Vol. 832 No. 3
1. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the reasons behind his decision to relieve the Garda confidential recipient of his duties; his plans to change his relationship with the office; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9777/14]
2. Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Justice and Equality in view of the fact that the Garda confidential recipient has been relieved of his duties, the arrangements in place for members of An Garda Síochána who wish to make a complaint. [9946/14]
Following the removal of Mr. Oliver Connolly from his position as confidential recipient, the Minister for Justice and Equality stated that he was asked to step down or was removed because he did not repudiate or deny what was in the transcript of the conversation between himself and Sergeant Maurice McCabe. I ask the Minister to expand on that statement and to outline the change in his relationship with that office now. I also ask him to state whether he has minutes of his meetings with the confidential recipient since his appointment.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
I was surprised that Deputy Collins raised this matter because it is my recollection that approximately one week prior to me relieving Mr. Connolly of his position, Deputy Micheál Martin said that his position was untenable and I had presumed that Deputy Collins agreed with that.
I detailed in the Dáil yesterday my reasons for relieving the confidential recipient of his duties. The background to this matter is as follows. The Garda Síochána (Confidential Reporting of Corruption or Malpractice) Regulations 2007, made under the Garda Síochána Act 2005, provide for the appointment of an independent confidential recipient. The independent confidential recipient was designed to enable members of the force and civilian support staff to report, in confidence, instances where they believe there may be corruption or malpractice within the Garda Síochána. Mr. Oliver Connolly was appointed as confidential recipient with effect from 18 July 2011 for a three year period. The appointment followed the required consultation with the Garda Commissioner, the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, the Garda Inspectorate, the Garda representative associations and the trade unions or staff associations representing civilian staff.
Rumours were circulating for some time regarding the existence of an alleged tape and transcript of a confidential conversation between Mr. Connolly and Sergeant Maurice McCabe. Given the importance of the office's confidentiality, no Minister for Justice and Equality could properly seek out such a transcript or tape. However, following an alleged extract from the alleged tape being placed on the Dáil record, I asked my Department to contact Mr. Connolly outlining my concerns that if the conversation as reported had taken place, then his actions had undermined the office of the confidential recipient.
Contacts with Mr. Connolly over the following two weeks did not satisfy me as to his response to the controversy. I wrote to him on 19 February 2014 and informed him that, in the context of his failure to unequivocally repudiate the content of the alleged conversation or take the necessary action to restore public confidence in the office of confidential recipient, I believed his position was untenable and I had no alternative but to relieve him of that position.
I have publicly said that I do not believe the office of confidential recipient and the legislation applicable to it are fulfilling the objective for which they were introduced. I have stated my intention to abolish the office and to enable members of An Garda Síochána who allege misconduct within the force to have their complaints considered and addressed by the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission. The Cabinet has agreed in principle that an appropriate amendment to the Protected Disclosures Bill 2013 should be prepared to enable the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission to be prescribed under that Bill as a body to which disclosures may be made by members of the Garda Síochána.
Interim arrangements will be made to fill the post of confidential recipient by the appointment of a retired judge. Every effort will be made to expedite the necessary consultation process so that the appointment can be made as soon as possible.
The Minister did not tell us whether minutes are kept in his Department of any meetings that he has had with the confidential recipient and I ask him to address that question. The Minister has also not addressed the fundamental issue here. What is contained in the transcript is not disputed by anybody, including by the Minister himself, but the Minister asked the confidential recipient to deny what he has said. Mr. Connolly said what he said and obviously he is standing over what he said to Sergeant Maurice McCabe and the Minister has removed him on that basis. That points to a very peculiar situation that the Minister is not addressing in terms of the comments that the confidential recipient made to Sergeant Maurice McCabe. In any event, I will be asking the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality to invite Mr. Oliver Connolly before it. Does the Minister support that proposal?
My colleague, Deputy John McGuinness, yesterday raised the issue of another Garda whistleblower to whom he has spoken and raised directly with the Minister her dealings with the confidential recipient. Is the Minister aware of that? Has he spoken to the confidential recipient about it or has he knowledge or detail in that regard?
I will take the Deputy's questions in reverse order. My only knowledge of the issue raised by Deputy McGuinness is what he said in this House yesterday and on "Morning Ireland" on RTE radio this morning. I do not have any knowledge of the matter.
I do not have knowledge of conversations that a confidential recipient has with members of An Garda Síochána. The essence of the office, as it was established when the Deputy's party was in Government, is that conversations take place between members of An Garda Síochána and the appointed confidential recipient in confidence. My only knowledge of the alleged conversation that the confidential recipient had with Sergeant McCabe initially derived from the reports of the content of the transcript that was allegedly made. It was an obvious cause of concern. I presume the Deputy is aware of why his party leader said that the confidential recipient's position was untenable. The confidential recipient, any previous one and whoever is appointed even temporarily, must ensure that a member of the force who comes to him or her has absolute confidence that an issue raised or a complaint made would be treated with seriousness, and that there is no question of them being under a threat of any nature from me or any Minister for Justice and Equality. What was said was absolutely unacceptable. It is something Deputies continue to repeat with great glee in this House. There is no question of my treating anybody in that fashion.
I call Deputy Mac Lochlainn. There are time limits on these questions.
How can there be time limits? This is Priority Questions. I should have two minutes on the clock.
The Deputy has one minute.
It is two minutes and one minute, so why have I not been given two minutes?
It is two minutes for the Minister and one minute for each Deputy.
No, this is Priority Questions, so it is two minutes and one minute for the Opposition spokespersons. Why are there not two minutes on the clock?
It is one minute.
Will the Leas-Cheann Comhairle clarify why it is one minute? This question has been grouped with another one and, as spokespersons, we should not be disadvantaged. Usually I would have two minutes and then one minute. Why are there not two minutes on the clock?
The Deputy does not have two minutes plus one minute.
This is Priority Questions, so it is two minutes plus one minute. I should not be disadvantaged because the questions have been grouped. I should have two minutes. Is there less time if questions are grouped?
There is not less time. There are two minutes for the Minister to reply and a minute for each supplementary question.
Do we only have one minute?
What are the normal times for a priority question taken alone?
It is two minutes and one minute for a supplementary question.
Therefore, we get 30 seconds, one minute and one minute.
It is 30 seconds, two minutes for the Minister and one minute each for every supplementary question.
We get two minutes in total. I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for clarifying that.
When Oliver Connolly was appointed, the Minister testified to his character as an honourable man. Since he has been relieved of his duties, and I do not know the man personally, it has been reported that he is a respected solicitor. There is no question about this man's character. Why did he find himself having that type of conversation with Sergeant Maurice McCabe? Why did he say the things he said? What has not been focused upon is what he said about the very close relationship the Minister has with the Garda Commissioner, which I have criticised for a long time. I am seeking the Minister's view on why a man who is honourable and decent, as the Minister testified and which has been confirmed by other peers, would say the words he spoke. Does the Minister have a view on what led him to give that advice to Sergeant Maurice McCabe and to be concerned for Sergeant Maurice McCabe in that way?
I can state quite categorically that I find the whole thing a complete mystery. I have absolutely no idea what Mr. Connolly was thinking. I have had very limited contact with Mr. Connolly in the context of his role as confidential recipient. I recalled from memory last evening, and there are no notes of this, that following receipt of his letter of 23 January 2012 there was a brief conversation in which he emphasised to me that these were important issues to be followed up. However, I did not have regular meetings with him. His job was to engage confidentially with members of An Garda Síochána.
To be frank, I am utterly astonished at some of the commentary that has now come into the public arena. I do not understand why he conducted himself in that way. He has a very good reputation as a sound lawyer and mediator. It remains as much of a surprise and mystery to me as I expect it should be to others. I cannot explain this. I can only say that it was an approach I regarded as untenable in the context of the important role of confidential recipient.
The Minister intimated that there will be a replacement for Oliver Connolly. What will the arrangement be? What will the arrangement be in the interim? I presume the Minister intends to move to a position where gardaí, regardless of the issue, will go directly to GSOC in future. Will he clarify that?
As I said a number of times before any of these controversies arose, my judgment was that the office of confidential recipient did not work. I concluded, having been Minister for some time, that it was not appropriate that these matters are dealt with in this way. It was unsatisfactory. I brought a proposal to the Cabinet that the Bill brought forward by my colleague, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, be amended, which it will be on Committee Stage. It will require some modifications to what is already in the Bill to ensure that members of An Garda Síochána can bring complaints directly to GSOC. Of course, it will take some weeks for that Bill to be enacted. It has been passed by the Seanad but it must go through Committee Stage in this House and any amendments made by this House must go back to the Seanad. It will be some weeks but I was concerned to ensure there will not be an enormous gap.
One cannot instantly appoint a replacement. The view I expressed, and with which my Cabinet colleagues agreed, was that we should appoint a retired judge. I will consider the individual in consultation with the Attorney General. We must go through the consultative process that I described. As soon as that is completed, either by next week or hopefully the following week at the latest, there will be a new confidential recipient appointed. The confidential recipient will be in place on an interim basis pending the relevant part of the Minister, Deputy Howlin's, legislation becoming operative, which I hope will happen with some speed. We are dependent on the legislative process for that and on the work required in finalising the amendments that are necessary in the Bill.
3. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the steps taken to address the issues raised in the section 80(5) GSOC report regarding Garda collusion with an international drug trafficker; if the gardaí involved remain serving gardaí; if the terms of reference of Mr. Justice Cooke's paper review will allow for any consideration of possible involvement of those gardaí in any authorised or unauthorised covert surveillance of GSOC; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9780/14]
Given that GSOC confirmed to the committee and Kieran FitzGerald confirmed on "Prime Time" that the sweep for covert surveillance arose at a time of heightened risk, which they linked to the investigation of the Kieran Boylan case, the proposed paper review by Mr. Justice Cooke must be permitted to examine any possible connection arising with any garda connected to the Kieran Boylan issue, to include being supplied with the 600 page file that the GSOC forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, along with the DPP's file relating to the decision not to prosecute. In addition to the confirmations sought in the question, can the Minister confirm that these materials will be made available to Mr. Justice Cooke?
The report from the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission referred to by the Deputy contains a series of recommendations related to informant handling procedures within An Garda Síochána, oversight of those procedures and intelligence handling and information exchange between GSOC and An Garda Síochána. At the time, I sought the observations of the Garda Commissioner on the report and its recommendations. The Garda Commissioner in his reply pointed out the many changes which have been made to Garda handling of these matters in recent years, including the putting in place of a code of practice for the management of covert human intelligence sources. As such, many of the recommendations made by GSOC were already incorporated into Garda procedures, including improved training for gardaí, the development of an electronic system for maintaining records, placing emphasis on the necessity for gardaí to comply with professional standards, strict procedures for handling and disseminating intelligence as well as co-ordination between specialist units and robust internal auditing.
The Commissioner also emphasised that informants are clearly instructed that they may not commit crimes or act as agents provocateurs. Although it is not referred to in the GSOC report, I emphasise that there has been, since 2010, an independent, external oversight mechanism in place to ensure compliance with the code of practice of An Garda Síochána for the management and use of covert human intelligence sources. The current holder of this appointment is Mr. Justice Thomas Smyth, a former judge of the High Court. In addition to monitoring compliance with the code of practice, Mr. Justice Smyth’s remit requires him to communicate any matters he considers appropriate, including recommendations, to the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána and to report to the Minister for Justice and Equality annually on the discharge of his functions.
More generally, as I have previously advised this House, revised protocols were agreed and signed by the chairperson of GSOC and the Garda Commissioner on 23 September 2013 to ensure the highest possible level of co-operation between the two organisations. The revised protocols put in place clear procedures for the timely sharing of information, including sensitive information, and more generally for enhanced co-operation. The House will also be aware of the recent agreement of the Garda Commissioner to enhance these protocols to enable GSOC to have full access to PULSE.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
I have no information on the sensitive operational question of the identify of members of An Garda Síochána who are, or have been, involved in informant handling or whether they are still serving.
The Minister has more faith in the system than GSOC has shown. Given the decision of the DPP not to prosecute, I assume the Minister has sought and received briefings from the Garda Commissioner on whether the relevant senior gardaí have been disciplined, demoted or whether they remain serving in the Garda Síochána. I would be obliged if the Minister will update the House in detail in this regard. Can the Minister confirm that, in addition to the members of the Garda Síochána, the Commissioner and resigned or retired gardaí will co-operate with and submit to Mr. Justice Cooke in respect of any possible involvement, despite the fact that the Commissioner and retired or resigned gardaí do not come within the GSOC section 102 review, in respect of which Part 1 of the terms of reference is focused? Does the Minister believe resigned or retired gardaí connected with the Boylan investigation come within the remit of the paper review of Mr. Justice Cooke?
In the context of the GSOC issue, a committee was also established, chaired by a senior official of my Department, with senior representatives from GSOC and the Garda Síochána, to act as a forum where any future emerging issues concerning the protocols can be identified and appropriately addressed.
The Government has appointed retired High Court judge, Mr. Justice John Cooke, to conduct an independent inquiry into the reports of unlawful surveillance of GSOC. The terms of reference for the inquiry were agreed by the Government, on the advice of the Attorney General. They are available on the website of the Department of the Taoiseach. Mr. Justice Cooke has been asked to report on these matters within eight weeks or as soon as may be thereafter.
I expect there will be full co-operation from the Garda Síochána with the work being undertaken by Mr. Justice Cooke. The terms of reference facilitate that he may engage in any manner he deems appropriate with regard to reviewing these issues. It is for Mr. Justice Cooke to determine how to best proceed with the very important work he has been asked to undertake. It is not appropriate that I, as Minister for Justice and Equality, to comment further. The approach to be taken by him will be governed by the terms of reference.
The Minister has not told us whether Mr. Justice Cooke will have the power to examine the Commissioner and retired gardaí. GSOC reached damning conclusions in this section 80(5) report despite assurances in 2012 from Commissioner Martin Callinan that it was his belief members of the Garda Síochána were co-operating with GSOC. Even on the publication by GSOC of this section 85 Boylan report, Commissioner Callinan reiterated his belief that gardaí had co-operated with the GSOC investigation. This obstinacy and internal logic is central to the blue wall of silence and the resolute refusal to submit to outside accountability within the Garda Síochána, along with a resolute resistance to admitting that any cultural change within the Garda Síochána is even necessary, much less committing to implementing a programme of reform.
The reaction of the Garda Commissioner to external criticism is not unusual. He similarly publicly rejected the criticisms of Mr. Justice Smithwick and the Smithwick tribunal report that the Garda Síochána valued loyalty to the force over truth and honesty. The response of the Commissioner was that he simply did not accept the judge's findings. How in God's name can the Minister stand over keeping the Commissioner in place?
It is important we respect the independence of GSOC. I took with great seriousness the report published by GSOC. Some of the issues raised had been dealt with and addressed, while others have not. GSOC is independent and in the context of issues that remain to be addressed we have put in place systems to ensure they are addressed. It is of the utmost importance that the Garda Síochána fully co-operates with GSOC and it is of the utmost importance that GSOC carries out its independent functions fully and freely and reaches conclusions on allegations received by it. The report on the Boylan matter published by GSOC illustrated issues of seriousness and the manner in which GSOC approached that work should have copper-fastened in everyone's mind the fact that it does its work independently. On one hand, Deputy Wallace seems to be supportive of the work GSOC does yet, on the other hand, he criticises the work it does. I cannot recall if it was Deputy Wallace or one of his colleagues sitting beside him who made allegations yesterday that GSOC was not fit for the job it does. Something of that nature was said.
That was the Minister.
GSOC would be well fit for it if the Minister gave it powers.
The Boylan report and related issues are of great importance and there should be full co-operation between GSOC and the Garda Síochána.
That is not what GSOC said.
4. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the remit, resources and powers given to the High Court judge-led review of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission investigation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9778/14]
The issue that flows from the GSOC bugging controversy is disconcerting. What resources will be made available to Mr. Justice Cooke? What is the exact timeline for him to report? Will he have the imprimatur of the Minister or the Government to interview all relevant parties, including Rits, the outside agency introduced by the Minister late in the process to conduct a peer review?
On 18 February, 2014 I gave the Cabinet my assessment of the potential damage to both the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission and the Garda Síochána, and more widely to public confidence in the enforcement of law, from the ongoing controversy relating to reports of unlawful surveillance of GSOC. The manner in which this controversy had continued and the new information I had received in the days beforehand led me to the view that it was in the public interest that measures be taken to ensure that the full truth is established beyond dispute. In the light of that, I and my Cabinet colleagues agreed to the appointment of a retired High Court judge, Mr. Justice Cooke, to inquire into all matters of relevance to the controversy.
The Government subsequently appointed retired High Court judge, Mr. Justice John Cooke, to conduct an independent inquiry into the reports of unlawful surveillance of the GSOC. The terms of reference for the inquiry were agreed by the Government, on the advice of the Attorney General and are available on the website of the Department of the Taoiseach. Mr. Justice Cooke has been asked to report on these matters within eight weeks or as soon as may be thereafter. He will be provided with any technical and secretarial assistance he requires, and I expect that all parties will co-operate fully with him.
I want the Minister to expand on the peer review conducted by Rits. It seems curious that the Minister brought in this company to second-guess much of what was said at the committee and reported by Verrimus. A lot of briefing of the media was going on and we witness Verrimus, a UK-based company, issuing public statements to correct what it described as highly inaccurate reporting. Why did the Minister engage Rits to carry out a peer review?
What were its terms of reference? Is it a comparable company, in terms of stature, ability and resourcing, to Verrimus? How does it compare? How much to did the peer review cost? Does it do regular work for the Minister or the Department? Were the Department's procurement guidelines followed in terms of tendering, provision of tax clearance certificates and engaging Rits?
I am very surprised at the Deputy raising all of those questions but I can understand why he might be asking them. As the Deputy will recall, on Wednesday, 19 February 2014, there was a meeting of the Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions, which lasted for more than four hours and at which I answered extensive questions, including those the Deputy just raised. The Deputy was present briefly at that meeting and many Members of the House who were interested in those issues attended throughout the four hours. I was surprised that the Deputy, having appeared at the meeting, then disappeared and did not raise a single one of those questions at it, all of which the Deputy would see, if he read the transcript, were addressed at some length.
The Deputy did not have any great difficulty in the days leading up to that meeting visiting as many broadcasting stations and participating in as many as possible radio-----
Why does the Minister not answer the questions?
-----and television programmes offered to him to make false charges against me-----
Why does the Minister not answer the questions?
-----and to raise questions he believed to be of interest. In the context of the questions he raised, can I direct the Deputy to read the transcript of the four hour meeting that took place? If he had remained at the meeting and had sufficient interest in addressing those issues, I expect he would not only have known the answers but perhaps might have asked some questions at that meeting.
Yesterday evening in the House, the Minister was asked about comments by the Garda Commissioner, Martin Callinan, at a meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts and he quite conveniently relied on saying that he had not read the transcript. The Minister should not come into the House and give me that load balderdash that I did not read the transcript. I was at the committee meeting but I had a prior engagement I had to attend. My party was represented at the meeting.
Why does the Minister not answer the questions? Why did he engage Rits? He was trying to undermine Verrimus and to create more confusion, more diversions and a smoke screen and to cast doubt of the veracity of the Verrimus report, which GSOC was in possession of. Why does the Minister not answer the questions which I have detailed and put the answers on the record of the House? Why did he engage Rits? What were its terms of reference? Has it done work for the Minister previously? What is its stature in comparison to Verrimus? Is it a comparable company? Did the Department following proper procurement guidelines? Will the Minister answer the questions?
I think the other engagements the Deputy had last Wednesday were making other allegations against me on the plinth outside Leinster House-----
Answer the questions.
-----and then visiting as many broadcast programmes as he could. If the Deputy was really taking this matter seriously and not just trying to engage in party political point scoring, he would have remained at the meeting, would have listened to what was said at it, would have asked the questions he is now asking and would have heard all of them responded to. It is not a question of having to even read the transcript. As a Minister, I cannot attend meetings of the Committee of Public Accounts. As the justice spokesperson of his party, the Deputy professed great concern about the issues relating to GSOC in the seven days leading up to that meeting. Frankly, I was astonished he did not regard it as sufficiently important to remain at the meeting.
Frankly, I am astonished the Minister did not read the transcript of the Garda Commissioner's appearance at the Committee of Public Accounts. The Minister should judge others by his own standards.
5. Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Justice and Equality his views on the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004 as a basis for independent inquiries into matters of significant public concern. [9947/14]
As I said yesterday, there are few people who would have as detailed an understanding of legislation as the Minister, so for the life of me I cannot understand why the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004, which the Minister probably knows line for line, was not deployed in regard to the allegations of the GSOC offices being bugged and the serious matters that have come into the public domain. Will the Minister outline his views on that legislation? Is it now redundant because if this is not a matter of public concern, I do not know what is.
The Commissions of Investigation Act 2004 provides for the establishment of commissions to investigate into and report on matters considered to be of significant public concern. Section 3 provides that, following a proposal by a Minister, with the approval of the Minister of Public Expenditure and Reform, the Government may, by order establish a commission. The draft order establishing a commission of investigation is the subject of a resolution of the Houses of the Oireachtas.
The Act has been used to inquire into a range of matters across Government, including, for example, the Leas Cross nursing home and the banking sector. In regard to my Department, commissions of investigation were established to inquire into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, the Dean Lyons case, the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin and the Diocese of Cloyne and the death in custody of Garry Douch. The reports of these commissions are available on my Department's website with the exception of the report into the Garry Douch investigation which has only recently been submitted to me. The above reports attest to the important role of commissions of investigation to effectively inquire into matters of public concern.
It is often appropriate, however, to first establish as many facts as possible before taking the step to establish a commission of investigation. The starting point is to conduct a review of events and documentation to ascertain, to the greatest extent possible, the factual position. The outcome of such a review can be helpful in clarifying the need for an inquiry or the matters which are to be the subject of the inquiry.
The Deputy has undoubtedly framed this question with reference to the recent media report of unlawful surveillance of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission and allegations concerning certain Garda investigations. As the Deputy is aware, the Government has appointed retired High Court Judge John Cooke to conduct an independent inquiry into the GSOC matter and to report within eight weeks, the terms of reference of which are in the public domain. The Government has also appointed Mr. Sean Guerin, SC, to examine allegations by Sergeant Maurice McCabe of Garda misconduct and to report back to the Government before Easter. Mr. Guerin will have the power to recommend a commission of investigation, if he believes one is needed. I consider it would be premature to establish a commission of investigation into these matters prior to consideration of the external report in each case. The procedure which has been adopted replicates that adopted on previous occasions prior to the appointment of a commission of inquiry.
The issues in regard to the alleged bugging of the GSOC offices are very clear. They have been gone through line by line and every decent journalist in the State has reported on and analysed them. The Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions has spent hours dealing with the issues. The allegations and the issues of concern are very clear.
Why did the Minister not deploy the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004 and give a person or persons the ability to compel witnesses, compel all the relevant documentation and make findings of fact? Why was that not agreed to? What is the reason for the delay in doing that? The concern is that the delay reflects a concern in Government not to get to all of the facts of this matter which is reflected by the very poor response of Government when these allegations emerged and in the ten days which followed them in the Chamber and elsewhere.
The great difficulty with all of this is that rather than deal with this on the basis of the facts, the facts of the background to this matter which I set out at the committee, and the issues of concern and of difference, this is all simply becoming a political football. Most people outside this House would regard it as entirely reasonable that all of these matters in regard to GSOC are considered and reviewed by an independent retired member of the High Court whose integrity is beyond reproach. I expect all parties will co-operate with the work Mr. Justice Cooke will do and that all the papers and documents he requires will be made available to him and that if needs to meet or interview individuals, they will co-operate. If it emerges that is not the case, then we may have to reconsider the matter but I expect that co-operation.
I think it is a proportionate and reasonable response with a view to getting greater clarity on this matter within a shorter period of time than would otherwise be the case in the context of a statutory inquiry and at a good deal less cost than would otherwise be the case. Should something arise out of Mr. Justice Cooke's report that means this matter may need to be revisited differently, so be it. My only interest is that we know the truth of all of these issues surrounding the concerns that arose in regard to GSOC.
The Government's first position was that we did not need an independent inquiry because the Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions was dealing with it but it cannot make findings of adverse fact, so it was never going to be satisfactory in terms of a resolution to this issue.
The Minister's second position is to go with the half-baked review under Mr. Justice John Cooke.
Let us be very clear about the issues. The Minister talks about a political football. This issue has been in the political domain for three weeks and citizens would like it out of that domain. The best way to take this issue out of the political domain is to have a genuinely independent inquiry under the Commissions of Investigation Act which, I repeat, has the power to compel witnesses and all the documentation from the Garda Síochána, the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, the Department of Justice and Equality, Rits, Verrimus, the journalist John Mooney and whoever else, and finally make findings of fact. Why has the Minister not deployed that legislation and taken this issue out of the political arena by giving it to persons with the necessary expertise to deal with it properly?
I have already explained that. It is unfortunate that a very important job undertaken by a retired High Court judge under very specific and detailed terms of reference should be described as a "half-baked review". It is unfortunate that the Deputy should insult the retired judge by suggesting he would participate in a half-baked review.
I insulted the procedure, not the judge.
I suggest Deputy Mac Lochlainn withdraw that allegation and show some respect for an individual who served with honour in both the European Court and in our High Court, whose integrity is beyond reproach and who has agreed to undertake this work.
Will the Minister answer the question put to him? It would be good to get an answer.
Deputy Mac Lochlainn has just made the accusation that this has gone on for three weeks. It could go on for three, four, five or six weeks, depending on how long Deputies Mac Lochlainn and Niall Collins, Sinn Féin or Fianna Fáil see it as a political issue they want to keep on running. The fact that they run it does not necessarily mean that it is appropriate that matters be dealt with in the manner they describe. The Cabinet made a decision that it is appropriate, and I agree, that all these matters be dealt with pursuant to the terms of reference furnished to Mr. Justice Cooke. That is as opposed to its being dealt with in the political arena, which involves charge and counter charge and a greater interest in targeting me as Minister with some political charges than discovering the truth of this issue. I hope we get to the truth quickly. I have the greatest respect for the judge who has been appointed and Members of this House should show some respect for him and not draw him into political controversy.
