Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)

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.

See this speech in context