of 1 August 1996 to delist Judge Dominic Lynch had not been implemented?
I said I will not make the contents of that letter available because, on the advice of an eminent senior counsel retained by the State to deal with the cases now going through court, it is privileged.
How convenient.
Whatever method Deputies use to persuade me to give the information in the letter will fail because I will not give it.
That is evident.
I have been advised that it is a privileged document and I cannot give that information. Does the Deputy want me to tell him that it said: "Dear Nora"? I am sure that is what it stated.
This is only Dáil Éireann, we are not entitled to information.
Cases are before the court and I urge people to be conscious of that. I have to take advice on these matters and the advice I have is that this is a privileged letter and will not be made public.
Given that the State is being sued by people who claim that it consciously deprived them of their liberty and knew of the position but maintained their custody notwithstanding that knowledge, will the Minister indicate whether the solicitor in the Chief State Solicitor's office has been interviewed? Has the Attorney General caused any inquiry within his office or the Chief State Solicitor's office, over which he has direct charge, to find out who knew what and when? Will she explain why the Attorney General would not have conducted such an interview? Is it the case that prior to Deputy O'Donnell's letter today no effort was made to identify or interview the solicitor to find out how he became aware of the improper constitution of the Special Criminal Court?
I do not know whether that solicitor has been interviewed. I can only speculate that anybody who is relevant to the case before the court may find themselves being interviewed.
In the future?
They could include staff of my office and myself. Some of the staff of my office have been asked to prepare affidavits for hearings. All the information on who knew what and when will, I assume, be party to this case. I do not know why the independent inquiry did not interview the solicitor. I did not know that he existed——
Was today the first day the Minister knew he existed?
Yes. The information is not contained in the report. The report deals with what happened between 1 August and 5 November when I became aware, through a letter from the Attorney General——
Does anyone ever tell the Minister anything?
I am not in a court of law to be cross-examined by the Deputy in such a way that he will score points and become the Perry Mason of the Dáil.
This is about answering questions.
Deputies may use certain tactics——
The Minister is here to be cross-examined and to give answers.
I am here to be questioned about my role and about the information of which I am aware.
The Chair shall determine the manner in which questions are put and answered.
They are being put fairly but are not being answered properly.
They are not being put fairly. If the Deputy wishes to put a question he should seek the permission of the Chair and be acknowledged by him. He may not put questions from a seated position.
The answers in regard to what happened since 1 August are in this report which tries to identify the point at which the system broke down after the date of the Government decision. The whole Department was exposed to these two inquirers to find out what happened. As the Deputy knows very well, it will be a matter for the courts——
I accept that but we are entitled to know also.
——to determine the facts, and obviously if there is information relevant to the nature of the cases the people are now challenging under habeas corpus, it will be brought out in the courts. The Deputy is wrong to try to set me up by inviting me to comment here on something about which I do not know and on which the courts might decide.
Sherlock Holmes.
The Minister stated that disciplinary action was not taken before the report was published nor has any been taken since the report came into the public domain. Did any member of the Government or any senior official on behalf of the Government threaten, suggest or seek disciplinary action against any official of her Department the day the report was published?
I am not aware of anybody demanding or seeking resignations. From the very beginning of this affair I felt a great deal of anger and regret about it. Strong words were spoken in my Department in regard to how something like this could have happened. Robust exchanges took place at Cabinet when we discussed the report on the day it became available. It is inexcusable that these kinds of mistakes with such serious consequences could have been made. The report stated, however, that people had to be confronted with any discipline that might arise from human error and their own failures, and that is precisely what I am doing. Although I am not saying anyone will be asked to resign there is no question of anybody being threatened or asked to resign before the codes of discipline are implemented in a fair and proper manner. This has been an extremely difficult time for the staff in my Department, many of whom would have known almost immediately when the matter was brought to their attention that mistakes had been made and they would face examination by independent inspectors. They would have had to suffer and deal with a great deal of pressure and stress in the past week, as I have; I am sure the Opposition spokespersons involved in this debate have been under enormous pressure also.
Why would the Attorney General's letter of 1 November 1996, have contained advice if the Attorney General did not know that there was a serious problem in the Special Criminal Court, when one considers that he only had to pick up the telephone to find out if the position were otherwise? I put it to the Minister that this indicates the Attorney General knew definitively on 1 November 1996, if not earlier, that there was a serious problem in the Special Criminal Court. Since that is the position, and the Minister must accept it, does the Minister not feel let down by the Attorney General in that he did not play a more pro-active role after she had ignored his original inquiry?
I did not ignore the letter of 2 October because I did not see it. Somebody ignored it but I did not, and I ask the Deputy to desist from saying otherwise. He should either call me a liar to my face or cease implying that I am a liar.
Does the Minister not feel let down?
I do not feel let down. Without any disrespect to previous Attorneys General, this country has never been served by a more expert, conscientious and diligent Attorney General.
He did nothing but write a letter.
When the history of this Government is written the Attorney General's role and the role he has played in this State as an eminent senior counsel will be praised.
Not from the Minister's point of view. The drafter of the November 1994 letter signed by John Bruton.
Deputy O'Donoghue has asked me repeatedly what was in this letter.
That is not what I am asking the Minister.
The Deputy asked me would the Attorney General have included advice in the letter. I do not intend to give the Deputy an indication of the nature of that advice but I can tell him the Attorney General did not know definitively that Judge Dominic Lynch had not been informed.
He strongly suspected it.
That is the Deputy's opinion.
He read in the paper that the judge was still sitting.
Order. I must intervene to indicate that the time available to us for discussing this matter is now exhausted.
I answered questions in this House the other day and I wasted time chasing Deputy McCreevey's paper hares about a senior counsel. I had to make inquiries about the matter. A senior counsel had to go onto the public airwaves——
He read it in the newspaper. Did he not then know definitively that the message had not got through to the Department?
When Deputy McDowell reaches the eminence of senior counsel——
I am a senior counsel.
——he can begin to do the thinking. The Attorney General's role in this matter has been exemplary.
That is not the question.
The Minister should answer the question.
I have answered the question. I do not intend to give the Deputy the nature of the advice in the letter.
I am not asking the Minister for that. I asked the Minister about that matter earlier.
I have told the Deputy the Attorney General did not know definitively, even when he wrote the letter on 1 November.
He read it in the newspaper.
That concludes statements on the Report of the Independent Inquiry in the Department of Justice in accordance with the Order of this House which the Chair is obliged to implement.
I want to ask a question on procedure. I asked the Taoiseach yesterday when this matter could be moved to a committee of the House and he told me that could be done at the end of questions today. Given that the authors of the report stated they had insufficient time to examine the matters and that it is now clear the offices of the DPP and the State Solicitor's office were not consulted, will the Minister agree to move this matter into committee?
I am sorry, Deputy, this may not continue now but if the Deputy wants to raise a matter appertaining to committees of this House, he should put down a substantive motion or an appropriate question.
In the light of what the Taoiseach said yesterday I ask the Minister if the Government will agree to move this matter to a select committee of the House.
The matter will have to be dealt with in another way.
It will be.
The Deputy finished as he began.
None the wiser.