Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)

Last week, following the public outrage and political confusion as a result of the Mr. A. case, this House played a proper and leading role in trying to respond to the situation in a positive fashion. The House sat until late on Friday evening to pass, with some reluctance, the emergency legislation which the Government introduced.

We are advised, arising from last week's political crisis, that the Taoiseach will outline a series of measures to the other House. In view of the role played by this House it would be appropriate that the House be briefed on the Government's proposals at the earliest possible opportunity. Certainly there is a need to have a full discussion on whatever measures are proposed. We have heard that the Taoiseach will announce an inquiry by an official of the Department of Finance into the role played, or not played as the case may be, by the Attorney General's office. Fine Gael demands that any inquiry into the performance of the Attorney General's office be transparent, public, independent and forensic.

Some Members will recall that in 1994, arising from the Brendan Smyth case, there was a requirement to have a full investigation into the performance of the Attorney General's office on that occasion. Fine Gael will insist that the same type of thorough investigation take place on this occasion. We recall also that recommendations were put in place in the spring of 1995 and if those recommendations had been fully acted on, perhaps we would not have the problems we now have.

I acknowledge that the Taoiseach is indicating that problems need to be addressed and changes need to be made. That admission by the Taoiseach that things have not happened as they should have happened is welcome. Once again it appears that while the Taoiseach and the Government admit problems exist, political responsibility is not being taken by anybody. That is disappointing. Political responsibility needs to be taken for what happened last week.

Arising from the ongoing public fear, outrage and political difficulties caused by the Mr. A. case, we are still unclear as to where exactly we stand. We are advised that there are 17 persons in prison arising from convictions under the 1935 Act but we have no idea as to the status of these convictions or what appeals may be under way that could be successful. Those grave issues which concern not just the House but deeply concerned the country and, particularly parents, last week are still with us and need to be fully debated in the House at the earliest opportunity.