Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach will recall that last Tuesday he informed the House that a motion would be presented today to set up a joint committee to examine the position of Judge Brian Curtin. It now appears this motion will be delayed. Will the Taoiseach explain the reasons for this delay? What has happened in recent days to upset the Government's timetable? Also, will he respond to the remarks of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform over the weekend, when he refused to rule out the negotiation of a settlement package for Judge Curtin? On the face of it that appears to contradict the repeated, firm assertions to the contrary by the Taoiseach in the Dáil and elsewhere. In light of those confusing signals, can the Taoiseach confirm that no financial settlement of any kind to Judge Curtin is being contemplated by the Government?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will take the last question first. Yes, I can give that confirmation. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform feels the comments he made were not taken in context. The Tánaiste made it clear today that there will not be any compensation.

On Deputy Kenny's first question, last Tuesday I indicated my intention to propose a motion or motions today regarding Judge Curtin in the context of Article 35.4 of the Constitution. That arose from the Government's deliberations on a letter received the previous Thursday from Judge Curtin's solicitors. In that letter the solicitors indicated that Judge Curtin would respond appropriately to requests made of him by the Houses of the Oireachtas. Thus it seemed clear that this matter would proceed before the Houses of the Oireachtas today and to that end a motion permitting the Houses to adopt the procedures I outlined last week was drafted. It is ready.

However, at 5.05 p.m. — someone said it was 5.55 p.m. but it is 5.05 p.m. according to my note — on Friday 21 May a letter from Judge Curtin's solicitors was received by my office. They sought an opportunity to consider the procedure it is intended to adopt concerning Judge Curtin so that submissions on behalf of Judge Curtin can be brought to the attention of the Dáil and Seanad.

In light of last Friday's letter and to ensure fairness in procedures it has been decided to give this opportunity to Judge Curtin's solicitors before any motion is moved. All submissions and correspondence with Judge Curtin's representatives will be made available to Deputies and Senators before they consider the motion and vote on it. Given the importance and solemnity of the process, Members will agree on the necessity to act fairly. Judge Curtin's solicitors, therefore, will be informed of the proposed procedures in detail.

They will also be offered an opportunity to make submissions in writing which are to be received by me not later than 2.30 p.m. on Monday, 31 May 2004, so that the motion can be tabled next week.

I am conscious that Judge Curtin was first written to on 27 April and was given in total a three week period within which to reply to the letter from the Secretary to the Government. This House is aware the reply received on 13 May did not contain any substantive response but in the letter of 21 May, Judge Curtin's solicitors stated to the Government for the first time that they were at all times instructed that Judge Curtin "had not been involved in impropriety of the type alleged against him". However, no other details were furnished by Judge Curtin's solicitors on the circumstances to which I have previously referred.

I bring this statement to the attention of the House, in reply to Deputy Kenny, because it justifies and underscores the necessity for and the caution with which we have proceeded on this matter. We will continue to proceed in that manner until this process has reached a conclusion.

I understand the House, tomorrow, and the Committee on Procedure and Privileges will discuss the other matters which are ready. As this resolution will now be given by letter to the solicitor, the resolution will be given by the Minister to the representatives of the parties in the House. I understand that will be done later today.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I remind the House of the statement I made on the two previous occasions when this matter came before the House.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have no intention of breaking your ruling, Sir. In respect of the letter received by the Government at 5.05 p.m., did it refer specifically to the process to be followed because we are concerned about due and fair process for everybody, or did it contain any reference to newspaper reports today that the person concerned may have a psychiatric condition? On 26 April, when I asked the Taoiseach about the appointment of Judge Curtin in the first instance, he indicated that a detailed check would have to be carried out as to whether members of the Cabinet were in possession of any information that might lead the Cabinet to consider an appointment such as this inappropriate. I understand that persons wishing to be appointed as judges apply to the judicial advisory board. Thereafter they are interviewed, recommendations are made to Government and some discussion takes place between the Attorney General, the Taoiseach and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and a memorandum is prepared for Government. The law states clearly that for every vacancy occurring up to seven names can be forwarded. Did the Taoiseach carry out a detailed check in respect of my question of 26 April? Is he aware or did he have any discussions with the Attorney General about any information that may have been given to him in respect of conduct unbecoming or inappropriate behaviour in respect of this or other appointments considered at that time?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In reply to the first question, the letter refers to the present state of health of Judge Curtin. That letter and all the correspondence will be given to the House before any vote on this issue. The issue is about the solicitors being allowed to give their views on the process that will be adopted. The procedure is that I have given until 2.30 p.m. on next Monday afternoon to receive submissions. The solicitors will get the detail of the motion, which has been drafted by the Attorney General, and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform will give it to the Leaders or their representatives in the House later today. This will give them a chance to comment on it, as they have requested. The resolution will be moved next week. All of those issues are ready. The issues for tomorrow, in so far as they involve the Government, are also ready.

In regard to the second question, I gave an undertaking to Deputy Kenny to raise that matter and I have done so. Following my inquiries I shall give a short extract of what was reported to me. There was no foundation whatever to suggest——

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The time has concluded but if the House is agreeable the Taoiseach may continue? Agreed.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is nothing to suggest the Minister made any inquiries or received any representations on the appointment of Judge Curtin. Judge Curtin was one of a list of persons approved for appointment to a vacancy in the Circuit Court by the judicial appointments advisory committee. At the time of Judge Curtin's appointment, the Minister, who was then the Attorney General, was aware of no matter which could adversely affect the suitability for appointment to the Bench. Judge Brian Curtin was appointed to the Circuit Court in accordance with the terms of the Courts and Court Officers Act 1995. That established the judicial appointments advisory board which is comprised of the Chief Justice, the Presidents of the High Court, Circuit Court, District Court, the Attorney General, two representatives of the legal profession and up to three representatives of the public interest appointed by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and wherever a judicial vacancy arises the board may advertise for applicants.

Applicants for judicial appointments require officers to complete application forms, consult persons concerning the suitability of applicants for the board, invite persons identified by the board to submit their names for consideration by the board, arrange for the interviewing of applicants who wish to be considered by the board for appointments to judicial office and do such other things as the board considers necessary to enable it to discharge its functions under the Act. Persons who are not already judges and who wish to apply for appointment to the Bench apply to the board. The board assesses the applicants and recommends at least seven names to the Government in respect of each vacancy. In the normal course, the Government chooses from among the recommended names the one person who will fill any given vacancy. In this case Brian Curtin was recommended by the board for appointment to a vacancy in the Circuit Court in 2001. He was later appointed to fill that vacancy. At that time he was a very successful barrister at the Munster Circuit Court and to my knowledge neither the board nor the Government was at any time aware of any reason he should not have been appointed.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On the last point, given that the judge in question when a practising barrister had political affiliations is the Taoiseach saying no representations were made concerning his appointment to the Bench? Had the investigation been completed at the time of his appointment to the Bench and was certain information in the possession of the prosecutorial authorities at that time? Is the Taoiseach saying to the House, given that the Bar Library is a particularly incestuous place, that no information was communicated to Government about what might be considered inappropriate behaviour for a prospective member of the Bench or that the Government ought to have known?

I refer to the Taoiseach's statement on 27 April when he said that removal from office is the only option where there is stated misbehaviour. He said: "There are no alternatives. Moreover, monetary compensation simply does not arise. There is no provision for this and no justification for it on such removal." Can the Taoiseach dismiss the remarks of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, in Kerry to the effect that he would not rule out a negotiated monetary settlement? Can the Taoiseach dismiss that as simply saying he was taken out of context? How could he be taken out of context on something as particular and specific as this? What the Minister said was that he would not rule out such a settlement. Is it fair for the Taoiseach to hope to enlist the support of the Opposition parties to co-operate in a process down which road we have not gone before if, in fact, it is the intention that a settlement can be negotiated after 11 June 2004? Which route is the Government taking? Is the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform correct when he states he does not rule out a settlement or is the Government firmly minded to bring the motion before the House and see this process through to the end? It is unfair to hope to enlist the support of the Oireachtas as a bargaining chip in negotiations that may be contemplated by the Government.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In response to the question regarding the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, an issue which Deputy Kenny raised with me, I stated that there was no foundation to the suggestion that the Minister made any inquiries or received any representation on the appointment of Judge Curtin. I have outlined the procedure. Mr. Brian Curtin was recommended for a vacancy which he was later appointed to fill. He was at that time a successful barrister. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform inquired into the matter and it is known that neither the board nor the Government was at that time aware of any reason that he should not have been appointed. I also asked the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue, if he had any knowledge at that time why he should not be appointed, and he had no such information at that time. Both the present and former Ministers for Justice, Equality and Law Reform have confirmed there was no such knowledge about Judge Curtin.

The Tánaiste reiterated today what the Deputy correctly read out and his interpretation of our position is correct: there is no question of compensation. The Deputy referred to the Government enlisting the support of the Opposition parties. The removal of a judge from office is a serious constitutional process. The power derives from the Constitution and it must be devoid of party political interest. It must never yield to anything other than that. What we said both inside and outside the House makes it clear that it is not a trivial matter. The process of removal from office is a matter for this House and the Seanad, is exclusively within the constitutional sphere and is not a matter for Government. Our Constitution is clear that the Houses of Oireachtas have exclusive control of the process and nothing can happen to the process without the approval of the House. That is the way it will remain.

It would be unreasonable for the Government to negotiate on one front while going through the process on the other front. The Government will not and should not do that. We should be very clear on that position. Once we take this process, which is a process for the Houses of the Oireachtas, we cannot take any other process.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is believed around the House that the Taoiseach gave a somewhat different presentation to his parliamentary party. He will understand why we on this side of the House are anxious that if we are taken into his confidence in terms of what material is in his possession in this regard and if we play our full part responsibly in a situation that we have not confronted before, we do not find ourselves subsequently taking a very different route, which is the purpose of my questioning.

It has been suggested in newspaper coverage that the evidence secured on a spent warrant that would not be admissible in a court of law would be admissible as evidence before a committee of the Oireachtas. Is that the view of the Taoiseach? Is it a correct interpretation of what he said that the letter he received from the solicitor acting on behalf of Judge Curtin refers to the fact that he is regrettably suffering from a psychological disorder? I understand that is what the Taoiseach has said. I raise that in the context of Article 35.4 where removal is on the basis of either stated misbehaviour or incapacity. The Taoiseach may have heard a senior lecturer and professor of law in Trinity College and others argue that "incapacity" may have a wider meaning than the physical incapacity suggested by the Attorney General and others. The word in Irish is "míthreorach", which I am advised means perhaps more a mental rather than a physical incapacity. Given the current circumstances, would it be possible to proceed on that basis?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Attorney General has given his views on what would be considered as incapacity. The Deputy is correct that the letter mentions the state of health of Judge Curtin, but it gives no evidence. The Attorney General has given his view that there would have to be evidence of incapacity and it could not be taken in a general form. There is no sustainable medical case. Whether that will come eventually is another matter. We are not making a judgment on the term "incapacity", as it is correctly termed in the Constitution.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If the judge is disabled, is he not disabled from discharging his functions as a judge?

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is no provision for further supplementary questions.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They are hypothetical issues. I do not claim to be either a legal or medical expert but it could be of a short duration which would hardly be what the Constitution regarded as a permanent incapacity. One could argue either way and I do not think the solicitor has argued it in a way that shows the ultimate argument. That will be brought forward in due course. The Deputy asked me another question.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I asked if evidence that is inadmissible before a court can be put in evidence to a committee of the Oireachtas.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Oireachtas must conduct its own examination. There are legal issues involved and the Deputy will appreciate that, in my position, I have heard of some of the issues but am precluded from referring to them. The Deputy is correct that I was asked about these issues, but I refused to give the evidence to my party or to the media. If I were to be asked as a lay person whether substantial evidence that is available but ruled inadmissible because of the date of a warrant should be used in making a decision, while I must refer to the legal advice, as a lay person, it is not an unreasonable position. I have no doubt that great legal minds will argue out that issue. If there are issues of substance, it is for the House to examine those.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Unlike the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Taoiseach rules out a monetary settlement.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Last week in the Taoiseach's absence, the Minister for Defence advised the House that the Hanly report had been changed and that the threat to accident and emergency services at Nenagh and Ennis hospitals had been lifted. Will the Taoiseach spell out exactly in what way the Hanly report has been changed, as the Minister claimed? Will he advise the House of the present status of the report? When David Hanly addressed the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children, he advised that 60% to 70% of cases presenting at accident and emergency units at local hospitals were of a non-urgent variety. Does the Taoiseach not accept, therefore, that 30% to 40% of cases presenting are of an urgent variety and require accident and emergency attention at the local hospitals closest to where the patients might present?

Do the changes to which the Minister referred mean that the Government has now taken on board that there is a risk in terms of urgent cases presenting at hospital sites throughout the State and that the Hanly report has been altered to meet that need? If that is the case and there is no threat to accident and emergency services at Nenagh and Ennis, will the Taoiseach advise if the same formula will be applied to Monaghan General Hospital and the Louth Hospital at Dundalk and that we will see the restoration of on-call status at both these hospitals for all accident and emergency requirements?

Today, the National Cancer Registry of Ireland published a study which, in its own words, provides strong evidence that cancer treatment and survival can depend on where one lives. It points out that the Eastern Regional Health Authority has a significantly better chance of delivering the required supports and people have a better chance of living with cancer than they do if they live in the North Eastern Health Board area, on which I depend, and in the Southern Health Board area. Is this not indicative that there is not only a two-tier health system in regard to people's ability to pay but also geographically?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The report on the communication process undertaken following the Government's decision on health service reform was published last November and I gave all the details on this issue. At that stage, we were requested to broaden the team and the scope and to listen to the concerns. The case was made that in the evening, it would be a nurse-led service and the demand was for a medical-led service. A team of 15 of the health service employers joined the health reform project office within the Department to work with it. The board of the interim health service executive was appointed in November. The first meeting took place early in the year. The national steering committee to oversee the implementation reform programme has been appointed. The implementation groups in respect of the Hanly report, the specific issue the Deputy raised, in the east coast area and in the North Western Health Board were also announced. The acute hospital network was announced at the end of January.

As part of the above, the Minister clarified that both in Ennis and in Nenagh, there would be a doctor-led service. Subsequently, that demand extended to other areas. He also clarified that there would be a doctor-led service in Dundalk and Monaghan. Obviously, that does not cover the highly specialist areas people want, but at least it deals with the accident and emergency-type or more local services provided by having a doctor on site. That dealt with the issue. That is now the policy and the Minister has stated that in a number of the health board areas he has visited. He has given letters and has stated the position clearly.

In regard to cancer, there is no doubt that if one lives near major hospitals and if something goes wrong, one is in a more advantageous position. I will not argue with Deputy Ó Caoláin on that basis. If one lives, as I do, a short distance from Beaumont and the Mater hospitals and if something goes wrong, one is more fortunate than if one lived on the Dingle peninsula, the Inishowen peninsula——

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Monaghan.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

——or perhaps in other parts of the country. However, that does not take away from what has been done for cancer services and, in recent years, we have spent money on them and have resourced them by providing staff, equipment and beds.

In regard to oncology services, somewhere of the order of €550 million has gone into building on the cancer strategy and providing the necessary resources. That applies to this year. Nearly 90 consultants deal with that and there is the relevant back-up staff. There has been a substantial increase everywhere in the country. As the Deputy knows, cancer patients come to the main centres for various aspects of their operative and post-operative care where the specialties are located. That is the way it is with all our main services, including heart, liver and other services. That is what the medical people believe is the best way to deal with people who are ill, the best way they can give them the service and the best way of getting people who are seriously ill back to full health. They do that for good reason, and not only in this country.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach has not offered any reprieve nor has he confirmed the Minister's view that Hanly has been sufficiently tweaked to guarantee the future of accident and emergency services. Does he not recognise that when he talks about a doctor, he is talking about a general practitioner? When he talks about medical, he is talking about people with medical problems and not people presenting as a result of accident and emergency who may need surgery or stabilisation prior to redirection to another major site. These are important services that our local hospital network should be able to provide.

I am sure the people of Ennis and Nenagh will be mindful of the detail of the Taoiseach's response because he has not given them the solace they believe they have received. In regard to Monaghan and Dundalk, a dark cloud still hangs over all our lives. Does the Taoiseach accept that all elected opinion has pressed for a change in this regard and for accident and emergency on-call services to be provided? Does he not recognise that in the radiation oncology service recommended network of radiotherapy centres in Dublin, Cork and Galway——

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy's time has concluded. The question on cancer services is really a second question. He is allowed one question on a topical issue.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

——there is a failure to address a real need and that the North Eastern Health Board clearly is an area that is not being addressed and which has a high cancer rate and a serious rate of mortality and morbidity?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The radiotherapy report has been published and the Minister has stated his position. I hope that in the coming years, improvements made in the last decade will continue because there is a much better service. The more resources that can be invested, the more it will improve in time to come. This year an additional €15 million or so has gone into improving the service on top of the base that has been created in recent years.

On the Hanly report issue, the Deputy asked me if the nurse service after a particular hour had been changed. I said "yes" and that there would be medical cover.

Liz McManus (Wicklow, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What does that mean?

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is a Sinn Fein question.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Instead of a nurse, there would be a doctor. That is what is means. That is why it is not easy to understand.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will the Taoiseach confine himself to answering Deputy Ó Caoláin? Deputy McManus was out of order in asking a supplementary question.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy is confused as between a nurse and a doctor.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Ó Caoláin's question.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is what we stated. We listened to the case and responded to it.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Next the Taoiseach will tell us that the Minister for Defence, Deputy Michael Smith, will go around the wards.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Rabbitte has had his opportunity.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We said that we would provide a medical service in local hospitals, and that was the change we made.

Liz McManus (Wicklow, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There must be an election coming up.