Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 28 Jun 2005

Vol. 605 No. 3

Leaders’ Questions.

Very few people in the country will forget the description, in May 2002, of the campus Ireland project by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform as being "Ceaucescu-like", but recent revelations suggest that this analogy might not be as far-fetched as people imagined. After all, the infamous Romanian tyrant left behind him a battery of extravagant, egotistical, sub-standard, unfinished monuments and buildings, the price for which his people will continue to pay for many years to come. The debacle of the National Aquatic Centre truly is an apt metaphor for the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government — massive costs to the public, a so-called state-of-the-art attraction that is all splash, with fake waves, the roof blown off and leaking like a sieve.

I put it to the Taoiseach that, as the sole promoter and shareholder of this project, he is personally responsible for the huge failures that have been exposed. Does the Taoiseach stand over his statement at the opening of the centre on 10 March 2003 that "a visionary concept has been brought to magnificent fruition"? Will the Taoiseach confirm that the facility is leaking water at the rate of 5 million litres per month and that a consultant's report has found that the original roof structure was substandard, suggesting that either corners were cut or plans were washed away at the construction stage? Were these facts known to the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, who claimed two weeks ago that the €62 million capital expenditure on the project "represents money very well spent" or can we take it that this farce is the benchmark, or rather the tide mark, of Government spending and standards?

Campus and Stadium Ireland Development has stated that the reports in the media relating to the National Aquatic Centre are inaccurate in most respects and it would be inappropriate to comment on any of these issues as there are proceedings before the court.

It might also be embarrassing to have to comment on the issues.

(Interruptions).

The proceedings are before the court. Yesterday, CSID's legal team referred to the situation which has grown murkier and murkier——

Curiouser and curiouser.

I advise all concerned to allow the courts——

(Interruptions).

Everyone should allow the courts to deal with the issue and not be fooled by red herrings, because that is what yesterday's furore in the media is about. I am very sad to see the Opposition aligning itself with the company that CSID has taken to court and acting as its mouthpiece in the House today. Opposition Deputies appear to have no compunction about making public statements on matters before the courts. I agree with CSID that court proceedings should not be prejudiced and will not attempt to prejudge the outcome of the court's deliberations. Once the court proceedings have been completed, CSID will no longer be constrained from putting the facts before the public and answering any questions Deputies, the media or anyone else may have about the various matters before the court.

(Interruptions).

I am happy to outline the factual position for the House. CSID has a legal action in the commercial court against Dublin Waterworld, the operator of the aquatic centre, for breaches of the lease agreement. In the commercial court on 3 June Mr. Justice Peter Kelly made an order regarding the following matters which were the subject of a statement of claim lodged by CSID against Dublin Waterworld.

(Interruptions).

The dispute as to whether Dublin Waterworld is liable to pay VAT of €10,254,600 on the granting of the lease has been referred to arbitration which will be concluded shortly. The dispute regarding repair and maintenance and as to whether Dublin Waterworld has properly maintained the national aquatic centre has been referred to an architect for expert determination. This process is under way as per the court ruling.

On the question of the lease, the remaining issues against Dublin Waterworld for failure to pay rent, the failure to provide audited accounts, thus preventing the profit share to be circulated; the failure to pay insurance on the building; and the failure to establish a sinking fund, are still subject to court proceedings——

(Interruptions).

Please allow the Taoiseach to continue without interruption.

Literally, it has already sunk.

I am reading from the court order.

The court jester.

If Opposition members want to make fun of Mr. Justice Kelly's order, that is a matter for them.

Deputy Burton has been claiming that the national aquatic centre is a pet project of mine. I wish to confirm to the House that this is the case. I am proud to claim it as such. The motivation of the Government in developing the centre in the first place was to provide a 50 metre pool for the country and, specifically, a suitable location for hosting the aquatic events of the Special Olympics. The project was delivered on time and within budget.

As were the cracks in the concrete.

The Taoiseach's time is up.

I only need another minute; I have injury time. Opposition members are giddy because they are getting their holidays.

(Interruptions).

Please allow the Taoiseach to continue without interruption.

He will be on his holidays.

The national aquatic centre has drawn well deserved admiration from those who have visited and used the facilities since the centre was opened just over two years ago.

It is leaking.

It has successfully hosted the Special Olympics Summer Games and later in the same year the European short course championships, both to significant acclaim. In its first year of operation it had close to 1 million visitors which placed it among the top attractions in the country.

(Interruptions).

It continues to be equally popular as a facility for those who love water sports, especially young people, tourists and swimmers of all ages and abilities. Deputy Kenny has referred to a statement made last week by my colleague, the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, who said the capital expenditure provision represented value for money. I fully agree with him.

It is time to retire.

I am glad to receive confirmation from the Taoiseach that this is his pet project and that, therefore, he knows all about it.

It is one of them.

Will the Taoiseach explain who is responsible for the fact that the roof blew off the building——

(Interruptions).

Please allow Deputy Kenny to continue without interruption.

I hope they can put it back up in the Taoiseach's constituency office in St. Luke's.

While I am hugely powerful, I am not the one who will organise it.

I remind the Taoiseach that the wind also blew over a lot of other rooftops, none of which blew off.

It blew off a lot of them.

Who is responsible for the inferior construction of the building and the fact that 5 million litres of treated water is leaking out on a monthly basis?

(Interruptions).

Does the Taoiseach stand over the remarks he made about the shelf company on 26 March 2002, that despite being a shelf company, it was a company not only of substance but of international standing? It was criticised in the High Court yesterday when Mr. Justice Kelly queried the reason a company worth €127 should be given a 30 year lease on an asset worth €62 million. Does the Taoiseach now stand over that statement? Has the company lived up to his expectations? Will he stand over the arrangements whereby the Government entered into an agreement with the company which was sharply criticised in the High Court?

I was in the Mansion House last night to welcome the new Lord Mayor of Dublin, Councillor Catherine Byrne. In the middle of all the pomp and power, I noticed the coat of arms of the Ahern family whose motto reads——

Water wings.

——Per ardua surgo, I rise through difficulties. As the Taoiseach is nearing his escape from the House for his summer holidays, how does he intend to deal with this matter? Does he plan to wade, swim or dive through the difficulties?

I suggest he change the motto.

Since Deputy Kenny has asked for my opinion, the Government is not happy with the performance of the company. While it has done a very good job in Killarney in the Kerry operation, it has not done a good job in this case. That is the reason CSID has brought the company to court. I support the action being taken. Obviously, I do not stand over the remarks made at the time.

I have already answered the question of what happened on 1 January. People have been critical of the damage caused by the freak storm. It is unfortunate it damaged a large number of buildings in the area, uprooted 200 year old trees and hit the centre. A report on the damage was commissioned by the OPW following a request from the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism in consultation with CSID. Its findings were taken into account in agreeing the repair programme with the contractor. Legal, contractual and financial issues are being considered in the light of the report.

Our primary concern at all times must be to protect the taxpayer's investment and that is what we are doing. In spite of all the exaggerations in the newspapers about leaks and cracks, the national aquatic centre is fully operational——

In the Government.

——and bringing endless enjoyment to adults and children, day in, day out, as well as providing a top class facility for our swimming athletes. I was in it ten days ago for a national swimming competition in which children and teenagers from all over the country participated. Since the issues are being dealt with in the courts, CSID is constrained from dealing with them in the media while it is fighting in the courts. I want to see the company win the case and compel Dublin Waterworld to pay. I hope the necessary legal process will resolve the issue.

Does the Taoiseach agree that the state of the aquatic centre is a metaphor for the state of the Government? He has just admitted that the centre and the Government are his own creations; that both are defective and incapable of performing the job they were set up to do. Their foundations are cracked and both are leaking like a sieve. They are swallowing up and wasting taxpayer's money and both are involved in a cover-up and PR bluster.

I refer to one of the cover-ups, the circumstances where as a result of the story in The Irish Times on Saturday we now know that what has been asserted from these benches all this time is true, that both the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform of the day and the Attorney General of the day had full knowledge from the report submitted by then Deputy Commissioner Conroy in August 2000 of what was happening in County Donegal and the circumstances surrounding the framing of the McBrearty family and so on. Despite this, they refused to investigate. They came into this House and voted down a motion tabled by the Labour Party, Fine Gael and the Green Party to have the matter inquired into. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, anxious as ever to give precedence to the necessity to clear himself and make a display of the correctness of his own advice, has dropped the Minister for Arts, Sports and Tourism, Deputy O’Donoghue, into the most serious situation any Minister has experienced in this shambles of a Government.

He has created a circumstance where the Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, is on the run. He will not even appear on "Questions & Answers" when invited. He will not come in here in case he is asked a question about it. I want to ask the Taoiseach a question because he came in here and misled the House as well. He said they only had partial knowledge and not then until November 2001. We know they had the Conroy report in August 2000. Was the Conroy report in any way inadequate and, if the answer is no, why did the Taoiseach promote him to Commissioner? If the answer is yes, why did the Taoiseach fail to investigate the serious matters with which he dealt? That report is a very comprehensive summary of what is in the Carty report. The fact the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is shaking his head and that witness statements were not appended is neither here nor there. If I were Minister for Justice and I or any Minister for Justice got the entire barrow full of the Carty report, he or she would be annoyed. Assistant Commissioner Conroy summarised the gravamen of the allegations in a 37-page legible, intelligible report to these two Ministers and now they are covering up why they failed to investigate one of the most serious public interest issues in this jurisdiction.

That is wrong.

Hear, hear.

Deputy Rabbitte made two points. As we approach the school summer holidays thousands of children throughout the country are using the National Aquatic Centre every day. Therefore, the Deputy is badly informed on this issue and totally wrong.

In February 1999, Assistant Commissioner Carty was appointed by the Garda Commissioner to investigate allegations that gardaí in Donegal had engaged in criminal and unethical behaviour. In July 2000, Assistant Commissioner Carty submitted his report — that was the investigation file — to the Director of Public Prosecutions. In August 2000, Assistant Commissioner Conroy forwarded a 37-page summary of Carty report to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. This was not the Carty report.

Come on, Taoiseach.

The Deputies do not understand this.

Deputy Rabbitte wanted to ignore a judge in the last case and now he wants to ignore the Director of Public Prosecutions. I ask him to please listen. At that stage the Director of Public Prosecutions was considering the Carty report and its recommendations and prosecutions. A number of civil actions related to Donegal were well under way and a number of complaints were then with the Garda Complaints Board. In light of the growing controversy, in June 2001, the Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, sought a preliminary opinion from the Attorney General about the options open to him to have the matter inquired into.

A year later.

The Attorney General replied in June 2001. He required sight of the full Carty report. The Attorney General, while agreeing that a public inquiry was the most attractive option, advised that since tribunals had to be conducted in public it would seriously prejudice the pending prosecutions. He also advised that a tribunal could be established if the truth did not emerge in the pending court cases.

In November 2001, having consulted the Director of Public Prosecutions on foot of the Attorney General's request to see the Garda file, the Garda Commissioner gave an edited version of the Carty report to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. This consisted of those parts of the Carty report considered to be relevant to the defence of the civil actions related to Donegal. This edited version was a very bulky document and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions remarked that it would be difficult for persons reading themselves into the case to make sense of the issues without sight of these papers. Therefore, it was not possible to do it and the Director of Public Prosecutions had declared that.

In November 2001, Mr. Shane Murphy was appointed to review all the papers and advise how best to proceed. The full Carty report was given to the Department in the second half of January 2002. Mr. Murphy submitted his report at the end of that month also.

In February 2002, the Government approved, in principle, the establishment of a tribunal of inquiry and the drafting of a Bill to amend the tribunals of inquiry Act to facilitate the holding of an inquiry allowing a tribunal to hold part of its hearing in private, if necessary, to avoid prejudicing a criminal prosecution. At all times the Minister and the Attorney General were anxious to have the matter fully inquired into. The issue in question was — Deputy Rabbitte knows this because I said this last week — one of prejudicing pending proceedings and that difficulty was overcome only by amending the law, and that is what happened. Those are the full facts.

We know the history of this case now no thanks to the Taoiseach or the Ministers, Deputies McDowell and O'Donoghue. They all gave us conflicting, partial, half answers. It is no thanks to the Minister, Deputy McDowell, that whoever leaked it to whomsoever leaked it, in turn, to The Irish Times that we now know the sequence of events. It now seems the Taoiseach as well as the Minister, Deputy McDowell, will dump on the Minister, Deputy O’Donoghue. The Taoiseach keeps saying he had only a partial report and so on. The Minister, Deputy O’Donoghue, said “The investigation by Assistant Commissioner Carty was completed and presented to me and, in turn, to the DPP” in answer to a question from Deputy Howlin.

I acknowledge this is disquieting and I enjoyed the way the Minister, Deputy McDowell, declared the Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, innocent judicially. I enjoyed his performance last week——

His acquittal of the Minister.

——and his pat on the head for the Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue. He wanted to tell the House that the Minister was blameless——

The Deputy's time is concluded.

——and that is the judicial decree in the matter. The Minister, Deputy McDowell, has declared the Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, to be blameless and innocent, and that this should be good enough for him and that he should skulk off to south Kerry and not appear on "Questions & Answers" or anywhere else to answer questions. The Minister has dropped him in it, and he knows that. The Taoiseach has come in here and said that when the Assistant Commissioner of the day, Noel Conroy, intelligibly put the evidence together from the Carty report in a legible form and submitted it to the Ministers, that this was not the Carty report. I refer to an answer from one of the Taoiseach's predecessors, Mr. Haughey, when he denied that there was any such meeting. The Taoiseach is now denying there was any such report. We are not talking about the investigation file of the Minister, Deputy McDowell, nor about the depth of documents that must be furnished to the Director of Public Prosecutions before a prosecution is mounted; we are talking about the substance, the gravamen, of the allegations made where two citizens were framed for a murder that was never committed. Neither the Taoiseach nor anyone else could answer the question as to why that was redesignated from a murder to a hit and run two years earlier than we were told about it and the Taoiseach allowed a debate to happen in this House to cause a tribunal to be set up and we did not even know Mr. McBrearty and his first cousin did not know that they were no longer under suspicion for murder because it had been redesignated a hit and run two years ago. It is a disgrace. Your combined efforts——

The Deputy had one minute but has spoken for almost three minutes.

——to cover up and to collude in a cover up is reprehensible.

Hear, hear.

Deputy Rabbitte, as always, makes a——

Compelling case.

——number of propositions, which he knows are untrue.

It is sad.

With regard to the quote by the Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, to which he referred, Deputy Rabbitte knows that previously the Minister made it very clear what was the position about the stated facts.

He never did.

It is in the document.

He did not speak on it at all; the Minister, Deputy McDowell, did but the Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, did not.

It is part of the section of the document Deputy Rabbitte raised.

That is not true.

On the issue——

Let this be accurate.

Allow the Taoiseach to continue without interruption.

On the issue of the 37-page document, it did not come to a conclusion as to who was——

It did not need to.

I am answering Deputy Rabbitte. Why do other Deputies keep jutting in? I am trying to answer Deputy Rabbitte.

The Taoiseach is rattled.

The 37-page document does not——

The Taoiseach is rattled.

I am just trying to answer Deputy Rabbitte's questions as opposed to those of four or five Deputies.

The Taoiseach is very rattled.

I point out to the Deputy that I would like to answer the question — it is about important matters.

I point out to Deputy Jim O'Keeffe that this is Deputy Rabbitte's question, not Fine Gael's.

I will start answering everyone if Deputy O'Keeffe wants me to do that. The 37-page document did not come to a conclusion about Mr. Barron.

It summarised the Carty report — I have seen it.

Allow the Taoiseach to continue without interruption.

The Deputy is assuming-——

He is bluffing.

The Minister is misleading the House.

I have seen it and the Minister saw it and denied it.

The Deputy is bluffing.

I ask the Minister, Deputy McDowell, and Deputies Rabbitte and Howlin to keep silent and allow the Taoiseach to continue.

I want to answer Deputy Rabbitte. It is clear that his party does not want me to answer him but I would like to do so. The report of August 2000 from Assistant Commissioner Conroy, of which I said he forwarded a 30-page summary——

A 37-page summary.

——a 37-page summary, did not come to a conclusion about what happened Mr. Barron.

That is why the Taoiseach needs an inquiry.

Deputy Rabbitte was trying to give the impression it did but it did not.

It summarised the Carty report and it justified our request for an investigation.

I ask the Deputy to allow the Taoiseach to continue without interruption.

It did not.

I have seen the report.

So have I.

I know the Minister did but he did not tell us about it.

He saw it five years ago.

I ask the Minister, Deputy McDowell, to allow the Taoiseach to continue without interruption. Members of the Labour Party should allow the Taoiseach the same courtesy that Deputy Rabbitte was given when he submitted the question.

In November 2001, which was a long time after that——

It could have been done two years earlier.

——having consulted the Director of Public Prosecutions on foot of the Attorney General's request to see the Garda file, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions noted that it would be difficult for persons reading themselves into the case to make sense of the issues without sight of these papers. That was a long time after that particular period. The full Carty report was not available until 2002. The Minister had raised the issue the previous year.

It could have been done two years earlier.

He had written asking for advice and looking for the options and that issue was dealt with. Six months after this was done, the Director of Public Prosecutions was still raising the issue of the doubt.

It was a limited inquiry. Deputies McDowell and O'Donoghue could not be investigated.

Since Deputy Rabbitte is intimating that there were divisions between the Minister, me and the Attorney General when everyone knows that was not the case, I will again repeat that it was this Government and not the Opposition which identified the solution to the impasse which existed during this period, namely, the enactment of legislation to enable a tribunal to hold part of its proceedings in private to avoid possible prejudice, which was a difficulty. The then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue——

He could not be investigated by the inquiry.

——brought forward that amending legislation to facilitate this. That is why we passed in this House the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence)(Amendment) Act and that is why we have the Morris tribunal today. Those are the facts.

The Taoiseach has not told anything like the full story in so far as investigations indicate. Does he believe in the basic wisdom that justice delayed is justice denied? On that basis will he explain to the House whether he finds it satisfactory that when the former Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue, received the report of the Carty investigation, over nine months elapsed before the advice of the Attorney General was sought?

On the basis of the questions which arise from that, would the Taoiseach not like to see a Private Notice Question on which Deputy Cuffe has been working on behalf of the Green Party in which Deputies O'Donoghue and McDowell could answer for their lack of actions in the course of this saga? Not only was there a nine-month delay, when the advice was sought, the full file was not made available to the Attorney General, as we now know. Was that not unacceptable to the Taoiseach?

Is he not, as Taoiseach, duty bound to hold to account Ministers who displayed such ineptitude and prevarication on a matter which has not only cost the State a great deal of money, but has also damaged the reputation of the Garda Síochána and generated enormous trauma and pain, particularly for the McBrearty family and others? Will he not take responsibility as Head of Government and initiate action about what we now know to have been ineptitude and prevarication?

The Deputy is again raising the issue of the delay. As I have already stated, the reason for the nine-month delay was that the DPP was considering the file over that period. Even in November 2001, a long time after that period, the Office of the DPP——

And the Government.

——remarked that it would be difficult for persons reading themselves into the case to make sense of the issues without sight of the papers. That was the position. The Director of Public Prosecutions, the Attorney General and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform were all concerned, but there were cases pending and this could not simply be ignored. That was the issue.

In the light of the controversy that was growing, in the summer of 2001 the then Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, sought the Attorney General's advice about the options that were open to him. He got a quick reply which said the Attorney General could not make a judgment on that until he saw the full Carty report. That was in June. In November the DPP was saying the same thing.

To try to paint the picture now that the Attorney General and the DPP had the full Carty report, as some Members maintain, when the fact is that they did not and two officers of the State——

He told the House he had.

Yes, he told the House he had it.

He did not say that.

The Deputies are misleading the House again.

It is Deputy Sargent's question. The Taoiseach, without interruption.

It is a pity, just to try to confuse issues, that Members of the House——

(Interruptions).

There is no confusion in my mind about this. The Attorney General, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Garda Commissioner and the assistant Garda commissioner, Mr. Carty, knew there were cases pending.

What about screening?

The Director of Public Prosecutions was dealing with those cases. The Attorney General was not prepared to give the options and the DPP was not prepared to go to finality until they saw the full report. That is what happened and no amount of bluster will change that position.

It was too late to vote down a tribunal of inquiry motion.

Statutory officers of the State have stated they were not proceeding until they got the full report. Neither did they——

It was covering up.

——and when they did, this Government acted. Those are the facts.

They are not the facts.

The former Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue, told the House on 23 May 2001: "The investigation by Assistant Commissioner Carty was completed and presented to me and, in turn, to the DPP." The Minister implied that he had received the Carty report, not just Deputy Commissioner Conroy's synopsis of it, before passing it on. Even if it was only a synopsis, the Taoiseach knows this is damning. To hide behind it as if it were some type of innocent document that does not tell the full story is in itself a perversion of the truth. The Taoiseach has not answered why the full file of the investigation was not passed over to the Attorney General.

I would like to tease this out. The Taoiseach suggests that because the DPP is addressing a matter, somehow there is a wall of silence between Cabinet Ministers and the Attorney General. Is it not the case that the Attorney General is employed, very handsomely, to give political advice?

Legal advice.

Legal advice of a political nature, I would argue, in terms of the Government. Not to ask for that is, in itself, an irresponsible lack of action. Does the Taoiseach not accept that on the back of that delay by the then Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, the Attorney General was involved in prosecuting criminal cases in which we now know the State to have been in the wrong? Is the Taoiseach not duty bound as Head of Government to hold to account the people who brought about that farcical situation and, in turn, wasted an enormous amount of money, damaged the reputation of the Garda Síochána and sentenced the McBrearty family to years of trauma, which was completely unjust and of which they were innocent? As Taoiseach he is required to take action.

I should not have to, but I will, remind Deputy Sargent that the Attorney General does not prosecute criminal cases. Since 1975 it is the Director of Public Prosecutions. That change was made 30 years ago, so the basis of his argument is incorrect.

This is the second time in this debate today that Members have stated what the Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, did at the time. They know that, on the record, just prior to the section they quote from, he made it absolutely clear that he had not seen——

He did not.

It is on the record of the House to be read.

He did not.

Deputy Howlin should allow the Taoiseach to speak. It is Deputy Sargent's question. He is entitled to hear the answer without interruption and so is the rest of the House.

We are entitled to hear the truth.

Deputy McManus is not a member of the Green Party.

I am not the Taoiseach either.

The Taoiseach, without interruption.

The Minister said that he had not seen the Garda file.

The Taoiseach should set some standards.

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions of the time all stated that they could not proceed until they saw the full Carty report.

They said nothing of the kind.

I have just given the references.

They did not say anything of the kind.

I ask Deputy Rabbitte to allow the Taoiseach to continue, without interruption.

I have just given the references but I will give them again. In light of the growing controversy in June 2001, the then Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, sought a preliminary opinion, in writing, from the Attorney General about the options open to him to have the matter inquired into. The Attorney General replied in June 2001. The reply cited the full Carty report. That is one reference.

In November 2001——

Privately.

I do not why the Deputy is justifying himself. He seems worried. I am just giving facts; I am not blaming the Deputy.

It is not a fact. None of these events took place in public.

We are dealing with a question tabled by the Green Party and Deputy Sargent is quite competent to deal with it.

We have had approximately 20 interruptions. I am just giving facts and the Deputy is trying to twist them.

They are not facts.

I ask Deputy Howlin to remain silent.

In November 2001, the edited version was a bulky document but the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions remarked that it would be difficult for persons reading themselves into the case to make sense of the issues without sight of the full report and the papers. That was the second reference. What I have outlined is, therefore, the factual position.

It is bluster.

Lastly, in February 2002, when the Government approved in principle the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) (Amendment) Bill 2002, it did so when it received the full Carty report. Those are the facts and I cannot change them. I cannot give Deputy Sargent anything other than the facts.

The Taoiseach should apologise.

He should hold the Minister to account.

There is no question of anyone apologising when the law officers of the State made clear determinations at the time, all of which are on the record. The fact that Opposition Deputies are trying to paint a delay——

There was a delay.

The delay was due to the reasons I gave. As I said, it was this Government——

They are spurious reasons.

If that is the Deputy's attitude, then the DPP, the Attorney General, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and everybody else is spurious. I do not agree with him.

Deputy Sargent, the leader of Deputy Gormley's party, is competent to deal with the question.

I reiterate that it was the Government, not the Opposition, which identified the solution that is working successfully.

It was not the Government; it voted down the solution two years earlier.

While I recognise that Opposition Deputies feel guilty about all of that now, that is a matter for them.

For the information of the House, we went 13 minutes over time on Leaders' Questions today.

It was worth it.

Barr
Roinn