THE State's settlement with the journalist Mr Vincent Browne for the tapping of his telephone was well advanced under the former Fianna Fail Minister for Justice, Ms Maire Geoghegan Quinn, when the present Government came into office, the Dail was told.

This was revealed by the Minister, Mrs Owen, when she was questioned on the controversy by the PD spokeswoman on justice, Ms Liz O'Donnell. The Minister said she had authorised an increased compensation offer to meet demands from Mr Browne's legal representatives and on strong legal advice.

In June 1995, Mr Browne was paid £91,000 for his legal action against the State, arising from the tapping of his telephone from February 1975 to February 1983.

Mrs Owen said the court proceedings initiated in the case had to do with events many years ago, and she and her predecessor had to deal with matters and events which were not of their making.

She said that soon after she had taken up office in December 1994 she was briefed on the facts of the case, which her predecessor had agreed should be settled so as to avoid a court hearing which would be prejudicial to the State's interest.

A document containing the State's proposed settlement terms had already been agreed. It was agreed, for example, the State should pay compensation to the plaintiff and that there would be a confidentiality clause binding on both sides.

"As I was coming afresh to the issue, which was already well advanced, I queried the appropriateness of making any such settlement when I was first told about it. Having carefully reflected on the advice given to me by my Department, and on strong legal advice, I agreed that the State through the AG's office would continue with the settlement negotiations already well way and on the lines which had been presented to me when I first came to know of the matter. The State's legal team acted right from the beginning - that is April 1994 - on the instructions of the Department of Justice.

"I should emphasise what was under negotiation at that stage between the lawyers was not whether compensation should be paid, or whether there should be a confidentiality clause. A sum had already been offered by way of compensation and proposed terms of settlement had been exchanged between lawyers for the other side in early November 1994.

"These terms included a confidentiality clause which was to be binding on both sides. Eventually, to meet demands from the plaintiff's legal representatives, and on strong legal advice, I authorised an increased compensation offer. The terms set out in November 1994 were altered to reflect this increased offer and one or two other minor refinements to the proposed settlement terms were also included at that stage.

"These latter refinements did not alter the terms already exchanged in November 1994 in any material way. Part of the agreed settlement terms in the case was that either side could, on providing 24 hours' notice to the other, issue a statement, the terms of which were agreed.

"The other party has already (published this statement without, incidentally, giving the 24 hour notice, and I intend to place a copy of the agreed statement, although I imagine everybody has read it in the place where it was published, in the (Dail) library immediately following on the required period of notice to the plaintiff's solicitor.

"I want to emphasise that the publication of this statement is not a breach of the agreement reached and was specifically provided for within the agreement."

Mrs Owen said it was clear that Ms Maire Geoghegan Quinn, on the advice of the Department and on legal advice, decided in the interests of the State that confidentiality should be maintained. "I too decided, on examining the whole case, that such a confidentiality clause should remain."

The law on telephone interception had changed radically in the meantime with the introducing of a 1993 Act. "I have followed this Act to the letter of the law during my period in office and all of my actions in this regard have been subject to independent review as provided for in the Act."

She said she did not intend to drift from the agreement made, in her capacity as Minister for Justice acting on behalf of the State, simply because there was pressure to do so.

"I cannot be influenced by the fact that the other party has signalled a desire to lift the confidentiality requirement by which both parties are bound. It is not open to the other party now, unilaterally, to lift the confidentiality provision to which his lawyers formally signalled agreement on his behalf."

Referring to the RTE Prime Time programme on Tuesday, which carried an interview with Mr Browne, the Minister said she had sent a letter to the producers explaining the agreement was made in all substance before she became Minister.

"But for their own reasons, they decided not to make reference to my letter, or to the answer to that question, despite the fact that they allowed people in the programme to imply otherwise.

All of the transcripts relating to Mr Browne's conversations known to be in existence were shown to him, as had been agreed with his lawyers, she said. She added that it was utterly untrue to suggest that Fine Gael had any reason to conceal what had happened in the past. She had done what she had judged to be her duty as Minister for Justice.

Ms O'Donnell said it was Mr Browne's contention that the agreement was reached, not with the previous administration, but with Mrs Owen. He had also (claimed he signed the final settlement under false pretences, given that he was assured by way of negotiation and the pleadings that all of the transcripts related to matters of national security, whereas it turned out only four of them related to national security and the rest were political and personal.

Mrs Owen said she was not responsible for what Mr Browne had said in the media. He had said on Tuesday night's Prime Time he could not recollect if there had been a confidentiality clause in the agreement before she came into office. "I have told you what was agreed between the plaintiff's lawyers and the State's lawyers in the matter."

She said he had agreed that he would read the transcripts and that they would be destroyed. "It was after the agreement was reached that he then tried to, as it were, unpick the agreement, at which stage he had already agreed it, and, subsequently, agreed again that they would be destroyed. So he has not said that little extra bit."

She said it was open to him at any time to indicate, through his lawyers, that he wanted to take the case to court. So there was no question of false pretences, and it was very unworthy and dishonourable" to suggest there was.

Mrs Owen said she had not read the transcripts because they were not her business.