Taoiseach, you are welcome to the House for statements on the report of the Attorney General. I remind Senators that the time limit per Senator is ten minutes. I hope to have the co-operation of the House. I hope that perhaps by sharing and by helping one another we will have as many speakers as possible. I now have pleasure in calling the Taoiseach to address the House.
Attorney General's Report: Statements.
I am delighted to have the opportunity, my last opportunity to return to the Seanad and to attend this very important debate.
On the appointment of the new Attorney General, Mr. Eoghan Fitzsimons, S.C., the Minister for Justice on my behalf instructed him to conduct a full and detailed investigation of the extradition case involving Fr. Brendan Smyth. The Attorney General's investigation has now been completed and his comprehensive report has been placed in the Library. Senators may not have had an opportunity to study the report fully but I can assure them that it is an exhaustive one and it shows up serious deficiencies in the procedures which were in place in the Attorney General's office at the relevant time for the processing of extradition cases. The investigation involved a full examination of the Smyth case, all extradition files, files since 1987 and the questioning of persons concerned. This comprehensiveness was what I had sought from the outset.
It would be useful at the outset of this debate to give Senators details of the conclusions to which the Attorney General has come. These are; that the seven months delay was totally unacceptable notwithstanding the explanations given; that the only person who knew of the Fr. Smyth extradition request and warrants was Official A in whose custody the file remained at all times from the date of the commencement of the extradition process until the time the controversy arose; that there is no evidence that any outside influence was involved in the delay in the processing of the warrants; that neither the former Attorney General nor the Government were made aware of the existence of the Fr. Smyth extradition request until the controversy arose in the Autumn of 1994; that the Smyth case was not the first case in which section 50 (2) (bbb) of the Extradition Act, 1965 as amended was considered; that inaccurate information was given to the Taoiseach, the Minister for Justice and the Chief Whip; that the procedures in place in the Attorney General's office at the relevant time for the processing of extradition cases were seriously defective; and that had the new procedure of the Attorney General seeing the warrants personally been in place, it is clear that no delay would have occurred. These conclusions speak for themselves.
In his introduction to the report, the Attorney General points out that he set out to establish facts — in so far as that is possible — in the Fr. Smyth case. He further states that it is a matter of great concern to him — as it was to his predecessor, Mr. Whelehan — that a seven month delay could occur in the office in the handling of a file in any case, more particularly in this type of case. New procedures have been put in place to ensure there would be no repetition of what happened. All extradition cases are now receiving the personal attention of the Attorney General as soon as they arrive in the office. All cases involving children will equally receive top priority.
The Attorney General's report deals in detail with other relevant extradition cases. Specifically, it refers to the fact that since 1987, apart from the Smyth and Duggan cases there have been four other extradition requests in child sex abuse cases. In two of these cases there were delays of eight and ten years respectively between the date of the alleged initial commission of the offences in respect of which the warrants were issued. In none of these four child sex abuse cases was the section in the Extradition Act, 1965, as amended by the 1987 Extradition Act which deals with the issue of lapse of time, considered. The Attorney General's office dealt with three of these cases most expeditiously. In the fourth case the UK authorities withdrew the application to extradite seven months after the draft warrants were received. The UK authorities had failed to answer Irish queries in the meantime.
The Attorney General's investigation also brought to notice four other cases where the issue of lapse of time arising under the section was in fact considered. These are detailed in the report. Three involved terrorist type offences and one the offence of rape. Initially it was thought that the Duggan case was the only one apart from the Smyth case where the section was considered. The four additional cases recently discovered are further examples of cases in which the section was considered.
I wish to mention specifically the section in the Attorney General's report which deals with recent Dáil questions relating to the Smyth case. In the course of her reply the Minister for Justice stated her understanding that the Smyth case was the first in which provisions had arisen for consideration since the enactment of the 1987 Extradition Act. This was a reference to section 50 (2) (bbb) of the 1965 Act as amended. The Attorney General points out that the information on the basis of which this answer was given was furnished by the Attorney General's office and was incorrect where the section was concerned. In consequence the Minister inadvertently misled the Dáil when giving the answer. The Attorney General clearly states that the blame for the giving of the incorrect answers in that case and in statements made by the Chief Whip, Deputy Dempsey, in the Dáil on the following day, lay with the Attorney General's office.
I would also like to deal with the section of the report which addresses the suggestion of outside influence which could be responsible for the delay in the processing of the Smyth file. The Attorney General's investigation concludes that there is no evidence whatever on the file to justify any suggestion of this nature. As regards the rumours circulating in Leinster House on 16 November, the Attorney General was requested by me to question all professional members of the Attorney General's office on the issue of whether any outside source, a person or an organisation, had made any contact with any of them with a view to discussing or making representations regarding the case. The Attorney General personally interviewed each official and received assurances from each which would negative absolutely any suggestion that such contacts had been made. The former Attorney General confirms that there is no basis whatever for this suggestion in so far as he is concerned. As regards the official who was dealing with the file, the Attorney General has received an absolute assurance from him on this issue. The Attorney General states that the official is known to be a person of high integrity and in the absence of any evidence pointing to a contrary conclusion, his word must be accepted.
The seven month delay in dealing with the Smyth case is dealt with in the Attorney General's report. The official dealing with the matter informed the Attorney General that he could have completed his study of the particular legal question within the period of three working days if he could have had time without interruptions. The official points out, however, that it is unreal to expect him to have been able to deal with the matter in such a way due to the inordinately heavy demands on his time. The other explanations given by the official for the delay are as follows: the erroneous assumption made by the official that Fr. Smyth was residing at Kilnacrott Abbey and that in consequence he was not a danger to the community at large; the fact that the UK authorities and/or RUC did not press the extradition requests and made no contact with the Office of the Irish Attorney General regarding the matter until 20 September 1993, thereby indicating a lack of urgency in so far as they were concerned, and pressure of other work which was viewed by the official as being entitled to have priority.
The Attorney General's conclusions on the delay are clear and unambiguous. The combined effect of the factors mentioned meant that the file was simply not processed and — the legal work apart — lay dormant for seven months. The official concerned has tendered a written apology to me, the Government and the Attorney General which is included in the report.
As I said earlier the conclusion of the Attorney General is that the seven month delay was totally unacceptable, notwithstanding the explanations given. This is entirely in line with what I said in the Dáil on 15 November when I pointed out that there was an inexcusable delay in the handling of this case and the failure could not be excused. The Attorney General also concludes that the procedures in place in the Attorney General's office at the relevant time for the processing of extradition cases were seriously defective. Had the new procedure been in place, it is clear that no delay would have occurred.
The Attorney General's conclusions in relation to the seriously defective procedures in the Attorney General's office are very much the same conclusions that were reached by the review group on the Attorney General's office which provided an update on its work to the Government yesterday. For the background information of Senators, I should say that in view of the seriousness of the issues which arose in connection with the Fr. Smyth case, I decided that there should be a thorough immediate review of the operations of the Office of the Attorney General. This review is being carried out by a high level group chaired by the Secretary of Public Service Management and Development in the Department of Finance and comprising the Secretary to the Government and the Secretary of the Department of Justice. The terms of reference of the group are to review and make recommendations on the relevant organisational structure, systems, procedure and staffing arrangements in the Office of the Attorney General.
I want to repeat here what I said in the Dáil yesterday. It is clear from the review group's update that there are serious shortcomings in a number of areas in the administration of the office. The Government is gravely disturbed by these findings and has concluded that as a first step an immediate input of appropriate senior level management expertise to the office is essential. The group has advised that its final report due within two weeks will include a recommendation for the appointment of a person who would fill that management role. In the light of this report and pending the appointment of such a person the Government has decided that immediate management expertise must be brought into the Attorney General's office to assist the Attorney in the running of the office.
To this end it has been decided that a senior official will be seconded to the office to oversee the introduction of modern management systems and procedures and to commence the initial phase of implementation of the other recommendations which will be available to the Government within two weeks. The official seconded is Mr. Caomhin O hUiginn BL. a senior Assistant Secretary in the Department of Justice, who will report directly to the Attorney General. Mr. O hUiginn has already started work in the office.
There is no question of the Government attempting to excuse the serious failures which have come to light. The task now must be to ensure that it never happens again. I believe that the steps which have been taken by the Attorney General and by the Government will ensure this.
I wish to state categorically that there was never any intention on my part to mislead Members of the Dáil or anybody else in this matter. The simple fact is that the full implications of issues which arose from the written and considered views of the Attorney General were not known to me until I returned from the Dáil after the debate on Tuesday, 15 November. I decide there and then that these matters should be brought to the House the following day, which I did. In fact, it is clear from the Attorney General's report to me now that other salient and relevant facts have only emerged in the last day or so. It is obvious from the Attorney General's report that he himself only became aware of additional facts in the past few days. It is, therefore, self evident that it was impossible for me to have all the facts on the Tuesday in question, given the situation in the Attorney General's office and specifically the inability to retrieve the full information from their filing system.
I welcome the Taoiseach to the House. He has always been welcome here. He was here on a number of important and historic occasions during his time as Taoiseach. It is perhaps a pity that we in this country do not have the facility which exists in the Italian Parliament where former Prime Ministers become members for life of the Senate. However, the category of former prime minister is getting somewhat crowded — we would need a few extra seats here. In any event, on behalf of my party I wish him every happiness in his political and personal life from this point on.
Senators
Hear, hear.
The report from the Attorney General's office leaves more questions unanswered than it answers. That is precisely why this morning I asked that the Attorney General be given the opportunity to address the Seanad this evening and to answer questions for himself, the questions which have been exercising all of us these past few weeks.
The Taoiseach is here and he is of course responsible for the Attorney General's office. However, in the circumstances, I do not think that the presence of the Taoiseach alone is sufficient. After all, the Taoiseach is a major player in the drama which is going on. He is the most public and high profile victim of the entire operation. He is not, by any standards, an objective or disinterested witness. He has his own part in the whole drama to justify. He may even have some scores to settle. He has points to make, certainly. In short, on this question the Taoiseach cannot be, however hard he tries, a fully credible objective witness. That is why we sought this morning to have the Attorney General here but that was ruled against at the meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges for reasons which I understand.
The confusion which surrounds the appearance of this report has been added to by the extraordinary media briefing which took place last night. The circumstances of this briefing are bizarre, its purpose is shrouded in mystery and the motivation for it is difficult to fathom. Here we have a situation where a briefing takes place, on behalf of an acting interim Government on a highly sensitive document two hours before a Cabinet meeting, 12 hours before the Cabinet Ministers actually got hold of the report.
More than that, the briefing was highly selective. What is even more crucial is that this was not a question of a sudden rush of blood to the head of the Government press secretary. He was not going off on a solo run. He was acting under instructions and the briefing was clearly orchestrated by the acting Taoiseach. The question is: why?
I would have to deny that.
I am asking a question which is being asked around these Houses today, a question which has provoked endless speculation and rumours which would make even Deputy Rabbitte seem understated. The question is why this briefing took place last night. It would be helpful if the circumstances around that briefing could be clarified for all of us here this evening.
The report is a tale of monumental, breathtaking incompetence. On this report alone the Government deserves to be indicted. We have an Attorney General's office run along Victorian lines. We almost wonder if they have high stools and quills over there, if they come back pinching snuff and sipping port after lunch in their gentlemen's clubs. We have an Attorney General's office which is not computerised, with a clearly inadequate filing system, virtually no retrievable indexes, little delegated authority, antiquated work practices and an Attorney General who is part time and topping up his State salary with rich pickings from the Law Library. When we read this report we have to ask if we are living in 1994.
I say to the Taoiseach that this is his responsibility — his and his Government's and his predecessors who condoned this type of situation, who have not given the resources or who have not demanded the type of performance which should be expected of the Attorney General's Office, the highest standards of administration and efficiency. Even when the warning lights were flickering nobody seemed to be able take action to address what was obviously a situation likely to boil over at any particular moment. The incompetence of the Attorney General, the inadequacies in his office, reflect directly on the Government.
When we look at the report we ask what is the main thrust and the main burden. At its most simple, the report blames one man — Official A. Since the whole world knows who Official A is, there seems to be little point in continuing the fiction of referring to this person as Official A. It is rather like one of those British political sex scandals of the 1960s where there was endless speculation as to who the headless man was — the man whose head, but nothing else, had been disguised in the famous photographs. It is reminiscent of something bizarre. We see even this evening on television the juxtaposing of certain news items. Everybody knows who we are talking about and in this age of responsibility and accountability I do not see the point of continuing the fiction about Official A.
The report makes clear that this man received the warrants. He kept them in his possession and did not tell Mr. Whelehan about them. He forgot some of the details. He forgot about other major cases which might have been relevant. He gave misleading information to the Attorney General and to the Government, who in turn misled the Dáil. On the basis of this report, the Dáil was probably misled unintentionally.
However, the report still does not tell us why all these things were done. We are told that perhaps he took the view that since Father Smyth was believed to be residing in Kilnacrott Abbey he was not a danger. However, that was not his job. His job was to act as laid down in law. His job was not to play God, to decide whether a person who was wanted on an extradition warrant to appear on very serious charges in another jurisdiction might reoffend. That was not his job. The excuse about there being no pressure from the RUC does not stand up, nor does the whole question of being overworked. Clearly, at the very least, there is a question of priorities and of judgments and on all of these it falls down.
The report simply does not tell us why all these things happened — the failure to tell the Attorney General and the incredible forgetfulness regarding major cases. Why the delay? The report rules out outside influence but could there have been some sort of subconscious desire not to embarrass the Catholic Church — which was not sought by the Catholic Church — on the part of the official concerned? Was there some other agenda? Again, we just do not know. The report says that there was not. We are asked to accept this denial at its face value but we still do not know.
On the question of Mr. Whelehan, the report is ambiguous. He did nothing wrong, nothing dishonourable and those who know him would expect no less. However, the report is scathing of his lack of grasp of what was going on in his office, the fact that he just did not seem to be on top of what was going on and his inability to get to the root of the problem in the way that Mr. Fitzsimons could do in two or three days or less. On his inability, when his job and the future of his Taoiseach and his Government depended on it, to get on top of the facts and come up with a true statement the report is rightly, I am afraid, scathing. It is also scathing of his incredible misjudgment in placing such faith in his top officials.
The report is clear, inexpensive and, unlike the Beef Tribunal, it actually comes to conclusions. It tells a lot and explains very little. It is, to some extent irrelevant, because it tells us nothing about the questions at the core of the break up of this Government — the 14 questions enunciated by Vincent Browne in Wednesday's edition of The Irish Times and the seven questions which Deputy John Bruton put on the record of the Dáil yesterday. It tells us nothing about the key questions at the core of the breakdown of trust in the just dead Government.
Nonetheless, I welcome this report because, at the very least, it has clarified a number of important aspects and I wholeheartedly accept the Taoiseach's determination that the Attorney General's Office will be reformed, root and branch, as expeditiously as possible.
With regard to the point made by Senator Manning in his contribution now and earlier, the Committee on Procedure and Privileges met at 2 p.m. It examined the proposal sympathetically but came to the conclusion that it was not an issue contemplated by the Standing Orders. The Committee undertook to examine the manner in which such requests could be facilitated in the future. That was the result of our findings.
Senator Manning was generous in his opening statement and I certainly welcome that. He referred to the Taoiseach as a victim. A man of integrity and honour has been destroyed by these events. More than the destruction of this man and all that he aimed for, we have a problem in that these events go to the core of the way we govern, and raise very serious questions which have to be answered. I acknowledge Senator Manning's generosity in recognising the willingness and anxiety of the Taoiseach and the Government to address the issues which have come to the fore.
Sadly at this stage apologies are of very little use because the damage has been done. I am pleased nonetheless that this report has been published because it tells us a huge amount about public administration and the way we administer Ireland. It deals with events which are unparalleled in the life of the nation and with the facts in a way that we have never seen them dealt with before. It examines how a constitutional office of central importance in the administration of the life and affairs of this nation is organised.
We can be nothing but amazed that the office should, at this late stage in the 20th century, operate as it has. There are both administrative and political lessons to be learnt from this report. This report does not give any justification for new spins on the events of recent days or for any further attacks on the integrity of leading politicians here.
One central fact that emerges is that the office of the Attorney General seems to be unsullied by anything approaching administrative efficiency. There seems to be, for example, no central registry and no record of precedents which are very important in a law office. There seems to be no evidence of any tracking system to ensure that important matters are not simply deflected or swallowed up in the day to day activities of any law office. The workings of the office seem to depend on that most elusive and frail of all factors, human memory. Human memory in the age of the computer, the Xerox machine and automated retrieval systems is not the basis on which the Attorney General's office should function.
The report, at paragraph 30, chronicles the lapses. It states that Official A was not conscious of the Duggan case and had apparently forgotten or overlooked the facts of the case. Official B did not recall the Duggan file when the investigation commenced. At paragraph 34 it says that "the former Attorney General states that he had forgotten the cases dealt with by him when the report was being prepared." He was depending on Official A and Official A's regrettable lapses of memory are already chronicled.
In paragraph 35 the former Attorney General states that he was not aware of the facts of the State (Ellis) v. O'Dea case or that these facts were germane to the Symth case, the case on which the Government had asked him to report. In the same paragraph Official A indicates again that he had not thought of this case. What are the people to think of this? What are we, as the politicians elected to take command of the administrative structures, to think of all of this? Surely in an era of modern information technology, a central and sensitive institution of State such as the Attorney General's office should have been better organised.
Senator Manning also recognised however that the errors, lapses, omissions and extraordinary administrative facts of the Attorney General's office did not come to the fore during the life of this administration. They have been there over the last ten, 20, 50, 70 years of the State. The quill pen may have gone out and the biro may have replaced it but certain modern information technology has not yet breached those walls.
On the issue of memory lapse perhaps one of the most intriguing aspects of the document is the letter reproduced at page 27. This is an apology from official A. I accept what Senator Manning said about this fiction. It is time that the fictions which surround public administration were swept aside. This letter offers an apology to the Attorney General, the Government and the previous Attorney General for events which led to the resignation of the Taoiseach, the Government and the President of the High Court and which plunged the Government of this State, the Dáil and the nation into an unprecedented crisis. Members may, as I do, find it odd that no apology to the people is appended. They are entitled to an apology.
Other than illuminating the shambles in the administrative arrangements which have applied for years in the Attorney General's office, the report is valuable in a number of other key areas given the debate that has taken place over the last few weeks. The most important question is whether the Dáil and the people were deliberately misled by this administration.
Anybody who is fair-minded, impartial or willing to accept the facts laid before them, must now accept that there was no intention or effort to mislead. There was not any attempt to do anything other than bring all the facts before the people as they became available. It is clear from the report that the Attorney General accepts without equivocation, as should Members of this and the other House, the people outside and the cynics that make up the great body of our media, that the information supplied by the Attorney General's office at key points was inaccurate. Due to human frailties inaccurate information was supplied to the Taoiseach, his Government and the Minister for Justice.
Another important point was dealt with in the Taoiseach's speech, touched on by Senator Manning and dealt with in the Attorney General's report. The manner in which the Minister for Justice handled her questions in the Dáil is now explained to us as is the way the Chief Whip handled his questions. If we are fair-minded and objective or if we care a whit about the concept of justice and how we treat each other, we have to accept that, as in the case of the Taoiseach, the Minister for Justice and the Chief Whip did not intentionally at any time mislead the Dáil or the people.
If there is any evidence that this is not the case it should be laid before us. The Attorney General makes it clear at page 16 that any misleading of the Dáil in replies to parliamentary questions to the Minister for Justice was inadvertent and based on information which the Minister in good faith accepted from the Attorney General's office. On page 17 the Chief Whip is similarly exonerated and on page 17 the Attorney General says: "The blame for the giving of incorrect answers lay with this Office." That should be the end of the affair in so far as the issue of where blame lies is concerned.
During the Dáil debate there was an electrifying moment which Members will remember. I know Senator Manning had it in mind when he referred to Deputy Rabbitte. That Deputy stood up and indicated to the Ceann Comhairle, with all the great theatrics he can bring to one of those magic moments in Dáil Éireann, that there existed a document in the Attorney General's office that would rock the very foundations of this State. The word went around Leinster House that there existed a letter or communication from a senior figure in the Catholic Church which contributed to the delay in the Smyth case.
Deputy Rabbitte is of course known for making allegations which are later shown to be without any foundation. Mr. Justice Hamilton rejected claim after claim by this public representative as being without foundation in the costly beef tribunal report. Deputy Rabbitte has not explained himself or apologised for those false claims. He should now have the honour and the integrity to come before the other House and either explain or produce the evidence to support the allegation he made that day. It is important as we are talking about integrity——
On a point of order, is it appropriate to refer to a Member of the other House in this manner?
Senator Roche has one minute left and I ask him to endeavour to refrain from naming people who are not present.
Simply because I only have one minute left, I will not argue with you a Chathaoirligh. However you will see as well as I do the hypocrisy of this intervention.
Ministerial responsibility and the issue of responsibility in public office is also brought to the fore in this report. Elsewhere, I described the concept of ministerial responsibility as a farce at the very heart of public administration in this country. I am pleased that the Tánaiste indicated that high on his agenda of administrative reforms will be the issue of establishing where responsibility lies for public administration. This report clearly indicates that the concept of ministerial responsibility — which on this occasion lay with the Taoiseach and which, to his eternal credit, he accepted with great dignity — is shown to be a tragedy and not just a farce in Irish public life.
I wish to address a series of issues. One is the issue of openness in Government. We have before us a clear and concise report. It does not provide all the explanations. Sometimes things are totally inexplicable. I cannot understand why an official sat on that file for seven months but must accept that is the reality and that there is no political fault here.
To begin on a personal note, I thank the Taoiseach for his courtesy in all his dealings with me — as Minister and Taoiseach. I regret he is leaving under these circumstances but I am sure he will say "c'est la vie” and move on.
History will record the truths and the facts.
My comments will deal with the report only. The new Attorney General has carried out a fine job and I congratulate him. I also wish him well in undertaking a new job in the eye of a storm. I have full confidence in him. The Taoiseach will be aware that our union proposed him to take over the job as arbitrator in the public service during the last number of years.
The report appears to be open, comprehensive and a credit to the man who compiled it. I agree with all Senator Manning's comments, with one exception. It is unfair — and I do not think he intended it to be so — to reflect on an extraordinarily hardworking group of people in the Attorney General's office and I will have specific comments to make about them later. However, they worked hard under extraordinary circumstances. References to quills and so forth should not reflect on them. We are dealing with a specific issue here.
The situation over the last number of weeks has undermined people's trust and confidence in Government. It has turned the sceptics into cynics and the cynics into people who have peripheralised themselves out of the political system altogether. We have lost politically over the last weeks. It is not possible to go through all the details of the explanation given in the report but some issues are significant.
The explanation by the new Attorney General about the use of the term "the previous application of the new Extradition Act, 1987" is significant. I believe that the official who used those words was setting out to mislead everybody who read it. There can be no doubt about it. The application of that section of the Act has only one result, to stop an extradition or not execute the warrant. It was never applied before but it was considered in all the cases which have come to light. The information was given in such a way that the impression was given that as it was never applied before it was, therefore, never used before. It is unacceptable, untrue and was included to mislead deliberately which it did.
The God-like manner of Official A in determining that because somebody was at the address of a religious order he was prevented from dealing with children around the area or anywhere else is totally unacceptable. The fact that the cases referred to occurred 20 years ago makes no difference. There is such a high rate of recidivism in paedophile offenders that it was not for him to make this judgment. The paltry attempt by Official A to tell us he was busy and, therefore, could not get through the workload in that period of time is also unacceptable. Busy people set priorities. We have all heard the saying "if you want something done, ask a busy man to do it". If something should not be done there is nobody better than a busy person to stop it happening. That is the message that comes through to me today.
I also question the assertion that the Attorney General never saw this file. Sometime — tonight is not the time — I would like an official response as to where that puts the role of the Attorney General in the context of the Minister and Secretaries Act and other legislation which require the senior person to take responsibility and does not confer the right to devolve authority on certain issues to lesser mortals within his jurisdiction. An error was made at that time. The extradition legislation is very clear. It does not allow for the devolution of power. The Attorney General's signature was not the impact required by the Bill.
It is misleading to characterise this as a seven month delay. This delay could have stretched to infinity. The official had been contacted at least three times by the British Attorney General's office which also contacted the Garda Síochána. Nothing was done and the file was left lying there. It could not have been forgotten. At least, he did not try to mislead us by saying that he had forgotten. He was reminded three times and he still refused to deal with it.
This report — comprehensive as it is — is neither a justification nor an adequate explanation for the delay. It gives us information but it does not inform us about the reason for the delay. It fails on every count.
I wish to draw attention to the apology in the report. If ever I have seen a letter — and I am used to dealing with such letters in my day job — that smacks of cynicism and contempt, it is that letter. It is a model of what a trade union official would ask a worker to write to get him off the hook but not to apologise. We saw something similar here this morning in other circumstances when somebody wanted to distance himself from something without actually apologising for it. That apology is breathtaking. It is worth examining; it is a disgrace. He apologises for the incompleteness and incorrectness of some of the information and for the embarrassment — misspelt — he caused certain people. He offers an 11 line periodic sentence which is impenetrable. I have consulted my able colleague, Senator Norris——
James Joyce himself.
——and we are at odds as to its precise meaning. Enormous effort is required to understand the sentence.
There is no mention of resignations, of Governments being brought down, of careers gone down the drain or of jobs lost. There is no mention of families in pain. There is no mention of children at risk. There is no mention of the people of this country. It is a thorough disgrace.
Senators
Hear, hear.
It is similar to apologising to the people of Hiroshima for destroying their water supply. It simply does not address the issue. I reject the apology.
I have a record in this House of defending public officials and people in the public service but this apology is unacceptable. It is an insult to the people and to our public representatives. I have no doubt that Eoghan Fitzsimons published it with a thorough understanding of what it meant. I congratulate him for publishing it. It gives us a clear insight into this man.
If the report is the total story — and I am not taking political sides — it denies that there was political interference. There is no indication of a cardinal or a Taoiseach or a Minister or an Attorney General being involved. That is not to say that they should not have been involved in a different way. However, this man made a decision to delay this extradition. He did not do so because the case concerned child abuse — he had dealt with such cases previously — but because he had another agenda. A question has been raised about the influence of organisations such as Opus Dei in high offices of the State. It is time that we returned to the position of Dr. Garret FitzGerald.
I have no difficulty with people being open and giving their point of view on issues. I fundamentally disagreed with my former colleague, Des Hanafin, on almost every issue. However, I thoroughly agreed with the open way in which he put forward his point of view, although I am not talking about that aspect. I am talking about people with another agenda, which I believe exists. We should take the example of a previous Taoiseach, Dr. Garret FitzGerald, when he raised the question with his incoming Cabinet at a particular time as to whether they were members of any organisations which might have a hidden agenda in terms of different policies. This matter raises two issues but I do not have time to go into all the areas covered by this report. However, I worry about the influence of clandestine or secret organisations and we need to examine this point openly, as happened in Italy in recent years when they had to examine this grey area. It is time we did so.
The Office of the Attorney General had been tidied up and improved. I express sympathy for hardworking officials, other than Official A, in that office who do a hard day's work and a good job. We have tested them time and again in the House on legislation and they are thoroughly professional. I exclude them from my remarks. There should be security clearance for everybody involved in such sensitive areas as the Office of the Attorney General. This question has been raised for the past ten years with regard to that office. Adequate resources should be put into the office to do the job required of it in the legislative area and in the operation of Government. What is there is just not good enough. Heads have rolled, careers have been lost, people have been put in pain and children have been put at risk. The report is not adequate, although it is useful. We will return to this subject.
I welcome this debate and the fact that the Taoiseach has come to the House to give his views on the subject. However, I am not happy that a media briefing was given last night while Members of this House and the other House did not have the content of the report until 1 p.m. today. This should be adequately explained to the House and to the public.
While I welcome this debate, it does not substitute for full and adequate explanations or a full and adequate investigation by the Oireachtas. A series of statements in this House or the other House is not adequate. Many questions still have not been answered. These issues and those raised in the report must be pursued further. I welcome the statement by the Taoiseach that a review group has been established, which he expects it to report in two weeks, and that a new management system has been introduced in the Office of the Attorney General. However, it still does not answer many of the fundamental questions. While the report is concise, clear and goes into great detail regarding the reasons the events occurred, it does not answer the fundamental question as to why there was a seven month delay in the extradition of Fr. Brendan Smyth. As Senator O'Toole said, we do not know if the delay would have gone on longer if he had not gone of his own accord.
The Attorney General's report is a total vindication of the decision of the Labour Party Ministers to press for a full account of the Smyth affair. It demonstrates convincingly that the judgment made by the Labour Party leader from the outset of this affair was correct. I have no doubt that the revelations uncovered in this report would not have come to light but for the actions of the Labour Party in recent weeks. This report does not change anything in relation to the Taoiseach's responsibility and the reasons the Labour Party Ministers resigned from Government. They resigned because the Taoiseach was made aware on Monday, 14 November of the Duggan case. This is confirmed in paragraph 34 of the report before the House. However, he failed to draw the Dáil's attention to this the following day. Nothing in this regard is changed or affected by the report. It is an indictment of the flawed judgment of the former Attorney General and the person referred to in the report as Official A. It is also a criticism of the decision of the Fianna Fáil Ministers to accept the former Attorney General's report to the Cabinet on 11 November 1994. This decision brought about the whole situation. There should have been further investigation before that report was accepted.
I wish to deal with the original report of the Attorney General in the context of the report before the House. This was published in the national newspapers after the Cabinet meeting on 11 November 1994. It is contradicted by the report available today on a number of points and assertions which are shown to be false. The former Attorney General stated in that report that "until the preparatory work has been completed, a case, whether extradition or not, cannot usefully be placed before me". This is the system condemned by the present report. Yet it was known and tacitly approved by the former Attorney General, the Taoiseach and the Government on 11 November. The former Attorney General goes on to say that "the procedures just described I am assured have always applied to extradition cases". Yet in page 14 of the report before the House we are told that in the past extradition requests in respect of subversives were, in accordance with the practice then prevailing, immediately notified to the Attorney General. Item 26 on page 14 states:
In the past when extradition requests in respect of alleged subversives were frequent, it was a practice that notice of such requests be immediately given to the Attorney General as soon as they arrived in the Office.
We need to know when in the past this happened and when it was changed. This is a relevant question. It is not possible to reconcile the two statements, the statement in this report and that in the original report given to the Cabinet by the Attorney General.
The critical paragraph in the former Attorney General's report was paragraph seven, which we learned today was based on material supplied by Official A. Paragraph seven begins by saying that one reason for the delay in the Smyth case was the fact that work had to be interrupted due to the intervention of more urgent matters. Other Members referred to the fact that this is not an adequate explanation. No matter could have been more urgent than this. No further comment is required on the judgment of the Attorney General in this matter or on the assumption that he was in a safe place because he was in a religious establishment. This just does not stand up to any judgment.
The former Attorney General stated that there were several legal issues to be considered in the Smyth case but it appears from paragraph 32 of the report before the House and the report of the former Attorney General that it is impossible to reconcile this with the facts. They were not several legal issues, according to this report. There was one legal issue, which was one of delay. The statement was made that there was no necessity to apply section 50 (2) (bbb) of the Extradition (Amendment) Act, 1987, until this case. However, ten cases are referred to in this document: the Duggan case, the Ellis case, the K, M and McD cases. Five other cases are referred to in paragraph 22 (e) but are not dealt with in detail. Separate cases of child abuse are referred to on page 4 but as they did not involve delay they are not relevant to the situation. It is most astonishing that in the ten previous cases, in which this paragraph was considered, one involved a reported written judgment of the Supreme Court. How a failure to refer to how such a case could have come about is very difficult to explain.
Official A, whose role in these misstatements to Cabinet and the Dáil was central, has apologised to the new Attorney General. His apology is included in the report on pages 27 and 28. It is accompanied by references to short notice, volume of work and the information systems, which have been mentioned. It seems quite extraordinary that there was not even a proper indexing system in the Office of the Attorney General, much less any type of computer system. The apology is accompanied by reference to these various aspects. However, the new Attorney General does not state whether this apology is acceptable to him. I think it is wholly unacceptable. It would be a matter of grave regret if such a serious failure of judgment on a series of matters could be regarded as closed by the publication of this apology.
There are many fundamental questions that need to be addressed. I welcome the changes in the Office of the Attorney General; I welcome that a high level investigative team has been established and will be reporting shortly. It is essential that the public has accountability in all of these matters and that the two Houses of the Oireachtas also have accountability. We await these explanations.
This is an opening stage in the debate and there are many serious questions that still need to be answered, and the Labour Party will play its part in ensuring that the people receive the answers to which they are entitled.
I am reluctant to ask you a procedural question, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, but my understanding this morning was that each party would be able to contribute and, on that basis, will Senator Sherlock have time or will I have to share with him?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
It is my intention to call Senator Sherlock.
The Taoiseach, in a brief intervention, said that he was happy to have history judge him. I repeat what I said when we discussed his resignation, that it is my hope and expectation that history will judge him for his contribution to peace rather than for anything else.
The report of the Attorney General on his investigation into the Fr. Brendan Smyth case leaves us with many questions — it has answered a few and left us with many more. We are little wiser as to the circumstances which led to the Taoiseach's resignation and to the resignation of the former Attorney General in his capacity as President of the High Court. We are still left wondering what it is that caused a seven month delay in dealing with the Fr. Smyth extradition case and why it was that other files dealing with similar extradition requests and files subject to queries relating to section 50 (2) (bbb) of the Extradition Act, 1965 could be dealt with expeditiously.
We are told in the report, and the Taoiseach repeated it here, that extradition warrants in respect of other child sex abuse cases were processed in three to six weeks — a remarkable contrast to the seven month delay in the case of Fr. Smyth. We are asked to accept that there was a systems failure in the Attorney General's office in respect of this particular file, but, on the other hand, we now know from the report that other files could be dealt with and disposed of expeditiously. Furthermore, we know that there was an apparent failure to recollect a case, the Ellis case, on the provisions of section 50 (2) (bbb) and that that was subject to the judgment of the highest court in the land. We are asked to believe that this case was forgotten by the same official who dealt with the Smyth case. I find that quite extraordinary; it strains credulity to its utmost.
We have a remarkable situation where it was impossible for an official dealing with both files and advising the Government to remember the Duggan and Ellis files before the Dáil, as the report states, was misled, albeit inadvertently.
The other great deficiency of the report is that it does not deal in any pertinent way with the events of the period from Sunday 13 November to Tuesday 15 November when the Fianna Fáil Ministers were informed by the Attorney General of the Duggan case but collectively decided to withhold this information from the Dáil on Tuesday, 15 November. What was it that compelled the new Attorney General to state in his letter of 15 November to the Taoiseach: "This is the best I can do. It does not, in fact, answer the question." After the publication of this report we now know why the Attorney General said further in the letter: "It would be absolutely incorrect to inform the Dáil that this was the first time that the section was considered."
We are still confronted with the question of why there was a seven month delay. The Attorney General's report says on page 22: "There is no evidence whatever on the file"— note "on the file"— to justify a suggestion that the Attorney General or an official in his office had been requested by some outside source or contact to delay the processing of the file. Does this mean that there was some other interference? It does not explicitly say that there was not. What led Official A to make the assumption "that Fr. Smyth was at Kilnacrott Abbey" and, therefore, that he represented no threat to security? How, despite several contacts from the UK Attorney General's office, was the file still left unattended?
I repeat the question several speakers have asked as to why this report was not published yesterday. The Taoiseach said this afternoon that he was quite disturbed about the way it was leaked to the media. Is this the beef tribunal revisited? Is it that the spin doctors are sent out to a receptive media to tell them how the message should be received when it is the Houses of the Oireachtas which should be brought the message before anybody else?
Not the people?
We will talk about accountability and transparency if the Senator wishes. Does transparency mean that the media come first and the Houses of the Oireachtas, where the ultimate responsibility to the people lies, come behind them? Is that what we are asked to accept? I do not accept that.
That is the Senator's version.
Can we be assured that the report which came before us today is the same report, word for word, as that given to Tuesday's Cabinet meeting?
The Attorney General concludes that the seven month delay in processing the Smyth extradition case was unacceptable; he concludes that the procedures in place in the office were seriously defective. These serious deficiencies are evident much farther afield than the Attorney General's office. Do we have collective Cabinet responsibility, or did people get so tired working night and day in an attempt to conceal the truth that their behaviour may also be described as unacceptable? Who wrote "If pressed, keep repeating the above"? Who takes responsibility? Is the Taoiseach the only person who has had to pay the ultimate price by taking responsibility or are there not others who also must share their burden of responsibility?
We look forward to the implementation of the recommendations as we look forward to the promised implementation of the recommendations of the beef tribunal.
I wish to share my time with Senator Finneran.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I welcome this report. It highlights the fact that a senior official at the Office of the Attorney General did not view the request for the extradition of a child sex abuser as worthy of his attention for a continuous period of three days, as stated on page 24 of the Attorney General's report. The official concerned has the gall to state that he could have completed his study of the aspects of the case within a period of three working days if he could have had the time without interruption. That speaks volumes about the mindset of the gentleman who has been processing these extradition warrants.
I agree with Senator O'Toole's comment that we get a further insight into this gentleman's lack of sensitivity when we read his apology. He apologises to the Attorney General, the Government and the former Attorney General, but he never once refers to the victims or the families. That is the kernel of the reason this case was not dealt with. As Senator Roche said, there have been many allegations and suggestions. A bombshell was dropped in the other House when it was stated documents would be found which would rock the State. I am not citing the Taoiseach's contribution but rather the Attorney General's report when saying none of those allegations has been proven, including the suggestion floating around the House that Cardinal Daly had interfered. People's careers were wrecked and inferences were drawn about some who were totally innocent.
These suggestions were floated by politicians, the same politicians who, according to Senator Dardis, are only supposed to be the conduit of information. One is not supposed to speak directly to the public; they are only supposed to get information via this House or the other House. I do not accept that, neither in relation to this matter nor in relation to the hepatitis C crisis. The former Minister, Deputy Howlin told us he immediately briefed the women of Ireland about the vaccine; he bypassed the GPs, who did not like that. I accepted his bona fides, just as I accept the press briefing was to inform the public, who are gravely concerned about what has happened in this State in the last three weeks and, more importantly, in the seven months in which the case was not considered. Perhaps this has nothing to do with democracy; it is more concerned with egos. Some people are peeved at having been bypassed, I do not apologise for that.
The Attorney General has thoroughly examined this case. He has interviewed not only the people involved with the case but also those not associated with it and asked if there was interference. He has stated categorically that he cannot find evidence of any such interference. If one reads the report one can find the reason for the delay; the official who was dealing with the case did not consider child sex abuse was urgent and continued with the ordinary day to day business of his job.
That is what is evident to me from this report. Anyone else who has other allegations or suggestions to make, or who possesses any correspondence or reports should make them known, as the Taoiseach asked in the other House. The Attorney General did not find such material. People have lost their jobs and reputations while the victims and their families have not been acknowledged by the person responsible for this.
When I was in secondary school in the late 1960s I studied basic office procedures. I agree with Senator Manning that the office procedures highlighted in the report are a disgrace — there is not even an index system. We politicians all have a way of following up cases which come to our attention. More importantly, did no one in the office take an initiative so that staff could know what they were dealing with or what was yet to be tackled?
Did no one request that the office be updated? If someone did, was that refused at any time since the quill was replaced by the biro? It is disgraceful that eminent, learned gentlemen did not ask for a card index system while we are supposed to accept they represent us and are doing the best job they can on our behalf.
During our parliamentary party meeting the Taoiseach's style of leadership was mentioned. Those who served in his Cabinet said he gave people a job to do, he did not look over one's shoulder and he expected one to do the job. It is a dreadful shame that that has been his downfall. Other comments were made about previous leaders of Fianna Fáil who were supposed to have monopolised everything and wanted to do all the work. This man gave people a job to do and expected it to be done; he was crucified as a result, which is a high price to pay for the leadership he showed.
The overriding issue, which has been missing from the contributions so far, is the reason for the delay. So far as I can see from reading the apology from Official A and the report as a whole, the reason was that child sex abuse was not a priority for that official, who dealt with all of these cases.
I thank Senator McGennis for sharing her time with me. I welcome the Taoiseach to the House; he is a fellow county man of mine. It is fitting that we acknowledge his contribution not alone to his county and his constituency but to Ireland and to the search for peace in this country. The status he has given us internationally is well recognised. It is unfortunate that he has to apologise to the people of Ireland for the misdeeds of others.
Someone sat on a file for seven months and the Taoiseach had to resign to save the Government and prevent a general election, and it appears from the apology that this person is not answerable to the public. Given this evidence, will history not show that we have hung an innocent man, one who had nothing to do with the events which led to his downfall? That appears to be the case from the report.
If people had reservations or informations about the former Attorney General, Mr. Whelehan, which would have suggested he was unsuitable for the position of President of the High Court, that information should have been made available to their Government colleagues at an earlier stage. Trust and responsibility must apply both ways and be shared. It should also be said the Taoiseach was not in the country and the Tánaiste acted in his place, so responsibility should be shared in those instances also.
The Taoiseach has tonight produced evidence which was fearlessly extracted by the Attorney General. Deputy Reynolds has shown that he did not want to hide anything from anyone. If the information which is now available had been at his disposal earlier he could have brought it to the attention of the House. However, as he has clearly stated, no conclusive information was brought to him until he arrived back from the Dáil on the evening of Tuesday 15 November, and he made it available as soon as possible, on Wednesday 16 November.
The record will show a serious wrong has been done to a man who did not intend that misinformation or incomplete information would be given to the Dáil, this House or the public. The Taoiseach acted in good faith on behalf of the Irish Government and people. The Attorney General's report has conclusively proven there was no attempt by the Taoiseach or his Ministers to mislead the Dáil or the people.
I am glad of the opportunity to speak on this matter. The report of the new Attorney General on the Father Brendan Smyth affair paints a frightening picture of incompetence and mismanagement in the Office of the Attorney General but it fails to provide any satisfactory or believable explanations for the delay in processing the Smyth warrant.
The report shows that with regard to extradition matters the person referred to as Official A was effectively operating as Attorney General, making all the crucial decisions and determining which matters were to receive priority. Officials can be blamed but their political masters must accept responsibility. The report suggests a virtual abdication of responsibility on the part of the previous Fianna Fáil Attorney General, Mr. Whelehan. Official A is indicted for failing to keep the Attorney General informed but no explanation is offered as to why Mr. Whelehan apparently never inquired about these matters. The report also raises serious questions about the judgment of the two parties in Government who agreed to Mr. Whelehan's appointment in the first place, and why there was no proper supervision of the Attorney General and his office by the Cabinet.
The report fails to deal in a precise manner with a number of important questions. While it concludes categorically that there was no evidence of any outside influence being brought to bear, it does not indicate if this covers possible representations from the Department of Justice and if any such representation would be regarded as being from outside. In addition, the report does not absolve the former Fianna Fáil Ministers from their outrageous involvement in withholding crucial information. This has been referred to on a number of occasions, and in his address to the House the Taoiseach said:
The simple fact is that the full implications of the issues that arose from the written and considered views of the A.G. were not known to me until I returned from the Dáil after the debate on Tuesday, 15 November. I decided there and then, that these matters should be brought to the House on the following day...
Deputy Spring told the people that the Taoiseach was thus advised by the Attorney General on Monday, 14 November 1994, and following that he withdrew from Government. The question, therefore, which must be addressed is the manner in which the report was published. It raises additional questions about the seriousness of the new commitment by Fianna Fáil to openness and accountability. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you are not fooling the people this time.
They caught up with the Senator.
I welcome Deputy Reynolds to the House on his last visit as Taoiseach. Because of that and other matters, my colleague, Senator O'Sullivan, put the position on the record vis-a-vis the Labour Party. I have no intention on this occasion of trying, as Senator Finneran did to cast the net a bit wider. The Taoiseach and the Tánaiste know full well what matters sundered the Government and I have no intention of going into this matter any further.
However, it is ironic that all the heads — except one — appear to have rolled in the Attorney General's office. Everybody appears to have accepted their responsibilities, except one person who appears to be totally protected.
The Labour Party had reservations about Mr. Harry Whelehan, which were vindicated. Extradition is not something like stealing a car, it has exercised the minds of politicians in the State for many years and it has been the cause of deep divisions within all the parties. It is an issue which should have exercised the mind of any reasonable Attorney General. There is, therefore, no excuse for Mr. Whelehan, but it is ludicrous that "Mr. A" should continue in office. The Attorney General, Mr. Eoghan Fitzsimons, describes him as a man of the highest integrity. He may be, however, I am not talking about his integrity but his competence. If he is a man of the highest integrity, he strikes me also as a man of supreme incompetence. He attempted to exercise the judgment of Solomon, and all he did was to put children at risk. It is seldom that I disagree with Senator O'Toole, but in this case he understated the issue.
The issue of invincibility of those who commit a grave offence, but because they are civil servants are not subject to the same rule as anybody else, is one which any Dáil must at some stage consider. People fall on their swords over issues such as this, and rightly so in some cases. There are enough swords for everybody and perhaps that gentleman should choose one.
With regard to some of the language used in the House, and the crucifixion of the Taoiseach, the place of the Taoiseach in history is assured, and I said this the night he came back with the peace package. There are people alive, north and south, who would be dead if it had not been for the action of the Taoiseach. He at least accepted full responsibility and took the appropriate action. Nobody forced him to do this and his place in history regarding peace on this island is assured.
Why did Deputy Spring withdraw from Government?
The Senator should not provoke me, because if I start on him I assure him he will regret it.
It is great to see two Corkmen battling.
When I speak of peace on the island, all of us, without exception, paid tribute to the Taoiseach the evening he addressed the House on the matter, and none of us would detract from that since then.
It is ironic that some of the people who have primary responsibility for the actions in the office of the Attorney General will remain, looking at extradition warrants long after this débâcle. This is wrong. There is an option open to the person concerned, and perhaps he might address it himself.
Finally, as the Taoiseach takes his leave of us, I thank him for his courtesy to me and to members of my party and assure him of our affection and respect.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator Belton, Senator Cotter and Senator Doyle propose to share ten minutes between them. Is that agreed? Agreed. I call on Senator Belton.
I take this opportunity, tragic as it is, to wish the Taoiseach well, I have known the Taoiseach a long time. We served together on Longford County Council, I was with him in the Dáil and as Members of the Oireachtas we have shared much in the constituency in County Longford. There were bad times and I took the blame. There were good times and the Taoiseach took the credit, but that is politics.
I wish the Taoiseach and his family well and he will always have my friendship. There should be a warning on this report, because it is the most extraordinary which has ever been handed to the Oireachtas and the people. There should be a warning to people to stand back from the report, because they are certainly in for a shock. It is unbelievable to find out that this is the way the State runs its business. We are told of old filing systems, the volume of work, and of an official making a decision on the address where this person was located. What we have been told about this State is unbelievable, given that it has to hold its place with other states in the world, and must honour agreements regarding extradition and so on. It is regrettable and sad.
I reject the interpretation of accountability by the Labour Party Senators. Accountability in this State has always been the responsibility of the top, and it is only cast down the line when there is a hot potato which nobody wishes to handle. We have seen two case of this recently, and this is one of them.
It is a disgrace that the said individual had a letter presented in the way it was, and it should not have appeared. If there is to be shared accountability let it be shared the whole time, and let us not drag civil servants out when things are too tough for everybody to handle.
I welcome the Taoiseach and I understand the terrible suffering and trauma he and his family went through. It was an incredible, unbelievable occasion, and the Taoiseach has paid a huge price. However, there is still a terrible fog hanging over 14, 15 and 16 November 1994, especially the 14th and 15th. For example, the Tánaiste told the nation that on Monday, 14 November 1994, Ministers were informed by the Attorney General, verbally, of the existence of the Duggan case. A letter came in on 15 November, and the Taoiseach, speaking on the afternoon of 15 November in the Dáil, had the Tánaiste sitting beside him, with the answer to a parliamentary question in his hand. Why did the substance of that answer not appear in the Taoiseach's speech? Surely it is an incredibly strange coincidence.
The current Tánaiste said they were so tired — they had been up all night for a couple of nights — that the significance of these matters passed them by. I do not believe that the significance could have passed them all by. It passed the Minister for Defence and the Marine. Deputy Andrews, by because he was not there. However, the other Ministers were given a verbal account on Monday and looked at a letter on Tuesday but the significance of it passed them by. Yet, it was significant enough to have a reply ready to a possible parliamentary question. As it happened, no such question was asked. The Taoiseach was surrounded by buffoons or there was a cover up. The evidence we have suggests they are not buffoons but that there was a cover up. It is sad to say that We cannot find evidence to the contrary. We cannot definitely say there was a cover up but all the evidence points in that direction. This issue will not be finished tonight, tomorrow or the day after but will last as long as the people who were involved are in office. There will always be question marks. These are the hard facts.
They are hard assertions.
Severe prices have been paid.
The Senator should read the report.
It takes a while to sink in.
There is no doubt that people will continue to suffer for it for a long time because no proper explanation has been given about the events of Monday, 14 November and Tuesday, 15 November. All we have had is juxtapositions of all sorts of views and ideas. We have had no definitive and proper explanation.
The Senator only hears what he wants to hear.
This is why it will be an issue for as long as those people are in office. I hope that one of these days we will come to grips with accountability. Civil servants are rolled out when there is a problem but are bound to silence when there is not. We cannot have it both ways. We either have shared accountability——
There is an apology in the report.
——which would be new——
On a point of order, how long has the Senator left?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I am working within a very tight time schedule and I can assure Senator Cassidy that I am keeping to it.
Accountability in Government at this stage is Minister and Government centred. It is a disgrace that the Civil Service occasionally allows itself to be wheeled out, like it was in the Arcon case and in this case. That letter should not be in the report.
I would like to be associated with the remarks made to the Taoiseach, especially in relation to his contribution to the peace process and I hope that he and I will meet occasionally in places of mutual interest to us both.
I thank Mr. Fitzsimons for this report, which is written in simple English and not the usual legalistic jargon. Official A states in his apology that it was the small number of staff and huge pressure of work which caused the delay in the Smyth case. I wish to compare the Smyth case with the Duggan case. We all know that the Smyth case was not dealt with for seven months. The report states that on 4 February, 1992 the British Attorney General wrote to the Attorney General's office here raising certain issues of law. It is interesting to read in the report that on some date between 4 February and 13 February 1992 the Duggan file was passed by official A to official B, who was able to make a submission to the Attorney General on 13 February. On the same date the Attorney General accepted and signed the submission and the process for the extradition of Mr. Duggan was put in place. All the officials must have been burdened with the heavy work load about which official A complained. Official B dealt with the file within days of receiving it.
I find it hard to understand that the Attorney General in the UK wrote a letter which was personally addressed to the Irish Attorney General but not given to him. This is similar to Mr. Major writing to the Taoiseach. We are told that the Irish Attorney General never saw the letter. This is unacceptable. It would be like one of the Taoiseach's officials not allowing him to see a letter sent to him by Mr. Major. This was a serious dereliction of duty and should never be allowed to happen again.
I welcome the Taoiseach. He has been very gracious in this House. I have had some slight dealings with him. I recall when I was a Member of a previous Seanad and Deputy Reynolds was Minister for Finance. I was having lunch when former Senator Tras Honan, of pious and immortal memory, grabbed me with her famous grip and said that Deputy Reynolds, when speaking on the budget, accepted one of my recommendations and gave great credit to the Seanad. I thought it was typical of the generosity the Taoiseach can show that he gave credit to this House. Many other times Ministers accept recommendations, proposals and ideas, calmly put them into their own bags and do not give any attribution to them.
I recently read a certain book which I know the Taoiseach will not read. Out of this book came a picture of a warm, decent, generous hearted man, who is a shrewd, aggressive businessman. I did not take any great further negative inference from it and I think this is the picture the people of Ireland will recall as well as, of course, his extraordinary contribution to the peace process, in which he took risks. He put his finger on it when he said that it is extraordinary that one gets over big hurdles but a small one trips one up. This is a very wise saying and we will all, I hope, be aware of the small hurdles in future.
I do not propose to go over the details of the Taoiseach's explanations, except to say that I regret, like other people, that there was apparently some degree of leaking. What we want to deal with is the report of the Attorney General which raises serious problems. It is extraordinary that the Attorney General's office seems to be like a down at heels solicitor's office where the filing system is all over the floor. Such offices are not only in the country but all over Dublin. In some statements there was reference to the information retrieval system having broken down. I thought that at least there would have been an antiquated computer but there were only rusty filing cabinets and no proper indexing. This absolutely astonishes me and I ask how many other Departments are in the same parlous condition.
Quite a few.
We should examine this. People have said they did not know, they had forgotten and they were semiconscious. The level of consciousness in the Attorney General's office seems to be spectacularly low. I understood from lawyers, who can be pretty tough when they are dealing with members of the public, that ignorance of the law is no defence. Yet, they systematically use an ignorance of the law as their own defence. This is unacceptable. Senator Roche raised the issue of rumours several times and named the person involved. I suggest that this was not altogether in the traditions of the House. I may breach them myself later.
Senator Sherlock did.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I can assure the House that he has not.
I have not yet but I might. When those suggestions were being made, I was astonished and shocked. When I saw Cardinal Daly, a man for whom I have the highest regard and who has great integrity and principle, making a statement, I had no difficulty whatsoever accepting it immediately. I find it astonishing that the Roman Catholic authorities used their clear ignorance of human sexuality to justify the way in which they dealt with the issue. Yet, they leave themselves in a situation where they pontificate about the sexuality of other ordinary citizens. I wonder about the influence of various organisations. I do not know if the allegations made by Senator O'Toole are appropriate or correct or not but I know that a very senior judge wrote in the Irish Law Times an article which suggested very clearly that he regarded himself as bound more to obey the official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church than the law of this State. This worried me a great deal but I am not going to name him, at the moment anyway.
The report contains a list of warrants and there is a suggestion that on occasions draft warrants were sent out, which were really kites being flown. I am not sure, because of the way in which this information is presented, whether these were just draft warrants or real warrants.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I remind the Senator his time is up.
I want to make two points because this is a serious debate. The report states on page 3: "It was the intention of Official A to have them dealt with if and when the Attorney General indicated his intention to send Fr. Smyth back for trial in Northern Ireland". However, he had previously said that the Attorney General had no knowledge of it, that he was not made aware of it and that he could not have had an idea about it. Then how could he have a hypothetical intention in this state of ignorance?
As regards Official A and the apology, why does this person not resign and why is he not named? An article in The Irish Times stated that a Mr. Russell was involved at the very highest level. It would be unfair if I were to draw the inference that this was Mr. A. If it is not, is it Mr. B or Mr. C? Who are these people? Why are they shrouded when they have catapulted the country into this extraordinary and unwelcome situation?
On page 4 the report states that "Fr. Smyth was ultimately convicted on a plea of guilty to the various charges and was sentenced to four years imprisonment", but he was convicted with no assistance from this jurisdiction.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I must ask the Senator to conclude.
This traffic is all one way. The British authorities consistently——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I must ask you to conclude.
I have one more point to make.
This is a Trinity debate.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I must ask you to be brief.
Official A was not delicate in naming, as I understand from being present in the Dáil, in a highly suspect way, Deputy Seán Barrett as the author of the amendment. He named Deputy Barrett who expostulated in the House and yet his apology is in the form of an anonymous and unsatisfactory letter to the Oireachtas.
Míle buíochas to the Senators for their kind words and remarks. We are all realists in politics and we recognise that the world of politics is full of rumour, no more so than last night. I want to put it on the record that I did not send out anyone to brief in a particular direction because there would not be any basis for it, logic to it or credit for it. That was not my position last night, and I know Deputy Manning accepts that.
The basis for the conspiracy we hear about is a response prepared for an anticipated supplementary question, published in the Sunday Independent on last Sunday week, with certain handwriting on it. I want to inform the House — this is the last opportunity I will have to do so — that I asked every Fianna Fáil Minister who attended those meetings during the two days in question if they had seen it before or written on it. I have the original which was sent to me from the Attorney General. My colleague, the Tanáiste and Minister for Finance, Deputy Ahern, has the copy which he brought with him to the Dáil on the particular day and there was no writing on either of those documents. Let us be honest, open and transparent about it.
Deputy Harney seems to know about it.
I can tell the facts. I asked the Attorney General to ask his officials if anyone there was responsible for the two different types of handwriting on it. The answer was also in the negative; there was no trace of anyone having done so.
As regards the response, it was not prepared, as was suggested time and time again, by any member of the Government or a Fianna Fáil Member. It was prepared in the ordinary way in the Attorney General's Office. I hope everyone is clear on that point. This is the basis of the conspiracy I hear about.
I want to speak about Monday, although I do not have the detail to go into it, but I want to put what happened on the record. A question was raised on Monday about two particular aspects of the Attorney General's report which I received. The Attorney General acknowledged that there was serious legal objections to his point of view within the Office. I asked him if he had put these two sides of the legal argument to the previous Attorney General and he said no. I told him that as far as I was concerned I needed a definitive position from him, the legal officer of the Government. I needed a definitive position, whatever it took to get the matter sorted out.
After I had gone to the Dáil, a letter was delivered to my office with the definitive response everyone talks about. There is a paragraph on the second page of that letter which one could not miss because it is a complete contradiction of the previous report which had come to the Government from the Attorney General. I got that letter when I went back to my office at 9 p.m. I studied it, although I must admit the first page was not very clear. However, the second page was very clear. I called in the Ministers and I told them the response from the present Attorney General was a complete contradiction to what was given to the Government and on which we made certain decisions and that I was going to the Dáil the following day to make that abundantly clear.
It was Tuesday.
No, this letter arrived in my office when I was attending the debate in the Dáil. I got it when I went back to my office. I called in the Ministers, sent for the Attorney General, who was in bed, and we were there until 1 a.m. or 1.30 a.m. sorting it out. I went into the Dáil the next day which was my first available opportunity to set the record straight.
The letter is dated 15 November.
That was Tuesday.
At 9 p.m. on Tuesday.
I do not understand.
I got it in my office at 9 p.m. It was delivered when the debate had started in the Dáil.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Taoiseach, without interruption.
No extradition case was ever discussed with me by either the present Attorney General or the previous Attorney General. It is important to state that because certain insinuations were made about politicians being involved in extradition cases. Those are the facts.
I thank the Senators for their kind words——
We have been ill-informed by the ex-Taoiseach; he should have explained that. Was Deputy Spring given wrong information?
——and let history give an account of what happened and what did not happen.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Like the other Members in the House, I wish you and Mrs. Reynolds every good luck in your retirement.
From a fellow county man, thank you.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
When is it proposed to sit again?
It is intended to adjourn the House sine die.