THE Taoiseach said he was prevented legally from commenting on contacts between the Chief State Solicitor's office and the Special Criminal Court in the Judge Dominic Lynch controversy.

He said the solicitor in the office who had contacted the registrar of the court on November 5th was engaged exclusively on work for the Director of Public Prosecutions, who was independent in law in the discharge of his functions.

"The solicitor's involvement relating to the question of Judge Lynch's position arose in connection with his work for the DPP, and is privileged as between the solicitor and client," Mr Bruton added.

"For these reasons, I am unable, as deputies will understand, to comment on the context in which the solicitor's conversation with the office of the DPP took place beyond indicating, as I have done, the date and fact of the conversation."

The PD leader, Ms Mary Harney, said it was important that the full facts of the matter be known. "For that, and no other reason the DPP should exercise the right at the Taoiseach's request, to have the privilege waived."

Mr Bruton said it was important they know the facts but it was also important there should not be any disclosure relating to a matter which was the subject of court proceedings.

Pressed further, Mr Bruton repeated that the communication between the Chief State Solicitor's office and the DPP was privileged and covered by client confidentiality. "It would not be appropriate for me to initiate any inquiry into that matter until any question of court proceedings, arising from the nature and content of such a conversation, has been removed by the completion of the relevant court case.

The Taoiseach said that when the Attorney General wrote a letter to the Department of Justice relating to Judge Lynch's delisting from the Special Criminal Court, he was aware that the matter was "potentially of some moment".

There were other possibilities on his mind that the date of Judge Lynch's retirement from the court might have been set for a later date than the date of the Government's decision; that the judge who replaced Judge Lynch might not have been able or willing to take up the position in the court at that time; and that a subsequent Government decision had been taken at a meeting when the Attorney General might not have been present.

He said the AG had acted with speed in writing to the Department on the matter. Opposition attempts to introduce criticism of the AG, when he was the one person who did take action in the matter, were entirely misplaced.

There was a recording system relating to the typing of letters, but there was none relating to the issue of letters. When they were typed, the date was recorded in a computer. The AG's letter was sent by the state messenger service, said Mr Bruton.