Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has attempted to provide post facto justification for behaviour on his part, which was clearly inappropriate and not in keeping with the integrity of his ministerial office. That is the central issue in this debate. Essentially, the Minister has failed to justify his actions and he has signally failed to deal with the central questions that arise in this debate. The first of those questions arises from his statement last Sunday when he said his actions were related to the fact that there were substantial reasons to believe there was a threat to the State's democracy and authority.

The Minister has not explained to the House what was the threat to the State that existed then or now. Let me assure him absolutely that if there is at any stage a threat to the security of this State, as he knows, he will have absolute support from Fine Gael for any legitimate action to deal with it. Our problem is that we do not know what the threat is about which he talked. Was it an invasion? Is it supposed to be the importation of arms, or was it just something the Minister dreamed up and then, because it was his post facto opinion, used it as a justification?

Second, if there was any such threat, what is the organisation from which the threat derived? Was it the IRA? Our understanding was that the IRA had gone out of commission and was not now involved in subversion. Is this not accepted by the Minister?

Third, if one is interested in protecting the integrity of the State — and, as mentioned by the Taoiseach, the integrity of the passport system — how does one do that by leaking a document selectively to a particular paper? How does that protect the integrity of anything? It seems to me that any such activity is effectively, as was pointed out to me in an e-mail from a citizen today, filching a potential court document from a file and using it to bolster his case by revealing it in a back-door way. Essentially, the Minister has not given any explanation for that kind of conduct.

Fourth, the Minister says there is no question of affecting any possible trial in the future. Does that mean that he does not want to see anybody, against whom further evidence may subsequently arise, brought before a court? I do not want to go into any detail here, but I would refer to the case of Sophie Toscan du Plantier in my own area of west Cork. Whether through DNA or otherwise, if further evidence arises there I want the person responsible to be brought before the courts. Should the same not apply to what the Minister suggests are actions against the interests of the State in this case? Therefore, was it appropriate for the Minister to deal with the file in his hands and to release a copy from that official file, where the primary evidence would or could be used in a future trial?

This is an extraordinary situation and in my long time in the House I have never seen anything like it. What is even more unusual is that the Minister does not realise it is extraordinary, which is probably the biggest concern we have. The real concern among many people is where this will lead to and what kind of precedent the Minister has created. Who will be the next target for the Minister's ire? Does he believe that in his role as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform he is able to use official files in his possession as part of his political armoury to target individuals?

I have no brief for Mr. Frank Connolly. As far as I am concerned, he has serious questions to answer, in particular concerning his activities in April 2001, but that is not the issue at all. The issue is the behaviour of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and whether it was appropriate in the circumstances. There is real public concern that there may be a continuation of this type of activity. In the fight against criminality and subversion, is it not important that the people should have full confidence, faith and trust in the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform? The Minister is at the head of the fight. Does he not appreciate how he has undermined that trust and confidence? Does he not realise, even now, that it would be in his interests, for however long he remains in that office, to have that trust and confidence of the people, and that he should make efforts to restore it? Does he not accept simply that, at the end of the day, it is not proper procedure to leak from an official file, a Garda file or wherever it came from, a document or documents that could be primary evidence in subsequent court proceedings? Does he not accept, even at this stage, that activity of that type is utterly inappropriate? He spoke about protecting the security of the State, but does he not also accept that where there is genuine legitimate action to be taken on his part, he will get the full support of this House? He cannot ask for the support of this House or the general public, however, for inappropriate behaviour.

See this speech in context