Vol. 503 No. 7
3 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the administrative and staffing changes which will arise in the Office of the Attorney General arising from the Hamilton report and the report of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform arising from the early release from prison of Mr. Philip Sheedy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10826/99]
4 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the administrative and staffing changes which will arise in the Office of the Chief State Solicitor arising from the Hamilton report and the report of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform arising from the early release from prison of Mr. Philip Sheedy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10827/99]
5 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the administrative and staffing changes which will arise in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions arising from the Hamilton report and the report of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform arising from the early release from prison of Mr. Philip Sheedy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10828/99]
6 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the reforms, if any, he will be proposing in the Chief State Solicitor's office as a result of the examinations of the Chief Justice and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform respectively; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10867/99]
7 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the report prepared by the Chief State Solicitor's office arising from the Hamilton and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform reports into the handling of the Philip Sheedy case. [11006/99]
I propose to answer Questions Nos. 3 to 7, inclusive, together.
These questions raise issues as to what administrative and staffing changes may arise in the State law offices arising out of the reports of the Chief Justice and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform as a result of the early release of Mr. Philip Sheedy.
The Office of the Attorney General had no direct involvement in the Sheedy case. The Office of the Chief State Solicitor, which is a constituent part of that office, acted at all times as solicitor to the Director of Public Prosecutions and on his instructions. As an indirect consequence of these events, the proposals brought to Government last week by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in relation to judicial accountability and sentencing policy may impose on the time and resources of the Attorney General and his staff in the provision of legal advice and, if necessary, drafting of legislation.
The report on the involvement of the Chief State Solicitor's office in relation to the case of the DPP v. Sheedy has been laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. In this report the Chief State Solicitor sets out a chronology of events and deals with outstanding issues. He expresses the view that having regard to the extraordinary manner in which the case was dealt with, he is not convinced that any fundamental changes in procedures are necessary.
The report fully addresses the issues raised in the reports of the Chief Justice and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The Chief State Solicitor goes on to conclude that reporting arrangements between his office and that of the DPP need to be improved and that the lack of clarity in listing and notification procedures requires examination and redress. He has directed that the solicitor in charge of the trials section in his office should review cases in the court list before close of business on the date cases are heard.
The Director of Public Prosecutions is independent in his functions and my comments must be confined to matters of administration relating to that office. The DPP has carefully considered the recent reports and does not consider that either report carries any implication for staffing changes in his office. He is consulting with the Chief State Solicitor on reporting procedures.
The more general question as to how the solicitor's service to the prosecution process is organised is currently under examination by the study group on the public prosecution system under the chairmanship of Mr. Dermot Nally. I will await the outcome of that examination before expressing a view on what the appropriate structural arrangements between the DPP's office and the Chief State Solicitor's office should be. The House will be aware that the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality and Women's Rights is conducting an examination of the events surrounding the Sheedy case. Its report will inform any further steps which may be required.
Has the Taoiseach or the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform received any indication from the three persons who resigned because of this extraordinary event that they will appear in public to give an explanation as to why these things happened?
These questions relate to administrative and staffing changes.
They relate to a report which refers to this case as extraordinary. Obviously, we would like to know if something extraordinary happened and why it happened. Has the Taoiseach been able to get an indication as to whether those concerned will appear before a Dáil committee or otherwise to explain matters?
The Deputy will be aware supplementary questions may seek to elicit information only in relation to administrative matters in these offices. It is not in order to look for information as regards decisions taken by these offices on individual cases.
I do not wish to engage in a discussion with the Ceann Comhairle about that matter. I am asking a question which could be answered by a simple yes or no. Has the Taoiseach any indication as to whether we will get an explanation?
I have ruled that it is not in order to seek information on decisions taken by these offices.
It is not possible for the House to assess what changes are necessary in the Chief State Solicitor's office to avoid a recurrence of this event without knowing why it occurred. My question refers directly to the need for and nature of any administrative changes which may have to be made in the offices covered by this question. It is only when we know why it occurred will we know what we should do.
The matter is in the hands of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality and Women's Rights. That committee is conducting the examination into the case.
The matter is not in its entirety in the hands of the committee. The Government agreed to pension arrangements for the people concerned which committed the State to the expenditure of significant sums of money. We need to know why that eventuality has arisen. We also need to know why the reports, which are the subject matter of these questions, were necessary. These reports were necessitated only because of the extraordinary handling of a particular case. If we have answers on the reports, it is reasonable to ask why they were necessary. If the Taoiseach is not able to answer why these reports were necessary, which I assume he is not, will he indicate when he expects he will be able to get the people concerned, who can answer it, to do so?
I will attempt to answer the question within those confines. Deputy Bruton asked if anyone has indicated that they will give further information. The answer is, not at this stage.
I regret that but I anticipate the Government will pursue the matter. Has the Secretary to the Government received detailed written replies to the letters he issued to the two judges and, if so, do those replies contain any additional information to what is already on the public record? Will the full text of the letter issued by the Secretary to the Government to the persons concerned be made public?
If my recollection is correct, the letter issued by the Secretary to the Government is in the public domain.
Only part of it.
That was all that was in the letter but I will check. The letter was fairly short. I do not believe there have been any replies.
Has the Government considered facilitating further explanations being given by issuing privilege to witnesses who might appear to answer questions as to why the chain of events occurred which necessitated the reports? Has the issue of privilege in terms of defamation or the prosecutable nature of anything which might be disclosed been contemplated or has it been requested?
I believe a question was raised on behalf of one of the people involved. The Attorney General and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform have been addressing the reply to that.
Trying to stay within the confines you set, a Cheann Comhairle, I would like to ask a number of questions. On the Government's responsibility to ensure there is a facility in the House for a full debate, has consideration been given to give a specific order to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality and Women's Rights giving it a clear mandate to ensure a facility is put in place to invite the personages, and on what basis?
Will the compellability of witnesses legislation be amended to enable judges or former judges to be summoned to the committee? What is the Government's response to the Chief Justice's statement today which makes another proposal? On the conclusions of the Chief State Solicitor's report, does the Taoiseach agree with the conclusion in paragraph 17 that there is a lack of clarity in court listings and notification procedures in criminal cases and that an examination of this matter would be beneficial and, if so, what does the Government propose to do about it?
In reply to Deputy Howlin's first question, this is a matter which probably relates to the legal advice of the committee. The Attorney General is considering the issue to see how it fits in with the compellability of constitutional positions and related matters.
Is the Government aware of his views?
We will not be aware of them until we get a report from the Attorney General. He has been considering the matter for the past day or two.
It would be useful for the chairman and the committee to receive that report before they proceed.
The Attorney General's views will be useful, as are those expressed by the Ceann Comhairle in a letter to party leaders.
On the question of the Chief Justice's report and its effect on the office of the Chief State Solicitor, the Chief State Solicitor has stated that there is a lack of clarity in the listing procedure. He has called for the system to be amended and I agree with his view. The Chief State Solicitor seems to emphasise that the senior solicitor from his office should effectively carry out an audit of the day's cases against the list. He also intends to cross-reference that with what happens in the DPP's office and intends to meet the DPP to discuss the matter. I have answered questions in this House on a number of occasions about what happens solicitors' work in the prosecution of cases which, since 1974, occurs in the office of the Chief State Solicitor although the office works directly to the DPP. That issue is being examined by the Nally committee which is to make its final recommendations by the end of June.
The Chief Justice today stated he is to receive the report of the working group on the Courts Commission. The report was completed in November and covers judicial conduct and ethics. The sixth report of the working group was published last Friday by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and its recommendations were immediately accepted.
Steps were taken to establish a judicial committee as recommended by the group. The judicial committee comprises the presidents of each court, namely the Chief Justice, the President of the High Court – Mr. Justice Frederick Morris, the President of the Circuit Court – Mr. Justice Edmund Smith and the President of the District Court – Mr. Peter Smithwick. Mrs. Justice Susan Denham, past chairperson of the working group, Mr. Justice Ronan Keane, past president of the Law Reform Commission and the Attorney General, Mr. David Byrne SC, are also members of the committee. The Attorney General will represent the public interest on the committee. The committee will consider the sixth report of the working group on the Courts Commission and consider further the positions which apply in other jurisdictions such as Canada, New South Wales, the US and New Zealand. It will consult the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Bar Council, the Law Society, academics and others, receive submissions from interested bodies, advise on and prepare the way for the establishment of a judicial body which would contribute to high standards of judicial conduct, establish a system for the handling of complaints about judicial conduct and other activities and carry out other preparatory work, including work relating to standards and ethics. The committee will also consider matters which have arisen since the sixth report was finalised last November.
The Chief Justice has stated that it is proposed to commence work immediately and publish a report on the committee's conclusions. The Government totally supports this. The Attorney General will represent the public interest, not the Government but consultation will occur with Ministers and the Government will do everything it can to assist the committee.
Given that it has been stated in recent weeks that the Government will ‘reconsider' the sixth report which has now been published, will the Taoiseach inform the House if, when Mrs. Justice Denham completed the report in November, the Government considered it and rejected its findings or decided not to do anything about it? When did the Government first consider the report and why was it not adopted in November? Did it go before the Cabinet at that time?
A letter from the DPP's office to all State solicitors was attached to the CSSO's report pub lished last Friday. Has the Taoiseach asked the Attorney General what happened the instruction to prosecuting counsel not to participate in plea bargaining behind closed doors? Has he ascertained whether prosecuting counsel participated in such discussions in the Sheedy case after June 1998? The DPP stated that such instruction would be "of doubtful conformity with Article 34.1 of the Constitution". Has the Taoiseach ascertained whether solicitors, barristers or prosecution teams participated in such plea bargaining in the Sheedy case?
I know nothing about that although I am aware that the letter was issued.
Did the Taoiseach ask the Attorney General to ensure the instructions were being followed?
I did not. The DPP is an independent office holder and it would not be a matter for the Attorney General to ensure the contents of any letter sent out by the DPP would be implemented. I assume the DPP's instructions were adhered to; I have no evidence that they were not.
On the sixth report of the working group, the report was discussed by the Department and recently sanctioned by the Government. To the best of my recollection, it was not discussed by the Government around Christmas. There was extensive discussion prior to that between the Attorney General and the committee. The Attorney General made some fairly major submissions as part of the report early last year.
I was talking about the report which recommends some sort of disciplinary code.
So was I.
In the recent statement that the Government was adopting and publishing the report, the word ‘reconsidered' was used. That implies that the report had been considered at an earlier stage. The report was completed last November; did the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform bring it to Cabinet at the time and did the Government decide not to publish it? The report was only published in the past week when the Sheedy case blew up. I am trying to ascertain what happened the report when it was actually completed.
Discussions may have taken place between the Attorney General, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and others but I do not recall the matter being discussed by the Government.
What is the advice offered by the Attorney General on the matter of a serving judge offering or agreeing to appear—
It is not in order to ask about such legal advice. We are dealing purely with the administrative and staffing arrangements for the offices in question.
What is the Government's attitude to a serving judge agreeing to appear before a committee of the House?
The Attorney General is considering the matter.
(Mayo): I want to ask about the performance of the office of the Chief State Solicitor. On 12 November, this case which was originally listed as no. 19 was mysteriously promoted to no. 9. It is now acknowledged that when the case was called, the person representing the office of the Chief State Solicitor, Ms Eileen Creedon, had left the court chamber to take a telephone call. Therefore, the State was not represented by anybody with the right of audience other than a junior law clerk, Mr. Stephen Browne. Has the identity of Ms Creedon's caller been established and what was the call's subject matter? Could this call have been a deliberate attempt to absent Ms Creedon from the court?
The supplementary question is not relevant.
(Mayo): It relates to the performance on the day. The Minister has stated—
The Deputy is asking about decisions made.
(Mayo): We cannot guarantee that this will not happen in the future unless we examine and learn from the lessons of the past.
Regarding the appointment and training of Chief State Solicitors and State solicitors in general, is any training envisaged? Currently, a person who is a solicitor, perhaps not even a court solicitor, can be promoted by virtue of who they know to the position of State solicitor without any training and be cast into a very technical legal world. Is any training envisaged henceforth in the context of the appointment of State solicitors?
I must again point out that any attempt to elicit information regarding decisions taken by these offices in relation individual cases is not in order.
They handled it.
(Mayo): There have been three reports, namely, the report of the Office of the Chief State Solicitor, an excellent report from officials in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and a report by the Chief Justice. In all three reports a crucial element in relation to the non-presence and non-representation of the State on the day in the court has not been listed. We are entitled to establish whether the Taoiseach has any information in relation to this.
Perhaps it is a matter for the committee. It is not in order in the context of these questions. Questions about decisions have been ruled out of order as a number of Deputies who tabled questions will be aware.
This concerns the administration of the Office of the Chief State Solicitor.
If that telephone call had not been made all these reports would not have been necessary.
We cannot embark on an inquisition regarding why or how decisions were taken. Questions in order are those relative to the administration of the office.
Is it not ludicrous—
I have ruled on the matter and the Deputy should resume his seat. A clear ruling on the matter, which is not new, has been given.
(Mayo): I wish to ask the Taoiseach a question which might be in order and which might afford him an opportunity of answering the previous questions if he so desires. How does the Office of the Chief State Solicitor instruct staff representing it on the day in particular court cases? What specific instructions are issued to staff members, particularly legal staff?
This is not a matter for the Taoiseach.
(Mayo): What is the current state of play in relation to instructions dispensed to legal staff representing the Chief State Solicitor? Today he is being represented less than two miles from here and throughout the length and breadth of the country and I am asking the Taoiseach to say what specific instructions are given to solicitors representing the Chief State Solicitor in cases currently before the courts.
And are they asked to be there all the time?
The Deputy has had much latitude on this matter.
(Mayo): I have had no latitude.
The Deputy has had much latitude in the context of the rules of the House.
On a point of order, does the Chair agree that whether or not a telephone is used in mid sitting to convey instructions to solicitors in court is an administrative issue and is relevant to the question which concerns administrative practices in the Office of the Chief State Solicitor? If use of a telephone to communicate with people who have to leave the court in order to receive the message is normal practice, it comes within the remit of the study which has been done. Deputy Higgins is simply asking what information the Taoiseach can give on who initiated this call and why the call necessitated the solicitor leaving the court where the solicitor ought to have been. I submit that this question is entirely with the remit of the Chair's ruling and of the question allowed by it.
Regarding the issue of the Taoiseach's official responsibility to the Dáil in relation to these offices, I must again draw a distinction, as the Chair has always done, between accountability in relation to the administration of the offices in general and decisions in particular cases.
On a point of order—
I ask the Deputy to please allow the Chair to continue. Supplementary questions may seek to elicit information only in relation to the administrative matters of these offices. Any attempt to elicit information regarding decisions taken by any of these offices in relation to individual cases is strictly not in order.
On a point of order, does the Ceann Comhairle agree that the methods of communication used between the office and the court is an administrative matter, that if those methods of communication include telephone calls during court hearings that it is an administrative matter and that that is the subject of Deputy Higgins's question and is, therefore, within the ruling given by the Chair?
But not the decisions made over the telephone.
We are not asking about the decisions made over the telephone. The Deputy asked who made the call, not what was the decision emanating from the call. Is it normal for somebody to absent themselves from the court to take such a call? This is entirely an administrative matter within the ruling given by the Chair and I respectfully submit that the Chair allow the Taoiseach to answer the question if he can and, if he cannot, that he get the information.
The question concerning the use of telephones in an administrative way is perfectly in order.
All I know about this is what is set out in section 9 of the report of the Chief State Solicitor, namely, that Ms Creedon was "out of the courtroom when the case was called. It is likely she was taking a telephone call. It would be quite common for solicitors and clerks dealing with the list to be called away for telephone calls during the business of the court." I do not know who was on the other end of the line. He said it was "likely" she was taking a telephone call so I cannot even tell the House I am certain she was taking a telephone call.
Why did the report of the Office of the Chief State Solicitor, an office for which the Taoiseach is accountable to the Dáil, not establish the actual cause of the absence of the solicitor rather than the likely cause?
I suppose she did not have full recollection when she was asked in April what she was doing during those few minutes in November, although I cannot be sure of this. Apparently, what happened was normal practice. The report also says that Mr. Browne was in the court and could, as regularly happens, have asked proceedings to be halted until Ms Creedon returned. However, this was not done.
While not wishing to comment on the Chair's rulings, I am concerned by the way in which debate during this series of questions and in committee is circumscribed by legal opinion. Parliament should assert its own independence and right in the way the courts repeatedly have for a very long time. Deputies on all sides want to approach this issue on the basis of Parliament being independent and certainly not subservient to the courts.
Hear, hear.
The Taoiseach is directly accountable for the pension arrangements of the judges concerned. He told the House that the issue of whether legislation or an order is required is under consideration. Who is giving the matter consideration and when can we expect a decision? Were any undertakings concerning remuneration and pension rights given to the gentlemen involved before they resigned?
The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is giving consideration to whether the matter should be dealt with by legislation or regulation. I already stated that the matter will come before the House one way or another.
When?
When it is finalised and has been cleared by the Government. Two of the gentlemen, namely, Justice O'Flaherty and the County Registrar, did not ask about pensions. The matter was in discussion with former Justice Kelly but had not reached a conclusion when he resigned.
The answer is that no undertakings were given.
No undertaking was given to the gentlemen involved. The undertaking was in the form of a recommendation by the Minister put forward here last Tuesday.
I wish to clarify that the Chair is guided by Standing Orders and not legal opinion outside Standing Orders.
I am grateful to the Chair for that. The advice available to the committee and to the Chair is guided by legal opinion which I regard as prescriptive, and it is time for Members—
The Chair is only guided by Standing Orders laid down by Members.
Given that the issue of impeachment of judges is a matter for the Oireachtas and not for any committee of the House, has the Taoiseach drawn any lessons from this episode as to how the Oireachtas can inform itself when necessary so that it is in a position to decide when, if ever, it should exercise its constitutional responsibilities in this area? Can any lessons be learned from this episode?
The Deputy is straying far from the subject matter of the questions. He can seek another opportunity to develop his point.
I am asking the Taoiseach a question.
Supplementary questions must relate directly to the subject matter of questions on the Order Paper.
Does the Ceann Comhairle agree the Hamilton report was laid before the House in the context of the constitutional prerogative of the House to impeach judges which is the ultimate sanction?
We are not discussing the Hamilton report. We are dealing with specific parliamentary questions.
Questions Nos. 3 and 4 deal with the Hamilton report.
Yes, but with administrative and staffing changes.
One of those could include placing the House in a position to assess whether impeachment is justified. To make such a decision, one must have means to access information. Has the Taoiseach come to any conclusions, as Leader of the House and Head of the Government, about what means of information the Dáil should have to gain the necessary oversight for the responsible exercise of its constitutional responsibility of potential impeachment?
The question the Deputy asks is important but it is separate to those on the Order Paper. It would be an extremely liberal interpretation of the Chair for it to divine it as supplementary to those questions.
I observe the Ceann Comhairle's liberality on matters of this nature from time to time and I hope he exercises it on this occasion for what is a responsible, moderate and simple question, which is not loaded, asking the Taoiseach how we should exercise our constitutional—
I dispute the direct relevance of the question as a supplementary question to those on the Order Paper.
It is a waste of the time of the House for the Ceann Comhairle and the Leader of the Opposition to spend so much time arguing about matters of this nature.
The Ceann Comhairle's only duty is to ensure compliance with Standing Orders. The Chair has no other function in the matter. I have ruled clearly on the matter.
The Chair allowed Deputy Howlin to ask a question on this matter.
The Chair also allowed Deputy Bruton and many other Deputies to ask wide ranging questions. Unfortunately, it appears that once the Chair gives an inch, some Deputies take a mile.
The Ceann Comhairle will find I am willing to be responsible in these matters and to take advice from the Chair.
I do not dispute that.
I asked a simple and relevant question which is not pointed. The House only has a function in this matter because of the provision in the Constitution which gives it sole power of impeachment. In light of this, does the Taoiseach believe the House has adequate means of informing itself to ensure the necessary oversight is exercised in a responsible way, given that this is a responsibility of the House and not of the Government?
I told the Deputy that it is a separate question. Perhaps he would regard it as such and deal with it accordingly.
Allow the Taoiseach to answer.
Is the Taoiseach satisfied a fresh order of the House with specific terms of reference for the committee is not now required so that evidence can be received—
That question is not directly relevant to the questions on the Order Paper.
It arises from the reports which were the subject of some questions. Surely how we will deal with those reports is an acceptable question. It would be if it were a report on any other matter before the House. Surely it is in order to ask how the House will deal with the matter and to ask the Taoiseach to indicate the Government's view. It is important for the correct, proper and full investigation of these matters that the consideration of the Government and the advice of the Attorney General be available to the House.
Hear hear.
The question does not relate to administration.
We have spent almost 15 minutes of precious time arguing about what can and cannot be asked. If the question had been answered to begin with, we could have proceeded. Question No. 5 asks about staffing and administrative changes which might happen in the Director of Public Prosecution's office. What is the procedure for the DPP to decide to appeal the leniency or severity of a sentence or does he wait until a matter becomes an issue in the newspapers as appears to be so in this case? Is there a proposal to change the method whereby the DPP examines cases under the legislation enacted a few years ago to decide if they require an appeal?
The system is not tight enough as this case shows. Had it been, an error would have been noticed and it would have been seen that something had gone wrong. That did not happen between 12 November and 1 February approximately. The Chief State Solicitor now states that the senior solicitor in his office will have to check to ensure matters are in order every day. A form goes from the Chief State Solicitor's office on every case before court, but without being too critical, that is more concerned with fee payments than it is—
What system exists for the DPP to decide to appeal a case on leniency?
The DPP acts independently in making decisions. He will decide—
What system exists in his office to assist him in deciding to appeal a case?
It would have been brought to his attention in this case.
That was three months later. There should be a system for dealing with such matters.
The difficulty is that, if the correct information is not sent to him, he will not be in possession of all the facts.
The Attorney General will deal with the point made by Deputy Howlin.
