Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 19 Feb 2014

Vol. 831 No. 2

Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission: Motion (Resumed) [Private Members]

The following motion was moved by Deputy Jonathan O'Brien on Tuesday, 18 February 2014:

That Dáil Éireann:

notes:

— that the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission is an independent statutory body established under the Garda Síochána Act 2005 to provide an independent and effective civilian oversight of policing in this State;

— that the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission has a hugely important role in ensuring that public confidence in the Garda Síochána is maintained;

— the reports that the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission’s offices may have been subjected to covert surveillance; and

— that the obfuscation by the Government, thus far, to these reports has only served to obscure the situation and undermine confidence in both State agencies, including statements made by members of the Government into the Dáil record which have now been flatly contradicted by the ombudsman;

recognises that:

— significant public concern now exists in relation to this matter and that there is an urgent need to ensure that public trust and confidence in the Garda Síochána and the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission is maintained; and

— there is now a compelling case to establish an independent inquiry into this matter without delay, to be undertaken by a suitable person(s) with the appropriate experience, qualifications, training and expertise; and

calls on the Government to establish an independent inquiry into the matter without delay and consider options including a commission of investigation, as provided for under existing legislation through the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004.

Amendment No. 1 was moved by the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter:

To delete all words after "surveillance;" and substitute the following:

"- the investigation by the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, under section 102 of the Garda Síochána Act 2005, into these concerns;

- the conclusion of the investigation that no definitive evidence of unauthorised technical or electronic surveillance was found; and

- the decision of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission that no further action was necessary or reasonably practicable;

reaffirms its commitment to maintaining the independence and functional integrity of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission;

welcomes the announcement by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence - by the Government - of the appointment of a High Court judge to review all matters of relevance to the initiation and outcome of the investigation commenced by the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission on 7 October 2013 pursuant to section 102(4) of the Garda Síochána Act 2005, concerns that have arisen as to the possibility that the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission was under surveillance and all papers, including correspondence, and reports of relevance to the matter;

welcomes the engagement by the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission and the Minister for Justice and Equality with the Joint Committee on Public Service, Oversight and Petitions in its examination of these issues;

acknowledges a need to further examine all relevant parts of the Garda Síochána Act 2005 with a view to improving the statutory mechanisms, so as to provide for continued and effective oversight of the Garda Síochána and to maintain public confidence in the process for resolving complaints against its members and agrees that such examination be undertaken by the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality and that it report thereon; and

looks forward to the reports of the joint committees and of the High Court judge so appointed."

Debate resumed on amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 1:

To delete all words from "the investigation" down to and including "reasonably practicable", and substitute the following:

agrees that the terms of reference of the inquiry into the recent Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission controversy should be agreed by Dáil Éireann, that the judge appointed should be allowed to extend the terms if he deems it appropriate and the report should be immediately placed before Dáil Eireann when it is completed".

(Deputy Niall Collins)

Deputy Mick Wallace

This has been a long running saga. After meeting the Garda whistleblowers in September 2012, we tried to raise the issue of penalty points in the Dáil and we had to break the rules to share the shocking stories we had been told. The response from the Minister for Justice and Equality was to minimise and dismiss the claims, the whistleblowers and the Deputies involved. He made personal attacks against those of us who dared to raise the issue. When we held a press conference we were written off as the Buswells four. An internal report was subsequently produced and our challenges were again rubbished. The Minister chose to publish personal information about Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan on the same day that the report issued just to muddy the water. In January 2013, Deputy Clare Daly had the privilege of spending several hours in jail.

The more serious recommendations contained in the report of the Garda professional standards unit have not yet been implemented. On "Prime Time" he rubbished any notion that he might not have behaved properly in sharing information about me of a personal nature. None of his ministerial colleagues criticised him for this. He refused to allow GSOC to investigate the Roma children affair. Prior to the Minister's appointment, GSOC asked to investigate matters relating to the Corrib gas project under section 106 of the Garda Síochána Act 2005. We asked him to reopen that case after we visited the Corrib area and heard about local people's anger at the way they had been treated. A record number of complaints have been submitted to GSOC regarding Corrib gas activities but nobody has been charged for any misdemeanour.

Maurice McCabe, who appeared before the Committee of Public Accounts, was undermined. An investigation into penalty points was eventually commissioned under section 102 of the 2005 Act but the Minister refused to act under section 106, which would have allowed GSOC to investigate practices, policies and procedures. Speaking before the Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions, the Minister has just made a big issue of allowing GSOC to access the PULSE system. When the new protocols between GSOC and the Garda were introduced in September, he refused to permit GSOC full access to the system. It was only after political pressure in recent weeks that he eventually granted access.

The issue of GSOC surveillance has been one muddle after another. Decisions are not being made to garner the truth. For the past 18 months, there has been no appetite for proper procedure or the truth. That is very sad and I do not know how the Government can think it is acceptable to act in this way. Public confidence in GSOC, the Garda Síochána and the Minister is low. The dogs in the street know things are not the way they are supposed to be. Throughout these affairs, the Minister's tactic has been to minimise and dismiss allegations. There was much talk in advance of the last election about accountability and transparency but we are now getting the opposite. How much longer can this continue? Does the Cabinet believe the Minister remains fit for office? I do not think he is fit for office and if the question was put to a vote among the Irish public I am afraid he would not come out too well.

Deputy Jerry Buttimer

He would top the poll. Populism is easy.

Deputy Shane Ross

I am alarmed by the pattern to which Deputy Wallace alluded. An unhealthy pattern is developing in this country. This morning, in words that are uncharacteristic for him, the Leader of the Opposition said that the system of justice in this country is rotten to the core. There is something sinister in the pattern that has developed in recent weeks. I am not referring solely to the "Prime Time" programme on which private information about Deputy Wallace, which was not particularly damaging, was released. I am also referring to the fact that a confidential recipient was forced to resign today. In the penalty points saga, the GSOC saga and the whistleblowers saga there is a pattern of things being covered up, hastened or not released. The instinct of the Government is all wrong in respect of these matters. Instead of taking an independent view of GSOC and the Garda, or anything else in the area of justice, its immediate instinct is to rally to the force, right or wrong.

That is the wrong instinct. It would be far better if the Minister and the Government immediately took on board these considerable difficulties in the justice system and said they would look independently and objectively at these and root out wrong where it is there. That would increase confidence in the Garda.

What is happening now is the Government, which regards itself as, and unfortunately is, constitutionally and legally joined at the hip to the forces of law and order, immediately says that the forces of law and order come before the human rights and democratic rights of individuals. That is a political instinct. It is a wrong instinct and it is one which they should address quickly.

I was alarmed, as I would have thought were many Members of this House, by the arrest of Deputy Clare Daly. That is explicable only in one way, that is, that the forces of law and order do not necessarily like the political activities of some Members of this House. That is a real problem and it is one that has not been properly addressed.

I suggest that the fundamental problem is that the joining at the hip of the Minister for Justice and Equality and the Garda Commissioner and it should be severed. We must take political appointments to the Garda, to the Judiciary and of others-----

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I must call Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan.

Deputy Shane Ross

I am finishing. What I mean is this, that there should be an independent body which chooses these persons so that, constitutionally, we no longer see political appointments, which is the basic core problem of what is happening in the justice system.

Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan

They say in films about the mafia that the fish rots from the head, and I agree with that. There is a strong stench at this stage coming from the Minister's direction. When I stated on television that I believed there was corruption in the Garda Síochána over a year ago, I believed that to be true but I could not in a million years have thought it to be true to the extent that it is turning out to be the case. If the Minister has never seen "Serpico", he should go off and watch it because that is the sort of world into which myself and Deputies Wallace, Clare Daly and Joan Collins have not been put.

A week never goes by but someone calls my office or the office of one of the other Deputies who I mentioned with another dire story about how the caller did not get fair treatment from the minority rogue element in what is becoming a feral police force. One of the common ones is that if one is a single mother, one is a target. It has happened so often and unless we have a whole load of single mothers out there who have Oscar-winning qualities when it comes to acting, breaking down and crying in front of us, and begging us to help them, one would have to believe them. People call stating that relations of theirs were murdered but no-one is following up on it. Initially, one thinks, "Hold on a minute here, this sounds a bit off the wall", but eventually, when one drains oneself by investigating it, one starts to conclude that there is some truth in it. Surely, if there is that level of concern out there, we need oversight of the Garda Síochána. We do not have such oversight. That is not because of the staff who work in GSOC who seem like decent people. It is because they have not been given the powers.

We are mad for talking about suicide in this country. Approximately, once a week we get a call from someone new but every now and then we get a call from someone who states they do not think they can take any more and they are going to kill themselves that evening. We hear that quite a bit and some of them have done it.

The Minister should do something about this because it is sick.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy O'Mahony is sharing with Deputies Mulherin, O'Donovan, Dowds, Anne Ferris, Tom Barry, Maloney, Buttimer, Charles Flanagan and McNamara.

Deputy John O'Mahony

I expect to be brief. I will not take up too much time. I welcome the opportunity to make a couple of points. I welcome the fact the Minister and the Government announced yesterday that there will be an investigation by a High Court judge.

While I have not been involved in the debate, like everybody else I have seen debates in here and on television, and all the rest of it over the past couple of weeks. It is important that the Garda is allowed to perform the role that it has been appointed by the State to do, to counteract crime and to protect the law-abiding citizens of the State. It is important that there is an oversight GSOC, which was appointed at the beginning of the millennium because of the need to oversee how the Garda performs its role and to rule without fear or favour.

There have been so many agendas flying around in the past couple of weeks. I will not mention any side on it. It is important now that everybody steps back and allows this process announced by the Minister yesterday to take place. It is important that there was an eight-week timeframe put on it, in other words, there will not be any delay in the findings. It is important that there is a report here, that the High Court judge reports back to the Minister, the Government and the Dáil and there is a debate on it, but we should not spend the eight weeks in a continuation of what we have seen for the past two or three weeks. This needs to be brought to a finality.

This process that was announced yesterday will bring it to that finality, both parties involved - the Garda Síochána and GSOC - will be allowed to fulfil their roles to the highest standards possible, and GSOC will oversee the Garda in fulfilling its role.

Deputy Michelle Mulherin

We can safely say that emotions have been running high since the story broke on Sunday week last that the Garda ombudsman may have been bugged. What a sensational story. Much of the focus and comment has been on relationships - good relationships, appropriate relationships, bad relationships - particularly between the Garda ombudsman and the Garda Commissioner, and the Minister thrown into it, but we all know that it is most politically expedient for many on the Opposition benches to suggest that one of these institutions has slighted, undermined or abused the authority of the other and hope to chip away so that a head might roll somewhere or other. Would that not be a victory for them? That is the real political agenda that is going on here.

This debate should be about more than mere feelings. Justice is more than mere feelings. Sometimes people who have been in court feel they got justice. From a legal point of view, they may not have got justice. Sometimes people get justice when they go into court and they do not choose to call it justice. Justice is much more tangible than what one feels.

The rule of law, which is the cornerstone of our democracy and which gives some certainty to the parameters of our behaviour and also the protections we experience in society, cannot be ignored and should not be undermined. We are a Parliament, we pass laws. We are the Legislature. Are we now going to suggest that there is no need for evidence and there is no need for anything substantial?

There are some who are sure that GSOC was bugged or suggest there is something amiss and argue doggedly that this must be so, and we hear all the theories that there is a cover-up etc. To my mind, some of these proponents require us to suspend reality to accept these theories, a little like what one has to do where one is enjoying a good episode of "The X Files."

It is important when it comes to an issue of those charged with law enforcement and those charged with their oversight that we do not undermine confidence in these institutions without due cause and, therefore, evidence is paramount. I welcome the inquiry being undertaken by the Minister.

Deputy Patrick O'Donovan

Given that the Opposition has attempted to make hay from this issue in recent weeks, it is absolutely disgraceful that there is no justice spokesperson from any Opposition party here, including the Technical Group, Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin. The manner in which they have behaved in recent weeks proves that this is a cynical political ploy. They have absolutely no interest in what the Garda Síochána, the ombudsman commission or anybody else is trying to do and their absence speaks volumes. This is the tenth occasion since I became a Member of the House on which I have spoken to entirely empty Opposition benches. This shows where Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin stand on this issue. Sinn Féin is proposing the motion, yet its Deputies do not even have the courtesy to attend the Chamber. It proves that this whole affair has in some ways been an orchestrated farce to try to deflect attention from the real issues.

The Minister for Justice and Equality is attending the Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions, of which I am a member. He has spent hours answering questions, some of which are ráiméis. He has gone back over his record since becoming Opposition spokesperson on justice some years ago. At an early stage he advocated an independent oversight and representative organisation for the Garda. He did this in the courts through the situation in Donegal and as a member of the committee which investigated the Abbeylara issue.

Some Opposition Members who take up columns in the Sunday Independent week in and week out are driven more by constituency than political issues. It is somewhat disingenuous of them to try to find smoke where there is none.

I am glad that the Government and the Minister have decided to appoint a judge to investigate the matter. I want to see us working towards a situation where the independent High Court judge will finally be able to clarify this question. At the committee the Minister said there were conflicting reports on the technical expertise available. That point must resonate with people. If he said he was in favour of one or the other, naturally enough, the Opposition would state he was biased. He has taken that decision for the right reason. He told the committee today that all necessary documentation would be made available.

The most important thing that has been said about this matter was not said in this House but in the "Prime Time" studio by Mr. Kieran FitzGerald of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission. He basically said there was no issue about whether there was surveillance from a Garda point of view. This matter has caused unnecessary distraction and difficulty both for the Garda Síochána and the ombudsman commission. Ultimately, the decision to establish the commission stemmed from the question of "who guards the guardians?" The question now, however, is: who guards the guardians of the guardians? We cannot have a situation where that responsibility goes up and up. At some stage we will have to draw a line under it and inject trust.

I will finish where I started. Where are the Opposition spokespersons on justice? They felt it was so important to traipse out onto the plinth and call for the Minister's head. Where is the party that proposed the motion before the House? It cuts to the root of what is behind this politically motivated attempt to smear the Minister for Justice and Equality, the Garda Síochána and the ombudsman commission and it should be rejected.

Deputy Robert Dowds

While I definitely agree with the last speaker, it is no harm to have an investigation undertaken by a retired High Court judge. It is the one way to put this whole matter to bed. It is important that the standing of GSOC and the Garda stay as high as possible. It is so important for the country to have full confidence in the Garda and the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission. For that reason, the work of Judge Cooke will be very useful. When he carries out his investigation, I hope nothing of substance will emerge, but I welcome what he will do in that regard.

Since the foundation of the State, gardaí have been seen as the guardians of the people. Even though there have been blemishes in their record during the years - for example, in the Donegal cases that led to the Morris tribunal - the vast bulk of gardaí have done an honest day's work. They have had to take their courage in their hands on many occasions to stand up for the rights of the people. It is important that they do their work and are seen to do it well. Given the nature of the GSOC organisation, it is equally important that it is seen to be independent and able to operate without interference. For these reasons, I welcome the move by the Minister for Justice and Equality.

Deputy Anne Ferris

Day and night, in all weathers, there are one or two gardaí on duty at the Kildare Street entrance to Leinster House. Officially they are there to guard the Houses of the Oireachtas, but unofficially they spend a lot of time assisting members of the public. Friendliness is an aspect of the demeanour of a street garda in Ireland that is not as common in other jurisdictions. We are lucky to have it.

Gardaí in Bray and other County Wicklow stations are regularly called to the most shocking crashes and fatalities on the N11 and elsewhere in the county. The men and women of the police force are asked to witness and manage situations that most of us hope we will never have to encounter. We have a police force of which to be proud. That is why we have to do everything possible to maintain and protect its reputation. GSOC has a very necessary role in that regard. I, for one, do not want to hear any more public negativity from the Garda Commissioner about GSOC. If he cannot see the importance of having a strong watchdog to safeguard the reputation of Ireland's police officers, he does not understand his own role and obligations to his staff.

Two disturbing points have emerged since I spoke on this issue in the House last week. First, GSOC has confirmed that its investigation into this serious security breach has been completed and we are told the file is closed. A security breach that has such wide range consequences should be investigated by GSOC for as long as it takes for the matter to be resolved.

The second disturbing admission by GSOC is that the organisation does not know if it is under surveillance. The investigation is over and the case is closed, but the threat is still there. This is akin to a murder investigation being closed while a serial killer is still at large. The public needs to know that GSOC information is secure and gardaí need a secure GSOC.

For all of the above reasons, I welcome the Cabinet decision to appoint a High Court judge to lead an investigation into the events revealed in the past couple of weeks. This should not be an investigation into GSOC or whistleblowers. It needs to be an investigation with and alongside GSOC.

As vice chairperson of the Select Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality, I welcome the initiative of the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, to refer the Garda Síochána Act 2005 to the committee for review. There is certainly scope for increasing the powers of GSOC under the Act and also to make progressive structural changes to the top level reporting system of An Garda Síochána.

The current focus of the debate is a distraction from what needs to be done to ensure Ireland retains a fit-for-purpose police force. What has been evident in the past week or so is the structural flaw at the top of the policing system. It no longer seems appropriate, if it ever did, that the Garda Commissioner reports to the Minister for Justice and Equality.

I have full confidence in the personal integrity of the Minister for Justice and Equality, but who can predict who will be the occupier of that seat 20 years from now? Would it not be safer to future-proof senior Garda reporting structures now and establish a policing board chaired by a member of the Judiciary, a board to which the Garda Commissioner would report? Such an arrangement would immediately remove any suspicion, real or imaginary, that there could be political interference in the operation of Ireland's police force.

Today's vote no longer has any context, given the Cabinet decision of yesterday. To be honest, I find it difficult to take seriously a proposal about Garda security from Sinn Féin.

Deputy Tom Barry

I welcome the opportunity to speak about this important matter. We need to step back a little, allow the committee to do its work and let the facts speak for themselves. The media frenzy during the week has been disturbing. At this stage we are analysing our own speculation, which is bizarre. If there is an issue, let it be teased out by the relevant bodies.

It is naive to suggest there will never be a threat of surveillance. There always is a threat. There was a rush to blame and we are very good at rushing to blame people. We should have had patience and allowed the facts to be teased out, which will happen in time. I am annoyed at the Opposition for making a political football of this serious matter. What is the basis of all this? Is it to undermine the Minister or our police force? It is not on and this will be a real test of the committee. We are now in day 11 of this and someone said to me during the week that we have a national emergency, with people without power due to ESB lines being down all over the country but no one is talking about it. No one is talking about the problems people face; instead, they are analysing their own speculation. It is unbecoming of this House to carry on in this manner.

Maybe we will look at GSOC and ask what powers it needs and whether we should modify its powers. That is how we work on such matters. This is an evolving story but we will wait for the facts to speak for themselves. Perhaps everyone will have patience and allow the people doing this and the Minister some space to get to the root of it.

Deputy Eamonn Maloney

Despite the Verrimus report, I do not know whether the building was bugged. No Member can conclusively say whether it was. It is a comprehensive report and includes words such as threats and vulnerabilities. As a layperson, I am no more convinced that the place was bugged than anyone else. This is no ordinary company drafted in to carry out such work. It is not a domestic or European company but an international company with a very high status. However, its conclusions do not say emphatically the building was bugged. Perhaps it was but I am not convinced. If it was bugged, I would be fully in favour of a public inquiry as the proper thing to do. However, it is inconclusive. I have no objection to the inquiry going ahead. We seem to have an infatuation in this Parliament with inquiries and every month we have an inquiry about something. Those in the legal profession are looking forward to what comes down the tracks. It seems to be inquiry after inquiry. The process will go ahead and I wish the judge well. As other Members have mentioned, I hope he gets full co-operation. I hope he is a high-tech judge because Verrimus could not be conclusive about this. If there is a retired Irish judge with a comprehensive understanding of surveillance and bugging, I wish him the very best of luck with his inquiry. I am not terribly optimistic.

Deputy Jerry Buttimer

I welcome the Pauline conversion of Sinn Féin to accountability and transparency in respect of the Garda Síochána and those who police the force. I hope the party will bring its interest to a new level in co-operation with all matters regarding the state of our country. Not too long ago, the party that tabled this motion refused to co-operate with the Garda Síochána in our State.

Deputy Robert Dowds

Sinn Féin refused to recognise it.

Deputy Jerry Buttimer

The high esteem in which An Garda Síochána is held is a vital pillar of Irish society and our democracy. It is imperative that the status and position of the Garda Síochána in our society is upheld at all times. One of the central ways in a modern democratic system in which we achieve this is through an independent body having oversight of our police force. In this context, the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission has a central role and public confidence in this body is of equal importance. In the public conscience, GSOC is a much newer body and many people are not fully aware of its significance or importance. Over time, this will change as GSOC carries out more work and investigations. It will raise public awareness and people will become aware of its critical importance.

As in other jurisdictions, there will always be tensions between the police body - the Garda Síochána in our case - and the body that has oversight of it. That is both inevitable and, perhaps, essential. However the tension must never be to such an extent that it hinders the work of either body. A proper working relationship between the Garda Síochána and GSOC is necessary for the benefit of both bodies. In an Irish context, the difficulties of having oversight of the Garda Síochána is complicated by the reality that An Garda Síochána is not only our police force, it is also our intelligence agency and it provides our State security. As Deputy Anne Ferris said, the Garda Síochána does tremendous work on behalf of us in every community.

Arising from the current controversy, it is important that the wider issue of legislative review around GSOC be conducted so that we can make improvements in how it and the Garda Síochána work together. In this regard, the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, announced such a review two weeks before the current controversy arose. This is a Minister who recognises the realities and difficulties of our legislative structures and is committed to reforming them. He is committed to supporting GSOC, which is why he made sure it had access to the Garda PULSE system for its investigation into the fixed ticket charge controversy.

As well as the complicated nature of the current controversy, political opportunism and obfuscation by some Members opposite has added to the confusion that exists around it. The appointment of an independent retired High Court Judge to look into this issue is welcome. It has been made clear that the terms of reference will be decided in consultation with the Taoiseach, Tánaiste and the Minister for Justice and Equality on the advice of the Attorney General and in conjunction with the wider Cabinet. The independent investigation will eliminate political grandstanding and restore political confidence in both An Garda Síochána and GSOC.

Deputy Charles Flanagan

I welcome the appointment of the retired High Court judge and I wish him well in his pursuit of clarity and truth. I was most disappointed to hear some of the comments from the Opposition benches with regard to the appointment of a member of the Judiciary to deal with the issue. I hope the record of the House does not include all of the comments from the other side when people made outrageous remarks about judges, members of the Judiciary and the manner in which the inquiry will be treated. They know what comments they made and they are a disgrace to this House and to politics. The comments were unwarranted, unfair and proof - if it were needed - that the issue has become a political football. There has been much talk about the terms of reference within which the member of the Judiciary will pursue clarity and truth.

I agree the terms of reference must be real and meaningful and no self-respecting member of the Judiciary would embark upon a process that will be restricted or unable to deal with the task at hand. That is why I have every confidence in the terms of reference. It has been suggested that the Minister for Justice and Equality should step aside and not be involved in the setting of the terms of reference. The terms of reference of any judicial inquiry have been formulated primarily by the Attorney General, advising the Government and dealing with the technical issues in close consultation with the Minister for Justice and Equality and, in this case, other members of the Cabinet. The suggestion that an outside body will set the terms of reference is entirely inappropriate and unprecedented.

That said, the judge needs to have sufficient power to be able to get to the root of the real issue and provide clarity. I have no doubt that this inquiry can be thorough, speedy, cost-effective and that the results will be published. There has been criticism that in some way these results will be kept secret but they will be debated in this House in an open and transparent way. Let the process take its course.

Deputy Michael McNamara

To the extent that tonight's debate allows us focus on the Garda Síochána Act 2005 and the resources allocated to the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC, I welcome it. It is important that sufficient resources are allocated to GSOC to enable it carry out all investigations it determines as admissible. In other words, it should no longer have to refer investigations which it determines admissible to the Garda Síochána to investigate, as is provided for in the Garda Síochána Act 2005 and as is common practice.

To the extent that tonight's debate allows us focus on another weakness of the Garda Síochána Act, that the Garda Commissioner, assistant commissioner or anybody acting in the place of a Garda Commissioner or assistant commissioner is exempt from being investigated by the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, I also welcome it. I welcome the appointment of Mr. Justice John Cooke, formerly of the High Court and the Court of First Instance of the European Communities. I have no doubt he will cast a cold eye on the allegations, counter-allegations and all the information before coming to an impartial conclusion which takes account of all the available details.

However, I doubt that is the purpose of tonight's debate. The Leader of the Opposition - I use the term in its loosest possible term - this morning cast himself as Marcellus in "Hamlet" but there is a line from that play which is perhaps more appropriate. It is "I took thee for thy better". Ironically, it describes the fate of poor Polonius, who was caught eavesdropping behind a curtain. Tonight's debate was not about strengthening the institution of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission. Neither was it about strengthening the role of the Garda or confidence in the force. The sole purpose of tonight's debate, and much of what has gone on in the House for the past three days - which is becoming increasingly tedious for the public - is the undermining of the Garda Síochána and its ombudsman commission and the politicisation of a force which has until now in the State's history been above politics.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Pearse Doherty is sharing time with Deputies Adams, Crowe, Ellis and Tóibín.

Deputy Pearse Doherty

I ndaonlathas ar bith atá ag feidhmiú i gceart, go háirithe i bpoblacht, tá sé iontach soiléir go gcaithimid glacadh le cuid de na bunphrionsabail. Ceann de na bunphrionsabail sin ná nach féidir leis na póilíní iad féin súil a choinneáil orthu féin. Ceann de na riachtanais eile atá de dhíth i ndaonlathas atá ag feidhmiú i gceart, go háirithe i bpoblacht, ná go bhfuil muinín an phobail de dhíth againn sna póilíní agus go gcaithfidh an mhuinín sin a bheith choimh hard le 100% agus is féidir léi a bheith.

Tá a fhios againn sa Teach seo gur bunaíodh an GSOC mar gheall ar mholtaí a tháinig ón binse fiosrúcháin Morris a bhí bunaithe i mo chontae dúchais, Dún na nGall. Léirigh an binse Morris go raibh roinnt gardaí ag baint mí-úsáide as an gcumhacht a bhí acu agus go raibh seo ag tarlú ní hamháin ag an bhun leibhéal sa Gharda Síochána ach ag an leibhéal is sinsearaí ann. Léirigh seo an gá le hathrú i réimsí cosúil le láimhseáil fáisnéiseoirí agus go leor réimsí eile. Léirigh an binse fiosrúcháin, a shuigh ar feadh tamaill fada, dúinn uilig na hionsaithe a rinneadh ar theaghlach chlann McBrearty a bhí ag tarlú arís agus arís eile.

Is é seo an comhthéacs inar tugadh isteach Acht an Gharda Síochána, an GSOC agus cigireacht an Gharda Síochána. Ón tús, rinne Sinn Féin argóint an-láidir nach raibh na cumhachtaí cuí ag GSOC len a bpost a dhéanamh mar ba cheart. Dúirt muid gur chóir go mbeadh maoirseacht á dhéanamh ag GSOC ar Choimisinéir an Gharda Síochána, de réir mar atá an scéal leis an ombudsman agus leis an gconstábla príomhfheidhmeannach sna Sé Chontae. Ag deireadh an lae, is garda é an Coimisinéir agus ba chóir déileáil leis cosúil le achan gharda eile. Dúirt muid gur chóir go mbeadh an córas PULSE ar fáil do GSOC go díreach, gan láithreacht a bheith ann ón Garda Síochána agus iad ag úsáid an chórais sin. Fosta, dúirt muid gurb iad sin a bhí sásta eolas a scaoileadh ar na gardaí agus gur chóir go mbeadh an ceart acu dul díreach leis an eolas sin go dtí an ombudsman. Ba chóir freisin go mbeadh an ceart ag whistleblowers dul díreach chuig an ombudsman.

Anois, beagnach deich mbliana i ndiaidh bhinse fiosrúcháin Morris, is mór an trua nach bhfuil na ceachtanna go huile agus go hiomlán foghlamhtha againn. Tá sé soiléir nach bhfuil na moltaí a tháinig ó bhinse Morris maidir le nósanna imeachta - ó thaobh an dóigh a láimhseáileann An Garda Síochána fáisnéiseoirí agus i gcomhthéacs tógáil nótaí cuimsitheacha ag gardaí - curtha i bhfeidhm. Caithfidh muid cuimhneamh gur seo binse a chosain cáiníocóirí na tíre seo €60 milliún. Tá sé soiléir, agus is mór an trua é, nach bhful na ceachtanna uilig ón mbinse sin foghlamtha ag lucht bainistíochta an Gharda Síochána.

Tá go leor tagartha déanta ar na mallaibh ar chás Boylan mar shampla eile de chleachtas dona atá ag tarlú go fóill taobh istigh den seirbhís. Níl dabht ar bith go bhfuil imní mhór ar phobal na tíre seo ar an mhéid atá ag titim amach in GSOC - gur shíl siad go raibh a gcuid oifigí á mbugáil agus gur chuir siad tús le fiosrúchán faoin cheist agus gur dhírigh siad an méar ar an Garda féin. Tá go leor cloiste againn faoi sin agus níos mó cloiste againn anocht sa choiste ag a bhfuil an tAire, an Teachta Shatter, ag tabhairt eolais. Ach caithimid cuimhne a choinneáil ar an bhuncheist, gur shíl GSOC go raibh a oifigí á mbugáil, gur sheol siad fiosrúchán agus go raibh an méar sínte acu ar An Garda Síochána.

The truth must be seen to be emerge and the best way to let that happen is through a truly independent inquiry. The Government's plan smacks of a desperate attempt at damage limitation and will not address the concerns of the public. It is a reactionary Government whose first instinct is to protect the police service above the office of the ombudsman. It was wrong of the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, to try to turn this incident on its head and put the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC, in the dock. Entrusting the Minister to set the terms of reference means that the inquiry will do nothing to restore public confidence.

This crisis could be an opportunity to make a break from past bad habits and move our society and police service into a more modern and transparent era where accountability and oversight is cherished and not feared. Instead, the conservative instinct of this Government has won and no questions are to be asked without prior approval. It is not too late for this Government to bring about a truly independent inquiry that will be about getting to the truth and not about getting over this week's political crisis. The public will not settle for a cop-out and it demands an independent inquiry into the affair.

Deputy Gerry Adams

When Fine Gael and Labour came to office there was a promise of a new way of doing politics, offering transparency, accountability and openness. The past ten days have left that claim in tatters, and the Government has proved to be as unaccountable and arrogant as the worst of its predecessors. The handling of the issue by the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, in particular but also by the Taoiseach has been damaging to public administration, An Garda Síochána and the independence of GSOC. The Government has done everything except what it should have done from the outset, which is to uphold the integrity and protect the independence of GSOC.

Last night a journalist again stated that the security sweep of the GSOC offices was triggered by the inadvertent revelation by the Garda Commissioner in a meeting with GSOC officials that he possessed information that could only come from internal GSOC documents. The documents in question related to Mr. Kieran Boylan, a convicted drug smuggler who faced six charges in connection with the seizure of €1.7 million of cocaine and heroin at a transport yard in County Louth in October 2005.

On the last day of that trial in July 2008, the charges were dropped without explanation. It has been claimed that the case was withdrawn in order to prevent Mr. Boylan from revealing details of his alleged involvement with individual gardaí. GSOC subsequently investigated the claim that Boylan was run by an elite unit within the Garda, that he had acted as an informer and that gardaí knew he was importing drugs while working for them. A file was sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions but it directed that there could be no prosecution of any member of An Garda Síochána. No garda was disciplined. The GSOC report accused gardaí of delaying the investigation, which lasted for four years. The report also expressed concern about how informants are handled.

Instead of clearing up these issues, the Government has left citizens in the dark. Uncertainty and confusion are widespread and people are exposed to various claims and counterclaims. The saga continues. Today, following a radio interview in which I was asked about the Boylan angle, I was contacted at my Dáil office by a man who said he was the Kieran Boylan in question. He objected strongly to Sinn Féin highlighting this aspect of the bugging scandal and complained about journalists having personal details about him. I told him that Sinn Féin has a responsibility to raise these issues and that if GSOC, the body set up to have oversight of the Garda, is being bugged, it is very serious and we have a responsibility to find out whether it is true and who is responsible. I also put it to him that his case was being linked to this matter and that if he had concerns over public comments about him, he should outline and clarify his position publicly. It is cases such as this that point to the need for robust and fully independent police oversight.

Yesterday the Government did a partial U-turn on the need for an inquiry, a full ten days after the scandal first emerged. Yesterday's announcement falls far short of what is required, however. The inquiry is not to be independent; it is merely to be a review and it will have no statutory powers. It will not call witnesses, nor will it have power to compel witnesses to give evidence. The terms of reference will be set by the Minister for Justice and Equality, the man at the very centre of the controversy. Only yesterday, the Minister claimed there was no evidence at all that GSOC was the target of a surveillance operation. Even now, Fine Gael, supported by the Labour Party, is refusing a fully independent inquiry into the scandal, as might be provided for under the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004. If ever there were a case for disentangling politicians from an agency or institution of the State, surely it would arise where that institution is the police force. There should be no political interference with policing. In any modern state, that is accepted as the norm. It might not have been the case throughout the history of this State and it certainly was not the history of the Northern state. However, most modern democracies make the police independently answerable to their own authority, representative of citizens and other interests.

We have said here many times – the two parties opposite were elected on a promise to change this – that the lack of regulation, accountability and oversight created many of the scandals that are now mortifying citizens and that have this State and its people in their current position. The citizens are not stupid. The past two or three years have been immensely educational. Many people have become very politicised and many have become radicalised. They understand more than previously that citizens have to have rights. They can see clearly what this Government is doing. The Government needs to uphold the integrity of the Garda Síochána and GSOC, but its instinct is to blame GSOC. One should note the Taoiseach's remarks and the fact that he had to apologise. He said the commission should have reported to the Minister and was compelled by law to do so. The inference was that GSOC was a lawbreaker. The Taoiseach repeated this point until I corrected him, at which point he begrudgingly accepted that he had misrepresented the legal position.

I cannot conceive of a situation in which an ombudsman would be sent for by any Minister. There are glaring differences between the written account that the commission gave to the Minister, Deputy Shatter, and the account the Minister put to the Dáil. There were gaps that have not yet been explained satisfactorily by the Minister. What the Government should have done was to back out of this and introduce independent experts with the ability to operate under existing laws. That would have shown people that the Government was serious and that it was not a case of its being the same old story.

When it comes to transparent, open and accountable government, Fine Gael and the Labour Party are very good on the rhetoric but useless on delivery. As one of those who was involved in negotiating a new dispensation for policing in the North-----

Deputy Michael McNamara

And the surveillance of Garda stations recently.

An Ceann Comhairle

There are to be no interruptions, please.

Deputy Gerry Adams

Thank you, my friend. I will not even respond to that silliness.

I do not want to compare the old RUC with An Garda Síochána, because the comparison does not stand up, but I must contend that police investigating police, wherever it happens, is not acceptable. That the Commissioner is answerable to any politician is unacceptable. There needs to be a Garda authority that is independent. GSOC needs to have more power, including oversight of the Garda Commissioner. There is not one dot, comma or clause of the Good Friday Agreement in any of the agencies, institutions or protocols by which this State is run. If it is good enough for the people in the North, it is good enough for the people of the South also. Citizens deserve the very best that they can be afforded by way of public services. This is also very good for An Garda Síochána. The vast majority of gardaí are good, public-minded, patriotic men and women, both young and older. This is not a particularly Irish issue as it is a matter of human nature. We need to be made accountable, and we are. Public servants need to be made accountable, just as all agencies and institutions of the State need to be made accountable and properly policed. This requires the Garda Ombudsman to have unfettered access to the Garda PULSE system.

If the Government and our bright friend on the other side of the House believe this informal review will restore public confidence in the administration of the Department of Justice and Equality, they are very much mistaken. The only way to get to the full, unvarnished truth behind GSOC and the bugging scandal is a fully independent inquiry that has powers as legislated for in the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004. Irrespective of what the Minister, Deputy Shatter, and the Garda Commissioner might be concerned about, there is no reason for a backbench Deputy to be concerned about anything other than restoring public confidence in An Garda Síochána and the Taoiseach.

Deputy Seán Crowe

The reaction by the Government to the GSOC crisis highlights its worrying dysfunctionality. What do I mean by this? The Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, who is also the Minister for Defence, wields unprecedented power that, if abused, could realistically undermine the most important institutions of the State. When the news broke that one of the most important investigative bodies in the State, GSOC, had been targeted in a covert surveillance operation, the Minister's response was to downplay it and try to deflect attention from the real issue by attempting to discredit senior GSOC personnel.

"Nothing to see or hear, so move on" was the central theme of the Government's narrative in what many would see as a dereliction of office and a failure to investigate a matter of potentially vital national importance. Surely the Minister charged with the security of the State should have immediately launched an inquiry into who was conducting real time surveillance of GSOC.

Nuala O'Loan, who was the first Police Ombudsman in the North, has made clear her view that GSOC lacks the necessary powers to hold the Garda properly to account. The views of the former Police Ombudsman are shared by Sinn Féin. From its inception, the relationship between some elements of An Garda Síochána and GSOC has been at best fraught and at times openly hostile. We must rationally consider what triggered GSOC to employ the services of British-based security specialists to sweep its office on two separate occasions. There were suggestions that elements of An Garda Síochána were bugging GSOC, which suggests something rotten in the relationship between both organisations.

In the North, the Police Ombudsman routinely carries out security sweeps, a practice that Nuala O'Loan described as "good housekeeping" and it is under no obligation to report this to anybody. Ms O'Loan also had some important advice about the existing legislation, saying it was a matter of urgency "that the legislation underpinning the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission ought to be reviewed to grant powers of investigation to senior officers including the Commissioner." Sinn Féin shares Ms O'Loan's concerns and is committed to producing amended legislation which will address the fatal flaws which limit the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission from fulfilling its role.

Ms O'Loan also stated that she would not have been able to fulfil her role as Police Ombudsman if she had lacked the power to investigate the head of the PSNI, for example, because anybody under investigation could claim they were following orders from the top. This is supported by an academic study by Conway and Walsh into GSOC from 2008 to 2010, which found that 45% of all complaints about the Garda submitted to GSOC were investigated by the Garda, either supervised or unsupervised by GSOC. That is hardly the beginning that was promised following the Garda misconduct that led to the Morris tribunal. This is all the more worrying considering that GSOC is supposed to be an independent investigative and oversight body. The Cabinet has agreed to review this legislation, but it appears to have been dragged kicking and screaming to review the mandate and legislation underpinning GSOC.

Can this Government, and a Minister whom many believe has completely undermined GSOC and sought to discredit it throughout this controversy, really be trusted to implement such a review? The Government must stop focusing on spin and misinformation and concentrate on the bigger picture.

The substantial issue is that it appears GSOC was under surveillance. A real and robust independent investigation into what really happened must begin as a matter of urgency. When the review was announced by the Taoiseach, the Minister for Justice and Equality immediately attempted to undermine it by stating, once again, that there was no evidence of Garda surveillance of GSOC. Surely an independent Minister should have waited for the outcome of the review. The same Minister cannot be involved in any aspect of the creation, design or structure of the proposed review. It must be an independent investigation. That is the credible and democratic thing to do, and it is the only way we will find out what really happened.

This issue is at the heart of the credibility of the administration of policing and justice in this State. The longer the issue continues without an independent investigation, the further the public's trust will be eroded.

Deputy Dessie Ellis

Ensuring a clear separation of police, military and intelligence powers in any properly functioning and democratic society is absolutely necessary to protect the public interest and the civil liberties of citizens in this State and to allow those institutions of the State to fulfil their roles. The targeting of GSOC, an organisation tasked with holding the Garda to account, for unwarranted and unlawful surveillance would clearly be a matter of grave concern for most democracies. The implications are enormous. However, that is not case with this Government which, along with sections of the media and senior Garda personnel, has made a concerted effort to divert attention from what is clearly an assault that goes to the heart of our supposed democracy.

The targeting of GSOC and the Government's response have exposed GSOC's lack of powers and capacity to exercise proper oversight of the Garda. There is also no clear separation of powers between the Defence Forces, the Garda special branch and other State institutions over which the Minister, Deputy Shatter, presides. The dangers inherent in this have been exposed in the past couple of weeks by the Minister, Deputy Shatter, whose failure to initiate a proper independent investigation into the bugging of GSOC raises a number of serious questions, not the least of which is why he and the Government are so reluctant to get to the truth of what happened.

The importance of having a fully accountable police service cannot be overstated. The Twenty-six Counties can learn much from what has been achieved north of the Border. The PSNI civic policing service in the Six Counties, which replaced the RUC security force, is now more accountable than the Garda by quite a distance. There is no comparison between the old RUC and the Garda, but I believe my point is made in terms of the advantage of a modern, professional and accountable civic policing service. It is not a perfect model, but it shows the real need for reform in the structures to hold the Garda to account. The policing boards, set up under the Police Act 2000, are a prime example of a limited form of democratic checks and balances that are clearly lacking in this State.

We believe there should be an independent policing authority in this State. We want more powers of accountability here that currently apply in the North, which came about as part of the new beginning to policing under the Patten reforms and subsequent legislation introduced at Westminster. Sinn Féin wishes to have much of what is in place in terms of the Northern Ireland Policing Board replicated here in respect of joint policing committees. The joint policing committees in this State must be strengthened. We must ensure that the Garda is completely independent from the State. We can no longer have a situation where Ministers appoint senior gardaí, and they in turn watch their backs politically. That is clearly unacceptable, but it is also the perception of what exists between the Minister, Deputy Shatter, and the Garda Commissioner, Martin Callinan. This perception has only been exacerbated over the past ten days as part of the GSOC controversy. The days of a quid pro quo arrangement, where the Minister of the day circles the wagons against any criticism of senior gardaí while they in return circle the wagons against any criticism of the Minister, must end immediately.

Sinn Féin and the citizens of this State want nothing short of a fully accountable Garda Síochána and a Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission with full powers of oversight and full independence from the Executive in this State. That would be in the best interests of the men and women who serve us in the Garda Síochána and of the Irish people. If there was real democratic accountability on the part of the Garda, we would not have this situation today. A full independent inquiry would have been the obvious solution to the serious questions being asked about this matter from the start. Instead we have a Minister for Justice and Equality, a Taoiseach and a Garda Commissioner denying there is any serious issue to answer and giving deflective and useless answers instead of allowing the books to be thrown open. So much for all the talk of radical reform and a new way of doing things under their watch.

If there was a real desire for the Garda to be accountable, there would not be a situation in which the Garda Commissioner cannot be investigated by the body established to investigate the Garda. This point was well made by the former Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, Nuala O'Loan, on RTE this week. The idea that the person at the top of the Garda is above investigation is repugnant to the notion of accountability and transparency. Instead we have the offer of a paper review designed by the Minister for Justice and Equality which will report to the same Minister who is at the centre of the controversy that must be cleared up. This approach smells of cover-up to the public, rather than clear up. Nothing short of an independent inquiry which is established on a statutory footing and which has the power to compel documentation and witnesses, including the Minister, is good enough.

Deputy Peadar Tóibín

A police force operates on the currency of the confidence of the people. In this State, we have, for the most part, been blessed with a committed and honourable force. As a result, the public have repaid the Garda with confidence. It facilitates a mainly unarmed force operating in the hearts of communities.

When such confidence breaks down its damages the citizen, the force and the rule of law. One of the primary responsibilities of the Minister for Justice and Equality is to protect and strengthen that confidence. That is what the Minister is paid to do. In the past ten days, at best we have witnessed a very public discord between the Minister and the Commissioner on the one side and GSOC on the other side. At worst, we have seen a concerted effort to destabilise GSOC. The outcome of all this is collapsed confidence in the structures of law and order in the State.

That has come about directly as a result of the behaviour and activities of the Minister. For the most part, people are interested in hearing whether there has been bugging and who was responsible. The conclusion that the possibility of an anomaly with a conference call phone being coincidental was "close to zero" has shocked people. The Minister stated there is no evidence of Garda surveillance of GSOC, but we do know there was a clear vulnerability to surveillance of GSOC. Today, the Minister himself admitted in the committee that there were unexplained security anomalies. The instincts of most people would be to explain them. The Minister's interests are not aligned with the interests of the people. Oddly, his focus has not been on the substantive issue but on the subsequent process. He and the Government have been more interested in whether the chair of GSOC should have told the Minister. His behaviour has damaged the independence of GSOC. The Minister has managed to entertain the internal contradiction that on the one hand there was no definitive evidence of bugging but on the other he is substantially concerned that GSOC did not inform him there was no definitive evidence of bugging.

Due to the political process the Minister has been brought kicking and screaming to the point of an anaemic review of the potential security breaches. Why is there so much resistance to investigation? There is consistency in the Minister's erratic behaviour. He recruited a donor to his political campaign to the position of a confidential recipient to whistleblowers’ information. When whistleblowers in the Garda sought to whistleblow, the Minister undermined them. Now he has relieved the confidential recipient of his role. The powers of GSOC are simply not adequate. If we want to strengthen public confidence we need to strengthen GSOC. If we are to learn anything from the fiasco of the past ten days it should be that the powers of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission should be greatly increased. For example, it needs access to the PULSE system as a right. It also needs the ability to oversee and investigate all levels of the force. An ombudsman who cannot oversee a complete organisation cannot oversee it, full stop.

The new judge-led review will not create confidence. It will review documents and reports surrounding the issue but it will not call witnesses and compel the evidence of those witnesses. It will not mend the collapse in confidence that has occurred. I note the Minister of State, Deputy Lynch, said in a radio interview today that she felt there was a necessity to bring all of the resources possible to seek truth in this scenario. The chosen method of investigation does not seek to bring all possible resources to bear. Other resources are available to the Government but it is not using them. One could ask why that is the case. The Minister’s undermining of GSOC and the whistleblowing process, along with his lack of judgment and arrogant style of management has had the cumulative outcome of corroding the confidence he is employed to uphold.

Minister of State at the Department of Justice and Equality (Deputy Kathleen Lynch)

I have listened carefully to the debate and it seems that it is not just on this side that there is contradiction. On the one hand, Deputy Crowe said the relationship between the Commissioner and the Minister is too cosy and on the other hand Deputy Tóibín said the relationship is fractured. We must be clear in what we say.

There should be a broad welcome for the decision by Government to appoint a retired High Court judge to inquire into all matters of relevance relating to reports that GSOC has been under surveillance. It is a very serious matter. I echo the hope expressed by the Minister and others that the judge will now be given the time and space to conduct the inquiries and to come to clear conclusions on these matters.

The reports that GSOC may have been under surveillance have been the cause of understandable concern, not just among the public but within Government as well, and the legitimate subject of political debate. The Minister for Justice and Equality has been accused of misleading or withholding information from this House, when that is patently not the case. Last night the Minister convincingly explained how everything he has said to this House is based on briefings given to him by GSOC and founded on fact. Perhaps the most absurd accusation in this regard was that the Minister, in telling the House that GSOC had launched an investigation into the concerns but not specifically referencing section 102 of the Garda Síochána Act as the basis for that investigation, was somehow withholding vital information. As the Minister asked last night, what other section could conceivably have been used. Of course the investigation under section 102 related to potential Garda wrongdoing, because GSOC can only investigate members of the Garda Síochána. There could have been no other type of investigation. I should say that in addition to speaking yesterday on the motion before the House, where he dealt with these claims, the Minister also appeared before the Joint Committee on Public Service, Oversight and Petitions earlier this evening and comprehensively answered the questions of committee members.

We should not overlook the central fact that GSOC, which more than anyone has an interest in finding out if it was under surveillance, carried out an investigation into those concerns, concluded that there was no evidence of Garda misconduct, that no definitive evidence of unauthorised technical or electronic surveillance was found, and decided that no further action was necessary or practicable. Nevertheless, it is undoubtedly true that the rolling nature of the debate, following on from the hearing of the Committee on Public Service, Oversight and Petitions last Wednesday, together with the availability of further information and documentation received from GSOC and further technical information which the Minister has received regarding the evidential basis for concerns of surveillance of GSOC, has led to a situation where a resolution of the issues is required. Accordingly, I welcome the decision taken by the Government to appoint a retired judge of the High Court who will be able to conduct a calm, factual and independent analysis of the concerns and come to conclusions which can be accepted by everyone as authoritative.

There are central and important issues that must be comprehensively answered. I believe the investigation now under way will give the answers. In relation to that work, I was pleased to hear the Minister for Justice and Equality announce, before this controversy developed, that he would bring to Cabinet a number of amendments to the Garda Síochána Act 2005 relating to the powers of GSOC. I understand the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality will also be asked to consider the issue and to make any recommendations on what amendments might be made to the 2005 Act. I welcome that also.

Even in advance of the consideration of amendments to the 2005 Act relating to GSOC, the Minister has made clear that he is working with his colleague, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, to make a specific amendment, to be included in the Protected Disclosures Bill currently before this House, which would allow GSOC operate within the architecture of the Bill and accept reports from Garda whistleblowers. This new system will replace the current system.

We have a situation where the concerns of surveillance of GSOC will now be examined by a High Court judge, where the legislation governing GSOC will be reviewed and where necessary strengthened and where already steps are being taken to expand GSOC's remit to accept reports from Garda whistleblowers. I believe that is an outcome which should be and will be accepted and welcomed by all sides in this House.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I wish to share time with an Teachta McDonald.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I, like other Members of the House, have sat through two long committee hearings on the matter already and a session of statements in the Dáil Chamber on the possible surveillance of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission's offices in Capel Street. In all of that period - there was another four-hour committee meeting today - I have become more and more convinced that the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission had solid reasons to believe its security was breached to such an extent as to justify it bringing in an international team of counter-surveillance experts from abroad. It said at the time that it was "quite proportionate and sensible to look elsewhere".

Such was the level of its concern it did not trust Irish companies, many of which have links with An Garda Síochána and retired gardaí.

Major problems have been highlighted which still have not been addressed. The Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission has tried to state this was a routine counter-surveillance sweep and a routine measure. The office of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission opened in 2007 and this was the last time a sweep was done. Even at that stage the Irish company which took part in the sweep did not find the rogue Wi-Fi system, which was in place at the time. This suggests incompetence and supports the view GSOC could not trust Irish companies to deal with the level of counter-surveillance required.

GSOC stated it decided to conduct the sweep because of its heightened public profile, but it also stated it was because some members involved in public discourse were exceptionally well-informed. This suggests leaks somewhere. In its report the company tasked with the sweep, Verrimus, stated it was engaged due to suspicions the offices were under surveillance by the Garda Síochána. This is supported by the fact GSOC initiated a public interest investigation believing such surveillance may have originated within An Garda Síochána, according to Simon O'Brien. This is another reason.

We know, because it is well documented, that in the period running up to the counter-surveillance sweep there were tensions between the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission and An Garda Síochána with regard to a number of inquiries it was carrying out, including on the penalty points scandal and misuse by members of An Garda Síochána of a drug smuggling informer, Kieran Boylan. We have also now been made aware the chairman of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission was concerned the Garda Síochána Commissioner, Martin Callinan, had information about the internal workings of a GSOC inquiry, namely, access to a draft report, and that this emerged during a meeting between the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána and Simon O'Brien.

Today the Minister tried to dismiss this as being the trigger for the measures GSOC took to identify the source of the threats to its security and operational integrity. He tried to put it down to the UK operatives of Verrimus misunderstanding chatty GSOC staff. He also tried to dismiss and ridicule security threats identified by Verrimus. He stated nothing untoward occurred. He tried to make little of the fact that at no stage could anybody state categorically or rule out that surveillance was carried out by members of An Garda Síochána. He dismissed it at the committee meeting only a few minutes ago, stating that saying there is no definitive evidence members of An Garda Síochána were not carrying out surveillance of the office as being akin to asking when did one stop beating one's wife, which is a strange choice of words given the history of the Garda Síochána heavy gang in the 1970s.

It is important this is properly addressed. It was the Opposition and journalists who injected urgency into this and not the Minister or the Government. We forced the issue. It is now urgent it is properly investigated, and not investigated in the way the Minister has proposed.

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald

The response of Government backbenchers from Fine Gael and the Labour Party to the motion has been predictable; I would say depressingly predictable. They level an accusation at Members on this side of the Dáil that we set out to disrespect the men and women of An Garda Síochána. They level an accusation at those of us on this side of the House that we question the integrity of a member of the Judiciary. They make valiant efforts to dismiss this debate as what they call a political football or political grandstanding. All of these are part of a brass-necked attempt to play down, minimise, set aside and even perhaps to whitewash what has happened.

Tonight's debate, just so we are clear and so Government backbenchers are clear, is taking place because of information in the public domain suggesting the office of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission may have been bugged. This is a very serious matter. Furthermore, and in the public domain also, is a concern the offices of GSOC may have been bugged by An Garda Síochána, whether sanctioned or otherwise. This brings public concerns to a whole new level. I was glad to hear the Minister of State, Deputy Lynch, concede these are not trivial concerns because they are matters which go to the very heart of Garda accountability and credibility and public confidence in the administration of justice. It is precisely because public confidence in An Garda Síochána and the body charged with its oversight, GSOC, is so crucial to this administration of justice that the motion has been tabled.

I have no difficulty in stating the motion should not be necessary, because it should not be. The Government, recognising the gravity of all of these concerns, should have moved speedily to institute an independent inquiry into all of these matters. This is what it should have done but it chose not to do so. Instead, as others have recounted, it pointed the finger of blame at GSOC. From the outset the Government endeavoured to create a narrative which sought to lay the blame squarely at the door of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission.

After the bugging story broke in the media the Minister for Justice and Equality, as we know, deliberately and publicly summoned the Garda watchdog to his office. During this meeting the chairman of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission provided the Minister, Deputy Shatter, with a written briefing which was used to inform his statement to the Dáil the next day. Despite this briefing and written documentation, the Minister came to the Chamber and made a statement which fell very short of the information available to him. For example he failed to note one of the anomalies identified suggested calls could have been tampered with. He omitted to state the experts who conducted the security sweep advised the technology in use was available to government agencies only. Despite knowing all of this, the Minister stood in the Dáil and categorically refuted the suggestion there was concern regarding An Garda Síochána and told Members of the House any suggestion otherwise was, to use his term, baseless innuendo.

The Minister of State, Deputy Lynch, has stridently come here to recite the script of the Minister, Deputy Shatter. She set aside the fact the Minister failed to make reference to the public interest investigation in the course of his commentary. The record reflects this is the fact. This was deliberately done; if it was not it poses several questions. Does, or did, the Minister consider GSOC's concerns as baseless? Does, or did, he consider that GSOC had proceeded simply on the basis of innuendo? We all know neither of these holds true because Simon O'Brien, the Chairman of GSOC, came before the committee and made this very clear.

It is now very evident the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, is absolutely incapable of impartiality in this matter. As recently as last night he appeared again in the Dáil to tell us of a new peer review he had carried out.

He has moved and hardened his position from stating there is no conclusive evidence of surveillance to now making the claim that, in fact, there is no evidence whatsoever of any surveillance. This is the man charged by the Government to draw up the terms of reference for the review. As to how that could be publicly or politically credible or in any way be desirable is, frankly, baffling.

I ask the following question of the Minister which I encourage members of the Government to ask: why is he so absolutely determined, when an issue of controversy emerges on the public scene, to shut it down? He might regard this in his own mind as a pro-Garda stance. He might think or believe he is doing the right thing in trying to distract public attention from the concerns of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC, and now the concerns of the public about this alleged bugging. However, he needs to be aware that these actions are not favourable to An Garda Síochána or the oversight body, that they are, in fact, highly damaging. They are damaging in the same way the Minister's approach to the two Garda whistleblowers who had come forward was damaging. Members should recall that in that instance the Minister was utterly dismissive to the point of almost being abusive towards these two men because what they had to say did not suit him. He would probably typify his actions at the time as being concerned with safeguarding the integrity of An Garda Síochána, but they did nothing of the sort. It is now impossible to imagine that any serving officer who has concerns or information would not be highly cautious about stepping forward because he or she knows the view of the Minister. Furthermore, he or she knows the view of the Garda Commissioner of those who choose to step forward. Sergeant Maurice McCabe is still subject to frustrations regarding his appearance before the Committee of Public Accounts. While he seeks a transcript of his evidence, there are those in this House who do not wish him to have it. However, one should remember that many people elected to this place did not want him to appear before the committee in any event. They wanted him to be quiet and go away.

Deputy John Deasy

The Deputy is having a laugh.

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald

A pattern has been established within the Government, both among members of the Cabinet and on the backbenches. The Minister has moved to minimise and trivialise the alleged bugging of the GSOC offices. He took precisely the same approach to the Garda whistleblowers. While that is his form, he does not and did not act alone because it is now clear that the Alan Shatter approach to the administration of justice is shared by members of the Government, on both the Front Bench and the backbenches, and that he has their full support. Apparently, members of the Government believe he is the appropriate person to draw up terms of reference for the inquiry and to whom it should report.

I say to the two Ministers sitting on the benches opposite-----

Deputy Emmet Stagg

At least they are on the benches. There was no one at all from Sinn Féin in the Chamber for more than half an hour tonight.

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald

The legislation required to construct a proper independent inquiry is available to the Government.

Deputy Emmet Stagg

No one.

Deputy Dessie Ellis

For how long was the Deputy here?

Deputy Emmet Stagg

It is Sinn Féin's debate, but there was no one here.

An Ceann Comhairle

Sorry, hold on one second, please.

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald

In the course of this debate it has been cited time out of number. Why does the Government not use it?

Deputy Emmet Stagg

Had the Deputy been in the Chamber, she might have heard.

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald

Why does the Government not want an inquiry in which a High Court judge, with all of his or her integrity and expertise, would have available to him or her the full range of powers necessary to get to the bottom of this issue? In the midst of the Government's bluster and blunder, it has failed to answer that simple question.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

Time is up.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

The Minister's time will be up soon enough.

Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand," put and declared carried.

Amendment to amendment No. 1 declared lost.

Amendment put:

The Dáil divided: Tá, 83; Níl, 49.

Tá

• Bannon, James.
• Barry, Tom.
• Butler, Ray.
• Buttimer, Jerry.
• Byrne, Catherine.
• Byrne, Eric.
• Cannon, Ciarán.
• Carey, Joe.
• Coffey, Paudie.
• Collins, Áine.
• Conaghan, Michael.
• Conlan, Seán.
• Connaughton, Paul J.
• Coonan, Noel.
• Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
• Costello, Joe.
• Coveney, Simon.
• Creed, Michael.
• Daly, Jim.
• Deasy, John.
• Deering, Pat.
• Doherty, Regina.
• Donohoe, Paschal.
• Dowds, Robert.
• Doyle, Andrew.
• Durkan, Bernard J.
• English, Damien.
• Farrell, Alan.
• Feighan, Frank.
• Ferris, Anne.
• Fitzgerald, Frances.
• Fitzpatrick, Peter.
• Flanagan, Charles.
• Hannigan, Dominic.
• Harris, Simon.
• Hayes, Brian.
• Hayes, Tom.
• Heydon, Martin.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Humphreys, Heather.
• Humphreys, Kevin.
• Kehoe, Paul.
• Kelly, Alan.
• Kenny, Seán.
• Kyne, Seán.
• Lynch, Ciarán.
• Lynch, Kathleen.
• Lyons, John.
• McCarthy, Michael.
• McEntee, Helen.
• McGinley, Dinny.
• McHugh, Joe.
• McLoughlin, Tony.
• McNamara, Michael.
• Maloney, Eamonn.
• Mitchell, Olivia.
• Mitchell O'Connor, Mary.
• Mulherin, Michelle.
• Murphy, Dara.
• Murphy, Eoghan.
• Neville, Dan.
• Nolan, Derek.
• Noonan, Michael.
• Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
• O'Donnell, Kieran.
• O'Donovan, Patrick.
• O'Dowd, Fergus.
• O'Mahony, John.
• O'Sullivan, Jan.
• Perry, John.
• Phelan, Ann.
• Reilly, James.
• Ring, Michael.
• Ryan, Brendan.
• Shatter, Alan.
• Shortall, Róisín.
• Spring, Arthur.
• Stagg, Emmet.
• Stanton, David.
• Tuffy, Joanna.
• Twomey, Liam.
• Wall, Jack.
• White, Alex.

Níl

• Adams, Gerry.
• Boyd Barrett, Richard.
• Broughan, Thomas P.
• Browne, John.
• Calleary, Dara.
• Collins, Joan.
• Collins, Niall.
• Colreavy, Michael.
• Cowen, Barry.
• Crowe, Seán.
• Daly, Clare.
• Doherty, Pearse.
• Dooley, Timmy.
• Ellis, Dessie.
• Ferris, Martin.
• Flanagan, Luke 'Ming'.
• Fleming, Sean.
• Grealish, Noel.
• Halligan, John.
• Healy-Rae, Michael.
• Higgins, Joe.
• Keaveney, Colm.
• Kelleher, Billy.
• Kirk, Seamus.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Lowry, Michael.
• Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
• McConalogue, Charlie.
• McDonald, Mary Lou.
• McGrath, Finian.
• McGrath, Mattie.
• McGrath, Michael.
• McLellan, Sandra.
• Martin, Micheál.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• Murphy, Catherine.
• Nulty, Patrick.
• Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
• Ó Cuív, Éamon.
• Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
• Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
• O'Brien, Jonathan.
• Pringle, Thomas.
• Ross, Shane.
• Smith, Brendan.
• Stanley, Brian.
• Tóibín, Peadar.
• Troy, Robert.
• Wallace, Mick.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Paul Kehoe and Emmet Stagg; Níl, Deputies Seán Ó Fearghaíl and Aengus Ó Snodaigh.

Amendment declared carried.

Question put: That the motion, as amended, be agreed to.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 82; Níl, 49.

Tá

• Bannon, James.
• Barry, Tom.
• Butler, Ray.
• Buttimer, Jerry.
• Byrne, Catherine.
• Byrne, Eric.
• Cannon, Ciarán.
• Carey, Joe.
• Coffey, Paudie.
• Collins, Áine.
• Conaghan, Michael.
• Conlan, Seán.
• Connaughton, Paul J.
• Coonan, Noel.
• Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
• Costello, Joe.
• Coveney, Simon.
• Creed, Michael.
• Daly, Jim.
• Deasy, John.
• Deering, Pat.
• Doherty, Regina.
• Donohoe, Paschal.
• Dowds, Robert.
• Doyle, Andrew.
• Durkan, Bernard J.
• English, Damien.
• Farrell, Alan.
• Feighan, Frank.
• Ferris, Anne.
• Fitzgerald, Frances.
• Fitzpatrick, Peter.
• Flanagan, Charles.
• Hannigan, Dominic.
• Harris, Simon.
• Hayes, Brian.
• Hayes, Tom.
• Heydon, Martin.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Humphreys, Heather.
• Humphreys, Kevin.
• Kehoe, Paul.
• Kelly, Alan.
• Kenny, Seán.
• Kyne, Seán.
• Lynch, Ciarán.
• Lynch, Kathleen.
• Lyons, John.
• McCarthy, Michael.
• McEntee, Helen.
• McGinley, Dinny.
• McHugh, Joe.
• McLoughlin, Tony.
• McNamara, Michael.
• Maloney, Eamonn.
• Mitchell, Olivia.
• Mitchell O'Connor, Mary.
• Mulherin, Michelle.
• Murphy, Dara.
• Murphy, Eoghan.
• Neville, Dan.
• Nolan, Derek.
• Noonan, Michael.
• Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
• O'Donnell, Kieran.
• O'Donovan, Patrick.
• O'Dowd, Fergus.
• O'Mahony, John.
• O'Sullivan, Jan.
• Perry, John.
• Phelan, Ann.
• Reilly, James.
• Ring, Michael.
• Ryan, Brendan.
• Shatter, Alan.
• Spring, Arthur.
• Stagg, Emmet.
• Stanton, David.
• Tuffy, Joanna.
• Twomey, Liam.
• Wall, Jack.
• White, Alex.

Níl

• Adams, Gerry.
• Boyd Barrett, Richard.
• Broughan, Thomas P.
• Browne, John.
• Calleary, Dara.
• Collins, Joan.
• Collins, Niall.
• Colreavy, Michael.
• Cowen, Barry.
• Crowe, Seán.
• Daly, Clare.
• Doherty, Pearse.
• Dooley, Timmy.
• Ellis, Dessie.
• Ferris, Martin.
• Flanagan, Luke 'Ming'.
• Fleming, Sean.
• Grealish, Noel.
• Halligan, John.
• Healy-Rae, Michael.
• Higgins, Joe.
• Keaveney, Colm.
• Kelleher, Billy.
• Kirk, Seamus.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Lowry, Michael.
• Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
• McConalogue, Charlie.
• McDonald, Mary Lou.
• McGrath, Finian.
• McGrath, Mattie.
• McGrath, Michael.
• McLellan, Sandra.
• Martin, Micheál.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• Murphy, Catherine.
• Nulty, Patrick.
• Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
• Ó Cuív, Éamon.
• Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
• Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
• O'Brien, Jonathan.
• Pringle, Thomas.
• Shortall, Róisín.
• Smith, Brendan.
• Stanley, Brian.
• Tóibín, Peadar.
• Troy, Robert.
• Wallace, Mick.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Paul Kehoe and Emmet Stagg; Níl, Deputies Seán Ó Fearghaíl and Aengus Ó Snodaigh.

Question declared carried.

The Dáil adjourned at 9.30 p.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 20 February 2014.