Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Tuesday, 4 Jul 2006

Ceisteanna — Questions.

Dublin-Monaghan Bombings.

Ceisteanna (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

Pat Rabbitte

Ceist:

1 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he has received a further interim report from the MacEntee Commission into the 1974 Dublin and Monaghan bombings; if it is intended to publish this report; if a request for a further extension of the deadline for completion of its work has now been received from the commission; if it is intended to grant the request; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21786/06]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Ceist:

2 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach when it is expected that the report of Patrick MacEntee SC on the investigation into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings of 1974 and related matters will be published; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22765/06]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Trevor Sargent

Ceist:

3 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he has received a further interim report from the MacEntee Commission into the 1974 Dublin and Monaghan bombings; when a final report can be expected; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22906/06]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Joe Higgins

Ceist:

4 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he has received a further interim report from the MacEntee Commission. [23319/06]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Enda Kenny

Ceist:

5 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he has received a further report from the MacEntee Commission; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25546/06]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí ó Béal (16 píosaí cainte) (Ceist ar Taoiseach)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, together.

On 26 April 2005, the Government appointed Mr. Patrick MacEntee SC as sole member of a commission of investigation to examine specific matters relating to the Dublin and Monaghan bombings of 1974, including aspects of the Garda investigation and missing documentation. This was in accordance with the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights which considered the Barron report on the Dublin-Monaghan bombings.

As the House knows, I previously granted three extensions of the timeframe for the completion of the report, from 14 November 2005 to 31 January 2006, again to 28 February 2006 and then again to 31 May 2006. I also published the three interim reports from Mr. MacEntee and placed copies in the Oireachtas Library.

At the end of May, Mr. MacEntee informed me that more time was required to complete the inquiry to pursue a new line of investigation which has arisen. He therefore requested a further extension of the timeframe until 31 July 2006, which I have granted. He also provided me with a further fourth interim report, as required by the legislation. I have published that report and have placed copies in the Oireachtas Library. It is clear from this fourth interim report that Mr. MacEntee requires more time to pursue specific inquiries as there remain important opportunities to advance the investigation that might otherwise be lost. It is for that reason that I have granted the additional extension.

It is, of course, unfortunate that the victims and survivors of these terrible atrocities will have to wait a further period before the final report is available. However, I believe they will agree on the importance of Mr. MacEntee being allowed sufficient time to pursue any lines of inquiry that he deems relevant.

I am grateful to Mr. MacEntee for the work he has completed to date. As he is independent, I am not in a position to comment on his ongoing work.

We all agree with what the Taoiseach has said about Mr. MacEntee being given adequate time to make whatever investigations he thinks might be fruitful. I wish, however, to ask the Taoiseach a couple of questions. As he said, the commission of investigation arises from the unresolved matters on the Barron inquiry. I am reminded of a parliamentary question on 28 March to the Taoiseach and his reply in the House where he referred to a still outstanding report due from Mr. Justice Barron. He went on to say that this report had been received during February and that he hoped that consideration of it by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform would not take long. He advised the House that his manner of mediating it into the public domain would be to send it to the Select Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights. To the best of my knowledge, that has not yet been done. Given that the Taoiseach's statement was on 28 March, perhaps he will tell the House why it has not been done and indicate the Government's intention in the matter now?

Going back to the MacEntee commission and the four interim reports the Taoiseach has taken, are there circumstances where the Taoiseach would invite Mr. MacEntee to make another interim report in the matter of the missing files from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform? This was one of the areas into which he was to inquire. I do not know whether that part of the inquiry has been completed and, if so, will the Taoiseach consider inviting him to make an interim report on that aspect? In respect of the entities that have met the commission, as referred to in the May interim report, can the Taoiseach say if the meeting referred to in that interim report was with a former member of the British security services? Does the Taoiseach have that information and, if so, will he advise the House? Has the Taoiseach any information on whether it is probable that the latest extension to 31 July is likely to be met by the commission on this occasion?

Regarding the first question, Mr. Justice Barron presented his final report to me in February 2006, as stated in the March reply to parliamentary questions. The report was considered by the relevant Departments and officials reviewed the report and held a meeting with Mr. Justice Barron to discuss the issues that needed to be addressed before the matter was brought before the Government. This was some time ago. Following that meeting, Mr. Justice Barron felt that certain revisions to the structure of the report were required. He undertook to make these changes and present a revised version of the report to me. I stress to the House that these revisions related to the structure of the report only, they did not in any way change the findings of the report. The final report was considered by the Government this morning and it is intended to bring a motion before the House later this week to refer the report to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights.

As with all these reports, what delayed issues, apart from restructuring and layout, was that the report covered quite a number of attacks. Mr. Justice Barron put an omnibus end to his report, which included not only Dundalk but also referred to other attacks by loyalist paramilitaries, for example, the Castleblayney bombs, the Dublin Airport bomb and other bombings in the State. It also included a number of attacks in Northern Ireland, on the Miami showband, the Rock Bar, Keady, Donnelly's Bar, Silver Birch, the Reavey and O'Dowd families in south Armagh and the murders of Seán Farmer and Colm McCartney. He also referred to the explosion and murder at Ballinrath Bridge in County Kildare. It is a fine report and includes many aspects that were not in the previous report. He has made structural changes.

The cause of much of the delay was that there were a number of names mentioned. Mr. Justice Barron has redacted a number of them, but not all. Subject to correction, there are approximately 15 names of people involved and these will be published in the final report. At least the report says they were involved.

On the MacEntee report, I understand the aspect about which Deputy Rabbitte inquired, the Garda investigations and the files on it, the investigative work is complete and I understand that Mr. MacEntee's recommendations are also complete. I have not seen them, but I understand he will make recommendations. To the best of my knowledge, I can confirm, from what I know from my officials who have been dealing with this, that the individual involved is of British intelligence, but I am not certain about his precise role. I understand that the investigative work of the commission is substantially complete, but some legal obligations must be fulfilled before the report is finalised.

To answer the Deputy's last question, I might receive a formal request for another extension, but I gather that will only be to complete the work beyond 31 July. We should have the report in the early autumn. I understand Mr. MacEntee wants to complete it and get on with other work. He wants to see it through in this session. In response to a question asked earlier, the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights suggested Mr. MacEntee should look at some other aspects of different work, but I understand he does not want to do that. He wants to finish this job that he undertook to do rather than become engaged in other issues. He feels this is his responsibility and wants to finish it before the holiday and report to us.

I do not want to unnecessarily probe a delicate area, but can the Taoiseach say any more about structural changes? It strikes me as a slightly unusual practice to accept a report from Mr. Justice Barron and for Department officials to recommend changes as to structure. Were there other changes or was factual matter questioned in that regard? I presume my tabling of the question and the Cabinet considering the matter at their meeting this morning is entirely a coincidence. When did the Taoiseach receive the report? He will be aware of the debate in the House about a number of reports such as the Barr report, the Dalton report, the O'Sullivan report and the Barron report, all of which are publishable at the caprice of the Government some time during the recess. It would have been preferable if these reports had been made available while the Dáil was formally in session. When did the Government receive the revised version, the original of which was received last February? If the Government approved it at a Cabinet meeting this morning, is it intended to put it into the public domain before the House rises?

The only changes made related to the structure of the report. The last module was solely about the Dundalk bombing. However, in the course of his work, Mr. MacEntee had come across these other issues. It was suggested that rather than producing another report, it was best to structure the report to include all these issues. This has resulted in a change to the layout of the report. This created some delay in producing the report but most of the delay was caused by the issue of the redaction of names. I understand not all the names have been redacted. Fifteen names remain in the report and this took some consideration.

I promised the committee rather than the House that I would publish the report so that it could be included in the September work programme of the committee. It will be published immediately so that the committee will be able to have that hearing. This will be the final report of this committee. I thank the committee for faithfully dealing with all the reports through its hearings. The committee hearings have given the families an opportunity to hear these issues being debated and brought to as near a conclusion as it is possible for us to achieve. Many of these issues are more than 30 years old. This House has done its best to have them investigated and to gather as much data as possible in order to bring the issues into the public domain. I do not know what more we can do with regard to these issues.

The Deputy asked a question about the Barron report.

I asked in particular whether the report was likely to come into the public domain before the House formally rises.

I promised the committee that I would try to move it directly to the committee. It has been cleared by the Cabinet this morning and the procedure is that it will be sent directly to the committee.

In what format will the MacEntee report be published? It is markedly different from the Barron process. Will it be referred to the Oireachtas committee in the same way? What vehicle will be utilised for its delivery and to enable public scrutiny? Will the Taoiseach inform the House when he expects the report to be published?

The Taoiseach indicated in his response to Deputy Rabbitte regarding the Barron report into the bombing of Dundalk in December 1975 in which two civilians, Hugh Waters and Jack Rooney, were killed, that this report will now be presented to the Oireachtas committee for its attention. While the Dáil is going into recess this week and the committees process continues during the course of this month, does the committee intend addressing the report substantively over the period before the committee process concludes this month? Will the Taoiseach give the House some indication as to when the detail of that report will enter into the public arena? That will clearly not happen as a result of it going to committee in the first instance. When will it complete the process of working through the report, as has been done with previous Barron reports?

Has the Taoiseach followed up in any way on the unanimous decision of this House to call on the British Government for a full public inquiry into the murder of Mr. Pat Finucane? Has the matter been communicated to the British Prime Minister?

The issue does not arise on this question.

Has the Taoiseach done so? Would the Taoiseach propose any further action in order to give effect to that decision?

I would prefer if the Deputy dealt with the question. A number of Deputies are offering.

There was some criticism that I took all these inquiries together, so I took a full session on the Finucane case here two weeks ago. I will not say anything further on the matter today. There is nothing new to add.

On the independent commissions of inquiry, first we went through the reports under the late Mr. Justice Hamilton and then Mr. Justice Barron. I am very grateful for their work in bringing justice to the victims of several of these horrific atrocities. As has been stated by Deputy Rabbitte, we have referred three reports to the Oireachtas committee, which has in turn done a very commendable job in hearing evidence, not least from the bereaved and families. It has reported promptly with clear recommendations, and that has been very helpful.

We will refer the fourth and final report into the Dundalk bombing of 1975 to the committee very shortly. I mentioned related matters, such as attacks on the Miami Showband; the Rock Bar, Keady; Donnelly's Bar, Silverbridge; the Reavey and O'Dowd families; John Farmer and Colm McCartney; and at Ballinrath Bridge in County Kildare. It is a matter for the committee, but the intention of the committee is to work on these in September, to the best of my knowledge. It is a matter solely for the committee.

We have acted on the recommendations of the Oireachtas committee on matters that are entirely within the remit of the Government or public bodies within the State. One of those is the commission of investigation into the 1974 bombings under Mr. Paddy MacEntee. When the work is complete we will address the recommendations from the second and third reports relating to the 1972 and 1973 bombings and the Ludlow murder.

Appropriate action may be taken by Ministers and the Garda, and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform may need to recognise and address shortcomings identified in any reports. On some very important issues, the co-operation of the British authorities is essential. The committee has recognised that, and the Government has been issued all appropriate means in its efforts to ensure co-operation. I have raised the matter with Prime Minister Blair and the Northern Ireland Secretary on many occasions. All of this has led to Mr. MacEntee's ongoing work and his requirements for extensions.

With regard to Deputy Ó Caoláin's question on timing, it is my intention to publish the report as soon as possible after I receive it. Under legislation I am required by law to consider certain issues prior to publication. These involve requesting legal advice from the Attorney General and submitting the report to the Cabinet prior to publication. The timescale involved between the receipt of the report and publication is impossible to estimate in advance. I wish to publish the report as quickly as possible.

I am reluctant to ask questions about the reasoning behind the extension of the MacEntee commission except to state that the expectations are high for the publication by the end of July.

The Taoiseach has stated that the Barron report has been seen by different Departments and is now, following Cabinet discussion, going to committee. Is this the route the Taoiseach expects the MacEntee report to take? Does he envisage that by the end of July, the report will be parked or brought to committee? What is the process by which the Taoiseach would like to see the information released?

Has the Taoiseach any estimate to date of the legal costs involved in the Barron and MacEntee inquiries?

I do not have the details of the reports, from the Hamilton report right through to the Barron reports. I gave the figures quite recently. I will make them available again to Deputy Sargent as we come to the end of the process for the period.

To date, the costs of the MacEntee commission are €1.27 million. That breaks down as €786,000 on legal costs, €175,000 on the costs of support staff and the balance — €309,000 — on the costs of set-up, administration of the offices and the workings of the commission. These are still low costs in terms an inquiry and it is almost at its end.

The procedure is not the same as that of the other reports where there was consultation with all the Departments. Under the inquiries legislation, I am to consult the Attorney General and to bring the report to Cabinet. It is not the same kind of investigation as the other one and there should not be a delay. I would hope to get it quickly.

This would be the end of the fourth report of the Hamilton-Barron session, which has gone on for a considerable number of years and which deals with and ends all those issues in our jurisdiction. The MacEntee report really ends all that we set out to do on the 1974 issues. Bringing that report to the committee should allow the committee finish its work this year.

The investigations into the other areas which we had agreed under Weston Park have already commenced, although not in open session. The work is going ahead on Judge Smithwick's report into the Breen and Buchanan murders.

We will have effectively brought to an end all our work from this House and then the remaining issues from Weston Park go in to the formal issues outside of the House. That would finish our engagement in the process.

The Taoiseach has dealt comprehensively with the MacEntee commission. When will the Barron report be published? It was expected this week.

I have received no formal request for another extension but it is the view of my officials dealing with this area that I am likely to receive one, although not for long and merely to complete the work of the report. As I understand it, Mr. MacEntee SC wants to end, before his holidays, this task that he kindly undertook. If I do not get it by the end of July, I expect that we should get it some time in August.

Office of the Attorney General.

Ceisteanna (6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)

Pat Rabbitte

Ceist:

6 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he is satisfied that all the recommendations made in the 1994 report of the review group on the Office of the Attorney General have been implemented and remain in operation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21867/06]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Pat Rabbitte

Ceist:

7 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if the recommendation contained in the 1994 report of the review group on the Office of the Attorney General that important and sensitive issues be brought to the attention of the Attorney General remains in operation; if so, the reason a case (details supplied) was not brought to the attention of the Attorney General; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21868/06]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Ceist:

8 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the changes in procedure that have been introduced in the Office of the Attorney General; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22766/06]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Joe Higgins

Ceist:

9 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if the recommendations implemented following the 1994 report of the review group on the Office of the Attorney General remain in operation. [23320/06]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Trevor Sargent

Ceist:

10 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the changes in procedures which have been introduced in the Office of the Attorney General following the recommendations of the 1994 report of the review group on the Office of the Attorney General; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24574/06]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Enda Kenny

Ceist:

11 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the remit of the internal review into the procedures within the Office of the Attorney General; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25544/06]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí ó Béal (25 píosaí cainte) (Ceist ar Taoiseach)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 to 11, inclusive, together.

All the recommendations of the 1995 report of the review group on the Office of the Attorney General have been substantially implemented. In some cases, further developments have occurred in the intervening 11 years to enhance the means by which those recommendations were implemented.

One of the recommendations of the 1995 report was that "all important and sensitive cases (including every extradition case and cases involving minors) should be brought to the personal attention of the Attorney General". That recommendation was implemented by way of a number of protocols and practice directions within the office. They have been supplemented and updated since, notably in 2002 and 2004.

Following the recent Supreme Court decision in the CC case, additional procedures have now been put in place to address a communications failure that resulted in the Attorney General not being informed about that case other than in the context of nominating counsel on 5 December 2002 to represent jointly the interests of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney General. Details of those are contained in the document I circulated to Deputies on 7 June 2006. Copies of that document have also been placed in the Oireachtas Library.

As I informed Deputies in the course of the detailed discussion about the communications failure during Leaders' Questions on 7 June 2006, a review was instituted to identify any aspects of the organisation structure, systems, procedures or staffing arrangements within the Office of the Attorney General that may require to be amended to ensure that an information and notification deficit does not recur. The report of that review will be published shortly.

Does the Taoiseach accept it is difficult for anybody outside Government to understand why, if the 1995 reforms had been implemented and policed, there should have been what he calls a "communications failure" in the CC case? I am sure he will accept there is scarcely anything more serious than the protection of our children yet, despite the commitment that cases affecting minors would be brought to the personal attention of the Attorney General, that did not happen on this occasion. Other than the Taoiseach pre-empting the inquiry by Mr. O'Sullivan by laying the blame at the door of an official, I am still unclear how this communications breakdown could have happened. We have established that there was a note for the attention of the Attorney General about the implications of the CC case but we do not know if that note ever got to him.

I refer to section 2(6) of the 1974 Act establishing the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, which states, "The Attorney General and the Director shall consult together from time to time in relation to matters pertaining to the functions of the Director". That statutory obligation states the director and the Attorney General "shall consult", not "will consult". As the Taoiseach is responsible for both offices, will he indicate whether there is regular consultation? If so, how could what happened in the CC case have transpired?

The Minister of Justice, Equality and Law Reform informed the House he had set up a committee, stating, "I have established, following discussions with my officials, a criminal justice group comprising representatives from the main agencies working in the criminal justice sector. . .". The committee is chaired by the Secretary General of his Department and meets regularly to discuss matters such as this and especially matters of litigation relating to constitutional and policy considerations. I am entirely bemused that if the Minister had done that and if the group meets from time to time how this breakdown could have happened.

In respect of the 42 cases in which charges must be withdrawn following the Supreme Court decision, which it apparently took four weeks to compile information about, has there been contact with the DPP or arrangements put in place with the DPP that will ensure the Government is informed of progress in each case? As I understand it, what happens in any given case will not necessarily easily come into the public domain. Having regard to what happened, does the Taoiseach accept it is desirable that a channel of communication be created so that as these cases are gone through individually, the House is advised on progress on each one?

On the final question, in the normal course, I never get a report on cases the DPP takes against individuals. I am not advised by the DPP or the Attorney General. The Attorney General has regular communications with the Director of Public Prosecutions on various issues under the 1994 Act. For convenience purposes in many cases they use the same team, as they did in this case. That is a regular occurrence.

Regarding whether the Attorney General is advised on operations, I understand in many of these cases the DPP takes the lead and the DPP staff and the Attorney General staff co-operate. It is not the norm that I receive reports because at any time hundreds of cases are going through the process. I will ask whether a process on these cases can be outlined because they were the subject of considerable controversy.

Is the Taoiseach stating that somebody could be free to walk as a result of the charges being withdrawn and new charges not being capable of being preferred and that we would not know about it?

That is well outside the scope of the question.

In the normal course, not like this particular case but in any other——

This is not normal.

It is not normal. However, it is not that abnormal either, unfortunately, that the Supreme Court strikes down law we pass in this House. We could have a long debate about who is right and wrong.

I think they are having a long debate.

Allow the Taoiseach to speak. We must move on.

In the normal course, I have to accept the position and that is how it operates. I would not normally know the results of any of these cases. Even when my inquisitive mind might know it, it is not the easiest way to find out information on these cases. The reason there was a delay in finding even this information — I know perhaps some people thought it was peculiar — was because it had to be trawled through and checked with every State solicitor in the country. It is not a process I have to go through too often but it is a fairly tortuous process to provide this House with information. I apologise for the length of time taken. It was not from lack of asking for the information for the House. I understand there is nothing to prevent the DPP from preferring charges on the 42 cases and I understand that is what will happen. Severe issues are raised. I will ask whether there is a process through which we could know. I do not know the answer to it.

Regarding Deputy Rabbitte's question on procedures, I had a chance over recent times, not only this month but also when other issues arose approximately two years ago, of looking back to changes made on extradition in what became known as the 1995 report and the additional protocols. Considering the volume of international and European Court of Justice cases, ongoing litigation and other issues in which the Office of the Attorney General is involved, it works well.

Since the 1995 report, there have been an enormous amount of protocols, rulings and issues and I suppose all of that has built up. When something goes through the net there is a hell of a fuss about the matter, and we can all understand that. However, although none of these things should happen, it is not that hard to see why people get on with their jobs, undertake their tasks and perhaps do not go through all of the procedures they should. That is not to give it justification. The protocols and procedures are there. However, I suppose people try to get on with their work.

In fairness to the staff, I acknowledge and appreciate the huge amount of successful work they carry out every day in the vast range of cases they process themselves in the Attorney General's office and which are also processed in conjunction with the DPP. I acknowledge all of that work. In this case they also carried out and completed their work well. The difficulty was with one of the protocols which required that the Attorney General should have been kept in touch. I understand approximately seven or eight processes, by which the Attorney General is informed, should have been covered. In fact, there was only consultation on one of those, which was the nomination of the counsel, and it did not happen after that. The person involved said that from day one and that is the reason I was able to tell the House on 7 June.

The work is finished on the report, suggestions, recommendations and further issues to try to tighten up and follow the procedures. I promised I would do my best to have that report published before the House adjourns and I still hope I can do that. I appreciate the fact that people worked last weekend to do that. I hope to be able to publish the report before we break up on Thursday.

I do not believe there is anything sinister in all that. It was just that the procedures were not followed to the extent they should have been followed. We can have as many procedures as we like in place but human oversight in a procedure can happen. It is not that the person did not do their job; they did not do that element of their job. They got on with the job but did not inform the Attorney General.

I understand quite a number of recommendations will be put forward to improve matters and examine measures. I am told there are 19 new measures to try to minimise the risk of recurrence of these issues, as well as other improvements, and the Attorney General has told me he will implement those immediately.

I call Deputy Ó Caoláin.

I have one supplementary——

There are two minutes remaining and I have called Deputy Ó Caoláin who submitted a question.

I have a second question.

I ask Deputy Rabbitte to have some respect for the House. Two of his colleagues have questions submitted. They are entitled to ask a supplementary question but, unfortunately, we will not be able to take the two of them.

Perhaps the Taoiseach will give the same interest to this question as it is a follow-on. He indicated 19 recommendations for changes. Are they in existing procedures that have applied heretofore or are they new procedures and ideas to avoid a repetition of the deficit of information flow to both the Attorney General and to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform? In this instance, when does the Taoiseach expect that all these recommendations will be in place and can he assure the House that the deficit of information will not be repeated?

Regarding what has happened heretofore, do I understand from the response the Taoiseach has given that it was not a case of a procedure not being in place but a failure to carry through on that, given that both the Attorney General's office and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions were represented in the Supreme Court case and therefore the information was in both critical offices. Is it the case that we are looking at an uncharacteristic glitch regarding this particular case or is it that the deficit of information flow would have presented itself in any and all cases presenting to the Supreme Court in the way that it showed in this instance?

The Deputy will appreciate that following a case such as this, the Attorney General's office advised me on every case for a few weeks. It gave me 1,000 pages on every case to read over the weekend. It is clear there is a huge number of cases——

The Taoiseach had no time to follow the Dubs.

Not if I was to read them all. A substantial number of complex cases go through the system all the time and, in fairness, of literally hundreds of cases, whatever case goes wrong will be a huge one. There is a vast array of cases and while procedures are in place to ensure every issue goes through the Attorney General, and it should under the protocols, people probably just follow a system, get careless about a system or whatever. That did not take from them doing their job in an excellent way. The 19 measures are new and are in place to minimise further the risk of recurrence, although when one considers the volume of submissions and cases, including cases to the European Court of Justice, compared with even five years ago, the volume and complexity of the cases, ones going on in so many other areas——

It is enough to give one a heart attack.

I was never known or never purported to be a legal wizard in any form. I always had great difficulty grasping or understanding the law.

The Taoiseach gets palpitations about it.

——signing all those blank cheques.

That was not a breach of the law. It was trusting people maybe more than I should have. At least we have followed the procedures and there are new measures. I will, as I promised Deputy Rabbitte some weeks ago, publish that report this week if I can.

Barr
Roinn