Dáil debates
Tuesday, 13 December 2005
Leaders' Questions.
2:30 pm
Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I want to raise with the Taoiseach the recent actions by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. For a person who set himself up in an organisation supposedly established to investigate matters of public interest, Mr. Frank Connolly has shown a marked reluctance to deal fully with serious questions that remain to be answered and the claims made about him. I do not believe he has fully addressed the questions put to him and it is past time that he came clean on these outstanding matters. When it comes to the protection of the State's security and the prevention of subversion of democracy, Fine Gael will stand four-square behind the Government and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform when appropriate action is being taken in the country's interest.
It is essential that such actions be appropriate and that they are in keeping with the integrity of the office of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The Minister, Deputy McDowell, has defended his recent actions on the basis that he believed a threat to the State's democracy and authority exists. If that is the case, will the Taoiseach say whether the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform informed him of this threat to our democracy? Did the Taoiseach consider making a statement to the House about this threat? Was a meeting of a Cabinet sub-committee called to deal with this threat? Were the Taoiseach and other members of the Cabinet and Government made aware that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform intended to leak information deliberately to a particular journalist? Does the Taoiseach agree with the Minister that he has dealt with this threat to our democracy in a satisfactory way? Can the Taoiseach name or identify the organisation which is responsible for this threat to our democracy, given that the House has been informed on a number of occasions that the IRA is now out of business and that there is an end to criminality? These are fundamental questions that need to be answered clearly.
As I have said, in terms of the protection of this State in dealing with the subversion of democracy, this party will stand behind appropriate action by the Government and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
As the House knows, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform will make a statement on this matter in a while. He made a comprehensive statement last week by way of a reply to a parliamentary question. The Minister has at all times kept the Government fully briefed on a matter of great importance touching on the issue of security of the State. He has acted with good authority in accordance with the duties attached to his office for the security of the State. The Minister has confirmed he provided a daily newspaper with copies of a fraudulent passport application in response to a request from that newspaper. He did not provide that newspaper with any Garda file on Mr. Connolly. It is a fact that a bogus application for an Irish passport was made. The person named in the application never made it and the signature of a priest in Belfast on the application was forged. The Minister has said on more than one occasion that Mr. Connolly has many questions to answer and I am glad Deputy Kenny agrees. Almost all sides of the House have condemned the activities of a small number in a group of persons who travelled to Colombia and who were engaged in activities that could not be regarded as benign. They brought this country into disrepute by their actions with a vicious band of narco-guerillas who have wreaked havoc on innocent people in their own country. The Minister has dealt with this matter at all times in a proper way. A number of points have been made but Deputy Kenny's question was whether the Minister kept those concerned about the matter informed and the answer is that he did.
Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Taoiseach has said the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has dealt with this matter in a proper way. On 4 September 2005, the Minister stated on "Today with Pat Kenny", "As a Minister I am not supposed to just throw out into the public domain facts which haven't been proven in court about people". These are the Minister's own words. By deliberately leaking information to a journalist, the Minister has breached his own ethics——
Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is right and it is clearly so.
Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
——in terms of how a Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform should act.
I remind Deputy Finian McGrath that I do not need support from him.
The Taoiseach has failed to supply the House with any coherent reason for the Minister's action. What was the threat to our democracy? The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform gave the reason to Seán O'Rourke on the "News at One" yesterday when he telephoned the programme to say, "I did that because on an RTE programme a couple of days previously, remarks had been made that there was no truth whatsoever in these questions". Does it not seem the case that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, in a fit of pique, leaked this information to the Seán O'Rourke programme yesterday because he does not wish to have his version of events challenged by RTE? Has he not ensured now that there can never be a prosecution in this case because of a declaration of guilt before a court case has taken place?
Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Deputy's time is concluded.
Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Taoiseach has not answered the question. The Taoiseach was informed. He regards the Minister as having behaved properly and having dealt with the matter in a proper way. As the Government has strangled the Freedom of Information Act, will the Taoiseach inform the House what was the threat to our democracy? Will he say what organisation was threatening the security of our State? I ask him to tell the House these facts. It should not be necessary for a Minister, particularly the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, to deliberately leak information to a sole journalist about a matter of public concern. This is a matter for a press conference if necessary rather than having it leaked in the way it was.
Why has there not been a discussion in the House about the antics or the charges and concerns expressed about Mr. Phil Flynn? We are now to have a debate in the House about a named individual. If any Member of the House names an individual in the House, the Ceann Comhairle will prevent them from speaking out, yet the House is to have a Government-sponsored debate about this matter which I acknowledge is important but such a debate should have taken place before this debacle occurred.
Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Deputy has spoken for three minutes. He is entitled to one minute.
Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Minister may well smirk about this. With his formidable intellect and his fluency of language he could at least find a better way of bringing into the public domain information which is critical to the nation's interest.
Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Deputy has gone well over three minutes when he is entitled to one minute for a supplementary question.
Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
What was the threat to our State security? Which organisation was the cause of this threat to our security?
Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Starry O'Brien.
Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Does the Taoiseach agree that while it is right and proper this relevant information should be made public, the method chosen by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, is not in keeping with the integrity of his office?
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I have stated that the Minister has acted properly at all times. The issue of a newspaper asking a question about——
Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Taoiseach should ask him to talk about CPI and about Thornton Hall and the new prison.
Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Allow the Taoiseach without interruption, please. The Deputy is not a member of Fine Gael, let alone the leader.
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Deputy Finian McGrath put down a question and he received a reply. I ask him to allow me reply to Deputy Kenny.
Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Allow the Taoiseach without interruption.
Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Taoiseach is fudging as usual. He never answered the original question.
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
On his own initiative and without any urging from anyone, the Minister said he wished to make a statement to the House today and take questions. I do not understand why people will not wait until the Minister has answered the issues.
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Deputy Kenny has an issue when a newspaper raises a question——
Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Will the Taoiseach tell the House what the threat was?
Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Taoiseach without interruption, please.
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I do not see what is incorrect about a Minister being asked by a newspaper about bogus documents that were used in a case. I want to answer the question but people do not really wish to listen to the answer.
Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Taoiseach will not give the answer.
Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Allow the Taoiseach without interruption, please.
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
For the third time, I make the point that I do not see what is wrong when a newspaper asks a Minister about information concerning something that was in the public domain several years ago, namely about Mr. Connolly travelling to Bogotá in April 2001 using a false passport. I do not see how giving evidence of the use of bogus documents can be wrong. For instance, last week Deputy Kenny was waving invoices at me which were obviously leaked from the HSE. I cannot see what is so special about this. Is the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to be in some way pressed out of that?
Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is the real worry.
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
There is no right of confidentiality for a bogus or false passport application form and I wonder who would claim such a right — hardly a person seeking to perpetrate a fraud on the State.
In answer to Deputy Kenny's question, all these things were linked. Last summer people were very concerned and rightly so about issues to do with Colombia and I had to return from my summer holidays to deal with it. The matter was in the newspapers for days. I remind Deputy Kenny that I appreciate his informing me that these were matters of great concern to the people of the country and to our international credibility. The Minister, who takes a tough line on criminality from all quarters and all organisations, has consistently taken a tough line this year. He has been dealing with these issues without fear or favour. He makes his point strongly about anyone who in his view gets in the way and——
Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Now the Taoiseach is talking.
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
——he is entitled to do that.
Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context
There is no provision in Leaders' Questions for a further supplementary question.
Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The documents I got were under the Freedom of Information Act——
Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Deputy, that is not a point of order. I call Deputy Rabbitte on Leaders' Questions.
Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am sorry, Deputy Kenny, we have already gone six minutes over on that question.
Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The substantive question put to the Taoiseach was what was the threat to our democracy. Will the Taoiseach answer that question? I remind him it was protection of our democracy and the institutions of the State that justified a previous Minister for Justice tapping telephones. Will the Taoiseach spell out what was the threat?
Like Deputy Kenny, I think Frank Connolly's answers to legitimate questions would not have satisfied Frank Connolly the journalist if he were asking the questions. I am not interested in either watchdogs or lap-dogs. What I want to know is whether the Taoiseach stands over the untrammelled and unreviewable use of executive power, where no prosecution has taken place or where a prosecution might be contemplated, to access Garda intelligence information in this fashion. If the Minister believes, as he has said, that he had a duty to do what he did, why did he not give expression to that duty in this House? Why, if he felt that was his duty, did he secretly and selectively leak a document from the relevant file?
We are talking here about a Minister who inserted a particular provision in the Garda Act that gives him access to such files. The same Minister is in favour of a State appointed press council. I am sure the Minister, who knows pretty much everything that is going on, knows that the next stop for the Centre for Public Inquiry was to be Thornton Hall and that the CPI had a number of meetings with the Thornton Hall people. Did he know that? Did he know that would be a conflict of interest and did he record the matter with the Taoiseach? I ask the Taoiseach for the third time to answer the question, did he believe there was a threat to our democracy and what was that threat?
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Minister has asked that he make a statement on that and he will deal with the issue.
Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Mr. Ahern is the Taoiseach.
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am, yes, but the Minister is going to deal with it.
Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am asking the Taoiseach the question.
Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Taoiseach should be allowed continue without interruption.
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will not try to deal with the question in a few seconds. The Minister, whom I support fully, will outline the issue shortly.
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
If there was no statement, I would answer the question, but the Minister has asked to make a statement and I support what he will say shortly.
There is public interest in the disclosure of criminal activity, particularly where that disclosure is intended to protect the State's interest in maintaining the integrity of the passport system and the upholding of the relevant laws. The Minister is right to take that view. The type of disclosure he made is justified in the public interest. These issues are decided on a case by case basis and the Minister made the point that a general public disclosure is justified in some circumstances. In the case in question, the Minister was entitled to take the view that the disclosure of the false application form through the media was appropriate. The Minister answered the question in the Dáil in reply to a parliamentary question, which is on the record of the House. Therefore, it is incorrect to say he did not.
Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Taoiseach is the Head of Government, but he refuses to answer the central question. The Minister has based his justification for what he did on his belief there was a threat to our democratic system and institutions. I and Deputy Kenny asked the Taoiseach what was that threat, but he evaded the answer.
The Tánaiste is on the record as saying that the Centre for Public Inquiry was "sinister and inappropriate". Does the Taoiseach agree? Does he agree that a question of balance must intrude here? The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform took the uncustomary position of putting names into the public domain some time ago in terms of the fight against subversion, something with which I agreed even though it was unusual. However, most people in the House were under the impression that decommissioning had happened and the threat to the State no longer existed. If it does exist, the Taoiseach has an obligation to tell the House what is the information.
If the Minister believes he had a duty to do what he did, why does he not make the full file available to the House and allow us judge for ourselves. We cannot have a system operated on the basis of "Trust me, I know best". Leaving out the personalities, can a citizen who has not been brought before the courts find himself or herself in circumstances where selective use is made of Garda material to undermine that person? The Taoiseach cannot let Question Time, on an issue as fundamental as this, pass without saying why he is so confident in his support of the Minister in the matter of whether there was a threat to the institutions of this State.
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I say for the third time that the Minister will speak on behalf of the Government and will give its collective position on this issue. He will not speak as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, but for the Government and he will outline the facts.
There is no Garda file, the Minister does not have the Garda file. The Deputy is under the same misapprehension as others, that the Minister acted on the Garda file and that he holds it. He does not hold the Garda file on it. He is dealing with the issue of public interest in the disclosure of criminal activity, in particular, where the disclosure is intended to protect the State's interest in maintaining the integrity of the passport system. He had information of a bogus and false passport application form. We cannot argue that people seeking to perpetrate a fraud on the State have a right.
Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
There must be quite a few such bogus applications. People have done many things with passports. There is no connection.
Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Allow the Taoiseach continue without interruption.
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Minister was not dealing with a Garda file, he was dealing with a bogus application over a period, over the past few months. It is always the same here, something big happens in the height of summer and everybody then wants to forget about it. I was called on by all sides in this House some months ago to return to the House and deal with the issue of the Colombia Three. There were extended news briefs in the summer on the issue. However, now when the Minister takes——
Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
What did the Taoiseach do about that? We still know as little about it as we did then.
Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Allow the Taoiseach continue without interruption.
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Will the Deputy listen? The one thing people do not want to do is listen, they just want to raise issues. The Minister will outline the issues shortly.
There were serious issues. The view that the Minister was the first person to put this matter in the public domain a few weeks ago is nonsense. These matters happened long before 28 July when the IRA, thankfully — it was one of the great events of this year — decided to cease paramilitary activity. In a prominent national paper in mid-July 2002 it was alleged that an individual travelled to Bogotá in the spring of 2001 using such a passport. Therefore, it was not the Minister who put this in the public domain in the first place.
Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Taoiseach referred to the passport system which I understand is under the remit of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Is the Taoiseach aware of a wider web of intrigue that goes further? He said the Government will be represented by the Minister. Is this the Government's initiative rather than that of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform or is the Taoiseach suggesting that the Minister is responsible for this development?
The Taoiseach used the phrase "at all times", a very loose response to the question as to when he was informed by the Minister about his views and actions. Will the Taoiseach be more specific? When did he first hear about this threat? He has not explained what is the threat. Going around with a false passport, if the allegation made is true, does not represent a threat to bring down the State. When did the Taoiseach first become aware of this precedent which risks hanging out to dry any journalist, Member or other person by a Minister who has turned himself into a one-man star chamber? Can he explain why the information was given to just one journalist? If it was not, is it the case that the journalist was asked to request the information so it might be put into the public domain by the Minister through a journalist?
What will the Taoiseach do with a Minister who tried so recklessly not only to assassinate the character of a former investigative journalist, with whom he might disagree on many issues, but also to undermine the authority of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Garda Síochána and the whole judicial system? How can he stand over a Minister who abuses power so recklessly? Is the real truth not that the Taoiseach is actually quite delighted that the Centre for Public Inquiry has had to fold following his initial meeting with Mr. Chuck Feeney? What was he asking Mr. Feeney to do to prevent the set-up of the centre? Is that not what this matter is about more so than anything else?
Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Hear, hear.
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The point the Deputy is making is entirely incorrect. There is no question of there being a campaign against the Centre for Public Inquiry, which happens to be Mr. Connolly's employer.
Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is on the record. It was discussed at meetings of the Progressive Democrats.
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The matter centres round the fraudulent use——
Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is on the website.
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
——of an Irish passport and the activities of persons belonging to a proscribed organisation bent on subverting the State. It is about this and not about any of the other issues raised.
Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is about the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Over the years I have had many meetings with Mr. Chuck Feeney on many issues and I hope I will continue to do so. Mr. Feeney is very helpful to the State in respect of many projects, and many people involved in education, child care and other areas are very grateful for his activities.
On the Minister being able to set down in a fair way his position on issues that have arisen or issues on which he is asked a question, his duty is to give full and detailed replies. He has done so and he has a right in this regard. There is a public interest in the disclosure of criminal activity particularly where such disclosure is intended to protect the State's interests, maintain the integrity of the passport system and uphold the State's laws. That type of disclosure is justified in the public interest and is decided on a case-by-case basis. In the present case, the Minister is entitled to take the view that disclosure of the false application form through the media was appropriate even though these events had been in the media several years ago. In answering questions, the Minister is entitled to present all the facts and demonstrate the bona fides of his actions. I cannot see anything incorrect in any of this action. Normally, people withhold investigation and can be investigated for withholding information. The idea that the case of the Director of Public Prosecutions was affected holds no validity.
Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Taoiseach has basically said, without saying so in words, that there is no threat to the State. So, that was a trumped up statement anyway. How can the Taoiseach defend a Minister who, quite clearly, does not approve of people throwing into the public domain facts that have not been proven in court? He said on 4 September 2003 to Pat Kenny on RTE: "I am not supposed to just throw out into the public domain facts which haven't been proven in court about people".
Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is correct.
Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Taoiseach is defending the Minister when he does something for which the Minister would have somebody else in court and on whom he would impose a five-year jail sentence. This is inexplicable. Is it not important that the Taoiseach answer the very strong charge that the Centre for Public Inquiry was on the tail of the Government regarding the sale of the Thornton prison site? The European Commission also feels this matter needs to be investigated. It is very serious if planning permission is not granted in respect of this site and sites close to it given that the Minister spent €30 million of taxpayers' money on a site in respect of which planning permission would not be granted under ordinary circumstances. Is it not the case that the Taoiseach does not want an investigation into this matter? Is it not the case that he can run but cannot hide and that this action will draw more heat on the Government than he would have wished for?
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Deputy, who does not believe there are many ways of investigating issues, wants another body. We have had tribunals and we have investigations and procedures. The Deputy should note there is nothing wrong with facts relating to criminal conduct being revealed other than through the process of a criminal trial, on which he based has last comment.
Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Where is the trial?
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
For as long as I have been Taoiseach, facts have been revealed day in, day out, at Dublin Castle, which facts Deputy Sargent used for many years in the House as the sole basis for his arguments.
Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Where is the tribunal?
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Were they proven facts? The media revealed facts about crimes and named accused persons or those helping the police with their inquiries.
Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
A tribunal set up by the Oireachtas.
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
There is no constitutional——
Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
What the Minister says are facts are facts.
Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Minister is a one-man tribunal.
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
As soon as the Green Party's argument is demolished, its members interrupt. There is no constitutional prohibition on these processes being used for revealing factual information. The right to a fair trial is a fundamental aspect of our constitutional system and it cannot be qualified or abrogated.
Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Allow the Taoiseach, without interruption.
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The argument put forward by the Green Party does not stand.