Travers Report: Presentations Vol. No. 46
Deputy Gormley: Deputy Callely said to Mr. Travers that there was a vote on an unrelated matter.
Deputy Callely: That is right.
Deputy Gormley:What was that unrelated matter?
Deputy Callely: Deputy Gormley would be a good man if he could tell me on what he voted each time he has gone through the lobbies.
Deputy Gormley: Was Deputy Callely going through the lobbies? I am trying to work out the exact circumstances in which he told the Taoiseach about this very important matter. Did Deputy Callely sit down beside him or how did he go about it?
Deputy Callely: Deputy Gormley knows, as I do, the manner in which Dáil votes are called. One is often in the Chamber for a period of time prior to the vote taking place and after it has taken place. Prior to a vote taking place, there is an opportunity to mingle and briefly discuss issues ——with colleagues.
Deputy Gormley: If one is sitting in one’s place——
Deputy Callely: When I walked into the Chamber, the Taoiseach would have been in his seat and I would have mentioned it to him.
Deputy Gormley: Deputy Callely would have gone up to the Taoiseach and discussed it with him.
Deputy Callely: Yes.
Deputy Gormley: Will Deputy Callely try to recollect whether it was the day after or the one after that? As far as I can see from looking at the diary for 2003, there were only two days in which Deputy Callely could have discussed this issue with the Taoiseach. Perhaps he will come back at a later stage with a clearer recollection.
Deputy Callely:He listened and he acknowledged.
Deputy Gormley: I want to know what the Taoiseach actually said.
Deputy Callely: The Taoiseach did not respond. He listened to what I said and acknowledge it by way of a nod of the head. In one day, a likely schedule of meetings would be 10.30 a.m., 11.30 a.m., 12.30 p.m., 1 p.m., 1.30 p.m., 2.30 p.m.——
Deputy Gormley: That is fine. Deputy Callely told us how hardworking he is and we believe him. I put this question to Mr. Travers and it has been touched on briefly by my colleague, Deputy McManus. It would appear no minutes were kept of the meetings of the ministerial team. Is that correct?
Deputy Callely: I would not be the minute taker, so I cannot say. What I can say is along the lines of what Deputy Tim O’Malley said, namely, we would have had a number of collective meetings with the Minister, particularly in the early days of our appointment.
Deputy Callely: I am aware of ministerial meetings which took place attended only by Ministers, which I think would not be unusual.
Deputy Gormley: Were minutes kept of those meetings?
Deputy Callely: It was only the ministerial team. I, for one, would certainly have had the relevant folder concerning an item I wanted to discuss with the Minister. I am just covering myself here because I do not want some folder to appear with a note or minute and for somebody to say I said there were no minutes. I am simply saying that on occasions when I met the Minister and the ministerial team in the Department, I may have had a file with me. As we discussed an issue, I may have recorded a note for myself on the file, whatever the file may have dealt with. I cannot recall and would not like to say if the Minister, Deputy Martin, made a record of the meeting. He may well have done so. On occasions, the Secretary General would have attended such meetings and one or two other officials would accompany him. My interest was more in my input into the content of the meeting rather than looking around the room to see who was taking minutes. I would not like to give a definitive opinion in that regard.
Deputy Gormley: Is it fair to say the actions of Ministers in the Department were marked by a certain informality and that it would have been a good idea to read and keep minutes? I put that question to both Ministers of State.
Deputy T. O’Malley: Some meetings were formal. Informal meetings are also useful because the senior Minister in the Department of Health and Children is always extremely busy and if he or she wants to discuss an issue with one, two or all three Ministers of State, that meeting could be called quickly to discuss an item. There is a usefulness in having informality. Mr. Travers mentioned that in his report, particularly in the context of the Freedom of Information Act 1997. He did not expect everything that was discussed to be minuted other than important decisions.
Deputy Gormley: Did the Minister of State, Deputy Tim O’Malley, ever speak to the Tánaiste about this in any shape or form?
Deputy T. O’Malley: No, I did not.
Deputy Gormley: Never.
Deputy T. O’Malley: No.
Deputy McManus: Even though it had such serious implications.
Chairman: Please allow Deputy Gormley to continue.
Deputy Gormley: Both Ministers of State made many assumptions and presumptions, which they reiterated earlier. Why was this issue not followed up? Why did neither of them check that the legal advice had been sought and not received at that stage given that urgent legislation was required? Why did neither of them follow it up? Do they agree it was remiss of them?
Deputy T. O’Malley: The same question was asked of Mr. McLoughlin yesterday and he, like me, made the assumption it was a serious matter. I can only speak for myself and I do not speak for other Ministers. Once the decision was made to seek the Attorney General’s advice, Mr. McLoughlin was happy. He was asked yesterday why he did not follow it up and my answer is the same as his. He assumed it was being done. The Deputy may not like the answer.
Deputy Gormley: I find it incredible. Is making assumptions the way to run a Department?
Chairman: To be fair, Mr. McLoughlin made the point it was immaterial whether he followed up when he was asked the question because he had got the word.
Deputy Gormley: I am putting it to the two Ministers of State, in particular to Deputy Callely who had devolved responsibility for this issue. It was never raised properly in any forum and it was not followed up. That is the only conclusion we can reach. The Minister of State, Deputy Tim O’Malley, has stated it was based on assumption.
Deputy T. O’Malley: I wish to correct the Deputy. It is untrue to say it was not raised. It was raised at the MAC meeting in February, three months after the December meeting.
Deputy Gormley: The Minister of State did not raise it with the Minister, Deputy Martin, the Tánaiste or the Taoiseach.
Deputy T. O’Malley:Hindsight is great. The Deputy knows what transpired because he has read the report. We were not aware of all the information and neither was the Deputy or anyone else in the room. We are aware now and, therefore, the Deputy is bringing into play knowledge he has now. I was aware on 16 December and I saw the minutes of a meeting that took place three months later in February which stated legal advice had been sought from the Attorney General. I saw the minutes of the MAC meeting in October at which various legal options were considered. That was the response from the Secretary General at the meeting. It was only fair, therefore, to assume the matter was being processed. I am not a lawyer and when a matter of such grave importance is being discussed by the Secretary General of a Department and the Attorney General, the assumption is that all legal matters are being discussed.
Deputy Gormley: Did the Minister of State ask to see the legal advice at any stage?
Deputy T. O’Malley: I am not a member of the Cabinet and, therefore, I would not be given that legal advice.
Deputy Gormley: The Minister of State is in the Department.
Chairman: When Mr. McLoughlin was asked yesterday whether he made an attempt to talk to the senior or junior Ministers, he pointed out it was immaterial.
Deputy McManus: That has nothing to do with this.
Deputy Twomey: He is not being questioned.
Chairman: It has a great deal to do with this.
Deputy McManus: He is out of the loop. These are the Ministers of State who have carried responsibility.
Chairman: He is not out of the loop. He was brought into the loop twice earlier. It is convenient now and again——
Deputy Gormley: I did not mention him.