Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 19 Feb 2014

Vol. 831 No. 2

Leaders' Questions

Last week, I read elements of the transcript of a conversation between the Garda confidential recipient, Mr. Oliver Connolly, and a Garda whistleblower, Mr. Maurice McCabe, such as how, if the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, felt the whistleblower was going to screw him, he would be finished. In addition, it was said that if complaints were exposed to the print media, it would make him an angry man and so on. The elements of the conversation were quite shocking in terms of their import. The confidential recipient also spoke about his close proximity to "Alan" and how he communicated with him on the allegations the whistleblower had put before him. I have since listened to the audiotape of that conversation and can confirm its existence. Every single syllable I articulated last week is on it and, obviously, more. It reveals the frustration of the whistleblower and also the desire of the confidential recipient that at all costs this must not get into the print media, that it must be kept out of the media.

I subsequently met the whistleblower, Mr. Maurice McCabe, and must say he is a credible man. He has some story to tell, but the Minister for Justice and Equality, essentially, has not allowed him to tell it. I have met others, people who have been in authority, who equally believe in this man's credibility. He did everything by the book, the whole way, as a whistleblower. He went to line management and was rebuffed. He went to the confidential recipient and got nowhere. He wrote repeatedly to the Taoiseach for over 12 months and gave his office a dossier with all of his allegations backed up by evidence. He went to the Department of Justice and Equality, but he got no response of any consequence. He initially went to the Department of Transport which sent it to the Department of Justice and Equality. He also went to the Road Safety Authority where he got a good response. The Taoiseach should speak to the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Leo Varadkar, who did stand his ground. Maybe people should listen to him more in the Cabinet than to the Minister for Justice and Equality.

The bottom line is that when the inquiry into the penalty points saga was initiated, it was extraordinary that Assistant Garda Commissioner O'Mahony and the inquiry team did not actually interview Mr. Maurice McCabe, the man who had made the original accusations. Incredibly, the Minister, Deputy Alan Shatter, told the Dáil last October that the whistleblower had not co-operated with the inquiry. That was a blatant untruth. The person who chaired the inquiry has since confirmed that he did not interview the whistleblower.

The Road Safety Authority wrote to the Minister after the Cabinet had referred the O'Mahony report to it, highlighting that major failing in the O'Mahony investigation. The Minister, Deputy Leo Varadkar, knows that I am telling the truth because he stood his ground. The Road Safety Authority will equally confirm what I am saying. However, the Department of Justice and Equality and the Minister, Deputy Alan Shatter, did not. A lot of negative innuendo was spread about this man. It was spread to people who had inquired to put them off the trail. What happened was fundamentally wrong. What Garda whistleblower in his or her right mind would ever go near the system again, given the treatment that has been meted out to this man?

A Deputy

They have no confidence.

What has occurred is absolutely scandalous. It is not just about penalty points, it is also about other serious issues that would make one's hair stand on end. They are shocking revelations of incompetence which ultimately led to people being murdered as a result of a failure to act. It is very serious stuff which the Department of Justice and Equality has had for quite a long time but not acted on.

Does the Taoiseach think the position of the confidential recipient is tenable, given the existence of this transcript and the treatment of Mr. Maurice McCabe? Will he insist on the Minister for Justice and Equality coming into the House to apologise to Mr. McCabe? The Minister should withdraw the remarks he made on the floor of the House that Mr. McCabe had not co-operated. That was wrong and the Minister should correct the record in the interests of fair play.

We are way over time. The Deputy should co-operate.

I know the Garda Inspectorate produced a report on the O'Mahony investigation. Will the Taoiseach confirm that that report is now with the Minister for Justice and Equality? Will it be published unvarnished?

This is a very serious matter that was raised following publication of elements of the transcript in a Sunday newspaper some two weeks ago. Following my response in the Dáil, I said I had sought a report on the matter and would see to it that that report was followed through on. I did receive a report from the Secretary General of the Department of Justice and Equality who in the past two weeks has made a number of contacts with the confidential recipient in regard to the veracity or otherwise of the transcript published in newspapers. There were a number of contacts with the confidential recipient. This is a very serious matter. Following publication of the full elements of what is alleged to have happened, I did not have the opportunity to listen to an audiotape personally. However, having read all of the statements made and having been in contact with the Minister for Justice and Equality who is very concerned about this matter-----

A Deputy

That is new.

-----he has this morning relieved Mr. Connolly of his duties.

I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. I think the decision was the inevitable outcome of the conversation that had taken place between the confidential recipient and Mr. McCabe. I take no pleasure in saying this in respect of the individual concerned, but that is not the end of the matter by a long shot. The Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, must come into the House to answer serious questions about how he dealt with this whistleblower.

He should be gone.

We are talking about the equivalent of the Neary case in the health sector. It was the whistleblower who sorted out that issue and revealed all. This is how Garda whistleblowers are being treated by the system, yet the Minister stands over it. He has stood over it the whole way through. That is the problem.

When Mr. McCabe sent the Taoiseach a dossier, he wrote to his office saying he had not been interviewed by Assistant Garda Commissioner O'Mahony, even though he had made all of the allegations. The Taoiseach wrote to the Department of Justice and Equality and the Minister for Justice and Equality told him that whether Mr. McCabe would be interviewed was an operational matter for the head of the inquiry team.

Put the question, please.

It was an extraordinary reply, yet, having sent that letter to the Taoiseach, the Minister, Deputy Alan Shatter, went into the House to say the Garda whistleblower had not co-operated with the inquiry. That was a blatant untruth. That is the critical point. In the interests of fair play, the Minister needs to correct the record, if he has any sense of decency towards the individual concerned.

I know that the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Leo Varadkar, met Mr. Maurice McCabe. The Minister then went on Morning Ireland to say, "I believe this man to be credible," much to the anger of the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter. I know that, too.

I am sorry, but we are not here to discuss that issue.

There is something rotten in the state of Denmark in regard to this issue.

Will the Deputy, please, put his question?

It has now gone beyond most of the institutions that have dealt with it.

When talking to people who know a lot about it in other institutions, the first thing they ask is whether I mind if we meet in my office as they are afraid their telephones could be bugged. That is out there in the ether and the Taoiseach needs to do something about it.

Who would bother to bug Deputy Martin's phone?

I will communicate with the Taoiseach following his invitation yesterday. Material that has come into my possession concerns a more serious matter. I sincerely hope the Taoiseach will not leave it with the Department of Justice and Equality. The Taoiseach should not tell me he is waiting for a report from that Department because he will wait and wait. The matter must be taken out of the Department of Justice and Equality to get to the truth of this. I say that in good faith.

I thank the Deputy for his comments and I invite him to hand me personally the information of national importance. I would be happy to receive it and act on it. In the House I said that I had requested a report from the Department of Justice and Equality. I received a report from the Secretary General of the Department of Justice and Equality outlining the number of contacts the Department made with the confidential recipient about the veracity or otherwise of the allegations and comments printed in the national media. Following discussions arising from the report with the Minister for Justice and Equality and following the publication of a more expansive version of a conversation that took place, the Minister has advised the official confidential recipient that if he has any knowledge of any illegal activities he should bring it to the attention of the Garda Síochána and has, this morning, relieved him of his duties.

We have all this.

The system has been around for a number of years. The Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, has said on a number of occasions that he is not happy with the operation of the confidential recipient in this structure.

He is the problem.

Is the Taoiseach happy with him?

I agree with Deputy Martin's point about why anyone with a whistleblowing issue would deliver it if there is no faith or trust in the system. That is why the Minister has been very clear that he wants to bring changes to legislation into the House to be fully debated.

The Taoiseach should haul him in.

Nor is it acceptable to the Minister that members of the Garda Síochána are a liaison between GSOC and the Garda Síochána. He is not happy-----

Let the Minister say that in here.

------about the confidential recipient situation and he will bring in changes. I said yesterday that the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality is mandated to review the Garda Síochána Act in so far as this is concerned, to make recommendations and to hold public hearings from people who have expressed views about the inefficiency or ineffectiveness of the Act. The Minister for Justice and Equality will deal with it in the changes that will be brought to the House. Having considered all of this and having looked at the report and the contacts made by the Department of Justice and Equality with the confidential recipient, the Minister has formally relieved him of his duties.

Will he correct the record of the House?

When the two whistleblowers on the penalty points scandal stepped forward into the public light, having been frustrated in their efforts to bring the matter to a conclusion within the Garda Síochána, the instinct of the Minister for Justice and Equality was to rubbish these two men. He did so publicly. He did, of course, allege that they refused to co-operate with internal Garda procedures, which was patently false. The same Minister and members of the Government tried to prevent the whistleblower, Sergeant Maurice McCabe, from appearing before the Committee of Public Accounts. Members of the Government backbenches seek to frustrate the whistleblower from receiving a transcript of the evidence he gave to the committee.

This is disingenuous nonsense.

Damage has been done to the Garda Síochána, to accountability and to whistleblowing within that organisation. The chief author of the damage is none other than the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter. The mystery is that the Taoiseach stands by him regardless, as do all members of Fine Gael and Labour. This causes much public bewilderment. The same Minister is now charged with drawing up the terms of reference for the review into what happened in GSOC, the bugging of the offices of those that police the police. Yesterday evening, the Minister came to the House to tell us there is no evidence of any surveillance on those offices. It harks back to his initial Dáil statement when he sought to bury the story yet the Taoiseach entrusts him to draw up the terms of reference for this half baked review. Who is the Taoiseach trying to fool? It is so far wide of the mark and so clearly deficient as to be laughable. It would be comedy if the issues at hand were not so serious. Deputy Shatter has relieved his friend and former political contributor, Mr. Connolly, of his duties. Very interesting.

The Deputy should stay away from these sort of allegations.

No, it is a matter of record.

I suggest that the Taoiseach relieves Deputy Shatter of his duties. With regard to the most serious allegation, that of bugging of the GSOC offices, I suggest the Taoiseach does the right thing at this point and uses the legislation available to him to establish, as a matter of urgency, a fully independent and functioning committee of investigation.

I dealt with this yesterday. The Government made a decision that it was appropriate that a High Court judge should look into the question of the chronology and sequence of events that took place in this matter, which led to the public interest investigation pertaining to safety concerns commenced by GSOC. The Government also mandated the Minister for Justice and Equality, in conjunction with me as Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Attorney General------

His babysitters.

-----to work on the terms of reference. It is not just a question of the Minister for Justice and Equality happening to be the Minister with responsibility for personally producing terms of reference for the High Court judge. These are advised by the Attorney General. The terms of reference will be published today and the Minister is appearing before the committee today. I expect members may want to discuss this point with him. The opportunity in the terms of reference will be to review and to assess the evidence, if any, of the security breach within the GSOC office, to establish any facts in respect of that and to make recommendations regarding measures to be taken to improve the existing security arrangements at the GSOC offices for the purposes of addressing risks to the data and communication systems in place. All of this will be in public and will be discussed and the judge to be named will report back within eight weeks. I am sure Members accept the involvement of a High Court judge is completely objective and completely independent-----

-----and he will have unfettered access to the technological report produced by the British company and the peer review produced for the Minister in respect of technology and communications. That will be published in the report of a High Court judge and debated in the House. We are trying to ensure the putting in place of more effective systems for GSOC.

That will allow those who wish to make complaints to GSOC do so in the knowledge that their complaints will be heard and, if appropriate, acted upon. It should be an effective system and much more effective than what currently applies. That is the reason we involve the Oireachtas committee, members of the public with an interest in this, State servants of one sort or another-----

Maybe Angela Merkel.

They should be involved with the High Court judge to review, analyse, comment on and question all of the documentation, reports, statements and technology so we can get a system that works and in which the GSOC entity and An Garda Síochána have credibility. The judge will report inside eight weeks.

All the evidence to date indicates very clearly that the Government has no interest in effective systems of oversight or governance. The Taoiseach has established that very plainly in public view. It is astonishing that the Labour Party and Fine Gael are to be allowed to be complicit in Alan Shatter's activities, which are aimed at undermining whistleblowers within An Garda Síochána and burying any controversy arising in respect of malpractice by An Garda Síochána. In this particular instance, it is a most serious allegation of potential bugging of the oversight offices. Alan Shatter is the lead Minister in this but the Taoiseach is his boss and those who sit around the Cabinet table are his colleagues. They are responsible for the actions he undertakes.

Could we have a question please?

I believe I speak for a great many people when I say I cannot for the life of me understand why Alan Shatter has been allowed to bully, ballyrag and bad-mouth Garda whistleblowers. For the life of me I cannot understand why the Taoiseach would be complicit in his actions, which are clearly aimed-----

Will the Deputy put a question?

-----at playing down, setting aside or even whitewashing issues in respect of GSOC.

That is how serious this is. If the Taoiseach cares about public confidence, he has no option but to establish a fully independent inquiry with this High Court judge which arms him with all the powers to call and compel witnesses and papers and come to findings of fact. That is the single act that will put this matter to rest. The Taoiseach knows this and I cannot understand why he has not communicated that to Alan Shatter. It is not too late; the Taoiseach still has an opportunity. I ask him to take that opportunity and not dig a deeper hole, not just for Alan Shatter but for the Garda and the oversight body. It is effectively what has been done up to now.

Those opposite would know about digging holes.

I ask that when Members address the House they apply the normal procedure of addressing people as the Minister or the Deputy rather than calling them by Christian and surnames.

That is good oversight.

It is a bit ironic to have the deputy leader of the Sinn Féin Party talking about expertise in communications and surveillance.

Is that the best the Taoiseach can do?

Is that the Deputy's best effort?

I reject Deputy McDonald's assertion that I have no interest in the matter.

What about Fine Gael's history?

We know where those opposite stand on the basis of the Blueshirts so.

As the Deputy is well aware, the vast majority of personnel involved are State servants. Will any of those people refuse to speak to a retired High Court judge about the facts, chronology and sequence of events, comments, reports and statements? Will any of them refuse to do that in the interests of safety, integrity and credibility? I do not think so. If my recollection is correct, when the chairman of the GSOC spoke he indicated that seven people had access to sensitive material and that somebody leaked that information. I do not know who that was.

What is the relevance of this?

We are talking about bugging.

That would be interesting to people in a very sensitive position if there is a concern about security, integrity and credibility. Perhaps somebody might step forward and say "I made this available," or whatever.

Is the Taoiseach undermining GSOC again?

In any event the Minister for Justice and Equality has stated he is not happy with the structure of this legislation and the confidential recipient structure as it currently exists.

I asked about an independent inquiry.

The Deputy wants a public inquiry.

An independent inquiry.

Of course that is what she wants, as she always wants public inquiries.

What is being hidden?

The Government made a very clear decision to ask an eminent retired High Court judge to go through all this-----

-----and report publicly within eight weeks. That report will be published and debated here and it can be debated within committees. The Oireachtas committee dealing with justice matters will have its own reflections in public session about the structure of the Act.

It will be over cups of coffee.

Deputy McDonald has no faith.

In Alan Shatter? No.

She has no faith in the former High Court judge being able to produce an objective and independent report on this.

She did not say that. The Taoiseach is digging.

There is no faith in the Minister.

Deputy McDonald has no faith in the legal system. All she wants are endless commissions of inquiry.

Who is writing the terms of reference for the judge? That is the question.

The Taoiseach is clearly annoyed about the Labour Party.

I heard some of the comments of Sinn Féin Members last night and they make very interesting reading. In this case the Government has made a clear decision and a High Court judge will get all the assistance he needs so he can report within eight weeks. This is about having a structure that works and which has integrity and credibility, both for the GSOC and the Garda Síochána. These are two fundamental aspects of our society. The Minister has already said this is not working-----

Maybe he is the problem.

He has no credibility.

Who determines the terms of reference for the judge?

We need everybody involved to make that happen. Perhaps, for once, Deputy McDonald might have a little faith in the integrity and objectivity of an independent High Court judge.

What about the Minister?

Last week, I raised the issue of Irish Nationwide mortgage holders. In approximately two weeks the special liquidator will sell 13,000 mortgages for Irish families to the highest bidder at a discount. That discount could go to the families but instead it will go to foreign hedge funds. Several foreign funds are interested in buying the mortgages and have come to Ireland with the sole objective of squeezing as much money as possible out of these families. I have been told that the funds are looking for discounts of up to 30% on the performing loans and far more on the non-performing loans, and we know that some loans have already been sold at a 70% discount.

Last week I asked the Taoiseach to step in but he refused to do so. I asked him to allow the families to bid for their own mortgages, but he also refused that. He cited a report written by PricewaterhouseCoopers and given to the special liquidator, KPMG. He indicated that based on this report, the families would not be allowed to bid for their mortgages. I submitted a parliamentary question to the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, asking for him to publish the report. I got a reply at 7 p.m. last evening and he has refused to publish the report. The reply states:

The sale of the residential mortgage portfolio has been developed following professional advice. Neither I nor my officials had any role in the development of the sales process. The special liquidator will not be publishing the independent advice received as it is commercially sensitive information.

This is an outrageous position for the Government and the Minister, Deputy Noonan, to take. This is worse than secret government, as it is outsourced secret government. I do not recall anybody electing PricewaterhouseCoopers or KPMG to make these kinds of decision on behalf of Irish families.

I recall the Taoiseach's party promising to deal with the mortgage crisis and help families in negative equity. I recall the Taoiseach's party promising more open and transparent governance. In light of the Cabinet's refusal to act on the issue, the finance committee is to act by calling witnesses, who will appear next week. In that context, will the Taoiseach instruct the special liquidator to release the PricewaterhouseCoopers report to the finance committee and the Oireachtas? Will he instruct the special liquidator to pause the sales process that is due to be completed in two weeks so the finance committee can complete its investigation and report to the Oireachtas?

That is a question.

We dealt with this yesterday. The sale date is fixed.

The Deputy seems to have jumped the gun again in that he assumes this portfolio will be bought by an outside entity. I have already made an observation on the sale of two previous packages of loan portfolios. In the first case, the extra code of conduct requirements and conditions set out by the Central Bank were accepted. In the second case, the purchasing entity voluntarily adheres to the codes of conduct beyond the normal contractual arrangements set in place when the mortgages were agreed in the first instance. It is not true, therefore, for the Deputy to say that the portfolios are going to outside hedge funds because he does not know whether the valuation set out will be achieved or not. If it is not, the loans are to go to NAMA, which is already regulated in the sense of adhering to both the contractual obligations and extra code of conduct requirements set out by the Central Bank.

The Minister for Finance has made it perfectly clear he is concerned about this. He has written to the Central Bank. It is a fact of life that a court will not allow repossessions or allow this to happen unless there is a commitment to adherence to the codes of conduct. It is also a fact that there is no restriction within those portfolios on people continuing to pay their mortgages; many of them do.

I do not believe the Taoiseach understands what is going on. The fund managers are in Dublin meeting the special liquidator and they have put bids together. The only thing the Taoiseach seems to be saying is that NAMA may buy the portfolios instead. The Government is selling 13,000 families down the river based on a secret report from one group of consultants to another. Only two reasons from the secret report are being cited by the Government. One is that selling to the fund managers is more efficient and the second is that it will raise more money. How much more efficient is it? How much more money will be raised? What is the total value to the State of the various options? Was the impact on families analysed in the report? What effort is being made to figure out how the loans could be sold to the families? We do not have the answers to any of these questions because of secrecy. If the Taoiseach needs to redact parts of the report to protect commercial sensitivity, that is fine, but he must publish it. Some 13,000 Irish families have the right to know why they are being abandoned by their own Government.

Again, the Deputy assumes that the loans will be purchased by an outsider. What evidence has he for that?

What evidence has the Taoiseach that they will not?

They are bidding for them.

Of course the bidders are here. One does not expect them not to bid if there is a package on offer.

Why not let the families bid?

Deputy Donnelly cannot say what the outcome will be until the special liquidator assesses this by the closing date of 14 March.

(Interruptions).

Can the Taoiseach say?

Nobody will be able to hear anybody if Deputies do not stop shouting.

I have already pointed out to the Deputy that in two previous cases, the codes of conduct set out by the Central Bank were adhered to in addition to the contractual arrangements in respect of each mortgage. However, the Deputy does not want to listen.

I am not talking about the codes of conduct.

It is not true to say 13,000 families are being sold down the Swanee, as the Deputy puts it. It is unjust of him to say that.

Will the Taoiseach let the finance committee do its job?

One should allow the process to be engaged in. The special liquidator has a requirement in respect of all the creditors here. For those people who continue to pay their loans back on par, there is no restriction. They are included as part of the portfolio, as the Deputy is aware. While the Minister has already written to the Central Bank, he is concerned about this. Obviously, if the bid is by an outsider, there will be a court observation stipulating that unless the bidder adheres to the codes of conduct in respect of mortgages, the bid will not be allowed.

Will the Government publish the PwC report?

I said that yesterday in answer to two questions during Taoiseach's questions. The Deputy's comments are not true.

Top
Share