Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 12 Feb 2014

Vol. 830 No. 2

Leaders' Questions

Deputy Micheál Martin

The office of the Garda confidential recipient was appointed after the Morris tribunal, which investigated serious wrongdoings within the Garda in Donegal. It was set up to hear complaints from members of An Garda Síochána and, above all, to protect the integrity of the force and to offer full protection to Garda whistleblowers.

I have read a transcript of a conversation between the Garda confidential recipient and the Garda whistleblower, Sergeant Maurice McCabe. It makes for serious and grave reading. The import of the transcript is such that the Garda whistleblower is frustrated and there is a sense of disbelief that his complaints are going nowhere. Clearly, the transcript reveals efforts, if not subtle threats, that if the material that the whistleblower had ever got to the media, the Minister, Deputy Shatter, would come after the whistleblower. This is a grave situation in a democracy, particularly given the office involved.

I will give the House some flavour. The confidential recipient told the whistleblower:

If stuff was to get out into the public, the print media, I tell you something Maurice - and this is just personal advice to you - if Shatter thinks you're screwing him, you're finished. What I'm saying to you is, if stuff is to get into print broadcasting media, if Shatter thinks it's you, or if he thinks that it is told by the Commissioner or the gardaí, here's this guy again trying another route to put you under pressure, he'll go after you.

There is more. Basically, the confidential recipient suggests in the transcript that maybe the Minister is too close to the Commissioner and that, as a result, he will not deal with some of the issues. The confidential recipient makes it clear that he knows the Minister. He states: "I know Alan." He was appointed and is a Fine Gael supporter, as he is entitled to be, and we know that he made a donation. However, the sensitivity of the office now calls into question whether that was an appropriate appointment. The confidential recipient told the whistleblower:

Your complaints went to the Department of justice and that annoyed the Commissioner greatly. I'm sure it's going to be an embarrassment for the gardaí, a disaster for them. And, listen, if your complaints are exposed to the print media, it will make him an angry man.

That is truly shocking. There is more in these transcripts.

Deputy Wallace was the first to raise this matter in the House last week. Bar last night, I have heard no denial of the content of the transcript. There is an aural recording of it and I have read the transcript. Has the Taoiseach spoken to the Minister, Deputy Shatter, since this was first revealed last week? Has the Minister spoken to the confidential recipient about this exchange? Is the Taoiseach concerned? It seems that the confidential recipient was protecting the Minister, the Department and the Commissioner, but not the whistleblower. This is the sense that I take from it. Is the position of the confidential recipient now tenable, given what has been revealed via these transcripts?

The Taoiseach

I thank Deputy Martin for his comments and his question. Yes, I am concerned about it. I believe there is a matter of public interest here of the utmost importance that has to be dealt with. Now, the confidential recipient, as Deputy Martin is aware, was appointed under a statutory instrument introduced quite some time ago. The Minister, Deputy Shatter, has already made it clear that he is unhappy with the way that this has operated. Separate from this particular matter, he is intending and has stated his intention to bring in legislation to change the way it works.

I might say this, though. The Minister dealt with this in the House last night. He does not have any knowledge of the alleged conversation, of a transcription of the conversation or of a tape of that conversation, nor indeed is there any basis for implying that the Minister ever expressed the kind of views that are attributed to him in what has been alleged. Nor is there any basis for implying that the Minister ever had the conversation of any nature with the-----

Deputy Micheál Martin

Sorry?

The Taoiseach

Nor is there a basis for implying that the Minister had any conversation of any nature with the confidential recipient concerning the expressions of views by him. To suggest otherwise would be completely false. Now, the Minister has no access to, nor should he have, details of confidential conversations which take place between the confidential recipient and members of the Garda Síochána. That would completely defy the purpose of the statutory instrument in appointing a person for the receipt of confidential information in the first place.

As I said to Deputy Martin in the beginning, I regard this as a matter of fundamental importance. There is clearly a matter of public concern that needs to be dealt with here. Yes, I did speak with the Minister for Justice and Equality and I have asked the Department of Justice and Equality to give me a report on this incident, on the conversations as published and comments from the person concerned here. I await that.

The position is that, I think it is important that we should know whether a conversation of the nature reported took place, because it is absolutely important that there be confidence among the public in any confidential recipient. Why would anybody go to somebody if he or she does not have a trust or belief that the situation is above board? So, this is a matter of grave concern to me.

I think it is also important that no member of the force should feel in any way under pressure or under threat in his or her dealings with the confidential recipient, but that it would be a matter for the confidential recipient to consider whether there is a matter that should be addressed in allegations made by a member of the force. That was the purpose of setting up the confidential recipient in the first place.

So, as I said, separate from this the Minister has already said he is not happy with this arrangement and the way it is operated. For me, I have asked the Department of Justice and Equality to furnish me with a report on these transcripts, whether they took place or not, and comments from the person concerned. I regard that as being a matter of considerable public importance and we will deal with it.

Deputy Micheál Martin

I thank the Taoiseach for his reply, but when I put this question to him yesterday, he was silent on it. There has been no comprehensive statement from the Minister on this matter. There is no evidence that he has been proactive in this regard since the issue was first raised on the floor of the House last week. The Taoiseach has answered some questions that were not asked. I have made no implications about the Minister. I simply made the point that the import of the transcript with the Garda confidential recipient was that the Minister would be an angry man if the complaint entered the public domain.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

Hear, hear.

Deputy Micheál Martin

The entire purpose of the exchange seems to be that, no matter what else happens, the complaint must not get to the media. I have heard from other whistleblowers. The strategy seems to be to get some of this stuff into the courts, then to get mediation and then to reach a confidential agreement to settle matters. Much of this stuff never comes out.

We have had fine-sounding words and rhetoric about how we all want to celebrate whistleblowers and make life easy, but it is a lonely place to be for a genuine Garda whistleblower. The system trains its guns on the whistleblower. Whistleblowers are demonised and undermined. This is what has happened in recent weeks, given the saga of the Committee of Public Accounts and what happened with the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC, yesterday. In the past 48 hours, the guns have been trained on the GSOC because it did not report to the Minister even though it had no obligation to.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sorry, but will the Deputy put his question, please? We are over time.

Deputy Micheál Martin

The entire machinery of the State and even some of the media pointed their guns in the direction of the victim and everything got messed up. The same is happening in this instance. The whistleblowers feel that there is no one out there. They feel that the entire system is against them, from the Minister to the Department. The quality and import of what they were saying were undermined. It is very serious.

We are heading in a direction. There are suggestions of some axis of collusion and a concerted effort to cover up this entire saga. The bottom line that emanates from this transcript is-----

An Ceann Comhairle

Will the Deputy please put his question?

Deputy Micheál Martin

-----whatever else happens, this must not get into the media because it will make a lot of people in high positions very angry.

That would not be good for the whistleblower.

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae

He has gone after politicians too.

The Taoiseach

The Deputy raised this yesterday in the House. When I left the Chamber, I read the transcript and I asked that the Department of Justice and Equality furnish me with a report on this matter, including comments from the person involved. This is a matter of public concern which interests us all.

The Deputy said I answered questions that were not asked. I said that there is no basis for implying that the Minister for Justice and Equality spoke to the confidential recipient about expressions that refer to him in the article which appeared as printed in the newspaper. The confidential recipient has to be seen to be a person who can be trusted. The Deputy speaks of an axis of collusion, of heading in a particular direction, of guns being trained on whistleblowers. This is a matter of considerable public concern. I have not spoken to the confidential recipient. I have asked that the Department of Justice and Equality furnish me with a report-----

Deputy Timmy Dooley

Where did the Taoiseach get the transcript that he read yesterday?

The Taoiseach

-----including comments on this matter from the person concerned. I await that report as soon as possible. We cannot have a situation where members of the Garda Síochána who want to give information to the confidential recipient do not have trust in that person or do not believe that the information they give will be kept confidential and that their confidentiality will be protected. That is what happened after the Morris tribunal, and that is why the confidential recipient is appointed under a statutory instrument.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

Where did the Taoiseach get the transcript he read after he left the Dáil yesterday?

The Taoiseach

I await that report from the Department of Justice and Equality, including comments from the person concerned, and I will act on it when I receive it.

Deputy Gerry Adams

The controversy about whether the office of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission was bugged has highlighted the dysfunctional relationship between GSOC, the Garda Commissioner and the Minister for Justice and Equality. The Government's reaction to this shows that the Taoiseach has not fully embraced the need for independent oversight of State agencies or institutions, despite that recent history has shown that it is the absence of such oversight that has been at the root of many of the recent scandals.

We all know that GSOC is an independent body, committed to upholding the integrity of An Garda Síochána, like all of us here in the Oireachtas. It is charged with the oversight of An Garda Síochána, although not of the Garda Commissioner. The Taoiseach's insistence that GSOC was obliged or compelled to report to the Minister and his repeated misquoting of the Garda Síochána Act 2005, even after I corrected him in this Chamber, has undermined GSOC. That may not have been the Taoiseach's intention, and I accept that we all make little slips, but it may have been the intention of those who leaked the story in the first place. My point is that the Government's reaction has undermined the independence and integrity of GSOC when it should be upholding its integrity and independence.

Will the Taoiseach take the opportunity now to correct the Dáil record by reading into that record section 80(5) of the Garda Síochána Act 2005, which makes it clear that the commission is not obliged to report to the Minister? In fact, the section of the Act states that it may make available any other report it considers appropriate, so GSOC was entirely within its rights not to report to the Minister at the time.

The Taoiseach

I thank the Deputy. He quoted section 80(5) yesterday. There is a clear provision in the law for GSOC to report major issues to the Minister for Justice and Equality. The commission had knowledge that it should have availed of this provision and reported the matter to the Minister. GSOC discussed that and decided not to do so. The commission regretted that decision and said so to the Minister. The priority has to be to rebuild the sense of trust and integrity in both of these organisations. I was at pains yesterday to point out that it is of the utmost importance that the independence and integrity of GSOC be maintained. That provision in the law to bring the information about this matter to the Minister was not used by the commission, which it regretted.

Any excessive meaning attributed to my words is regretted. I had no intention whatsoever to undermine GSOC in any way, and the commission was clear in its view that it regretted its decision not to inform the Minister under the provision that is in the law.

Deputy Gerry Adams

Here is the difficulty. This independent body was sent for by the Minister. In his first public utterance, the Taoiseach stated that it should have reported the information to the Minister and that it was compelled to do so. There is no provision in the law which insists that GSOC must report to the Minister. Whether that is the right thing is an entirely different matter. The fact is there is an independence which is being undermined.

I do not wish to compare like with like, but I was one of those who helped to negotiate a new policing dispensation in the North. The majority of people in the Six Counties support the PSNI, but it contains an independent police authority, an ombudsman who has an ability to look at all aspects of the policing operation and so on. That is what the Garda Síochána needs, and it would be good for the policing service if that was the case. If we look at this bugging controversy, the penalty points scandal, the whistleblowers' debacle, and even the recent Garda role in the case involving Roma children, what did the Minister do? He referred the last case to the Ombudsman for Children. These cases were the very reason GSOC was established, but on each occasion the Minister sidelined the ombudsman and went somewhere else. Unlike the North, GSOC does not have unfettered access to Garda computer systems. In particular, it has no oversight over the Garda Commissioner.

I am disappointed the Taoiseach did not correct the record on the Garda Síochána Act 2005, but yesterday he said that GSOC concluded there was no definitive evidence of unauthorised surveillance. That begs another question on whether there are technical or electronic-----

An Ceann Comhairle

Thank you Deputy.

Deputy Gerry Adams

Ní bheidh mé ach nóiméad amháin. Last night, the Garda Síochána Ombudsman commissioner, Kieran Fitzgerald, was equally clear in stating that a credible threat to GSOC security had been identified when the screening of its office was carried out. The response of the Government and the culture and the atmosphere are not conducive to transparency, accountability and to an effective and efficient oversight of a modern police service. On the contrary, they lead to conspiracy theories and all sorts of nonsense.

The Taoiseach should correct the record. He should also reconsider his refusal to have a fully independent inquiry. There is plenty of scope for this. It would clear things up, so we can all go ahead.

The Taoiseach

I thank the Deputy. I reject his assertion that I intended in any way to undermine the independence of GSOC. On the contrary, I was very clear about maintaining its independence, integrity and its oversight responsibility of the Garda. The provision is in the law that GSOC may report to the Minister for Justice and Equality-----

Deputy Róisín Shortall

That is not what the Taoiseach said.

The Taoiseach

-----and the commission considered that. It decided not to inform the Minister for Justice and Equality, and it has regretted that decision. I think we can put that behind us now.

(Interruptions).

The Taoiseach

GSOC is appearing before the committee this afternoon, and I am quite sure the issues which require clarification will be dealt with by the commissioners when they attend.

The Deputy made a point about bugging devices. GSOC made it clear there was no specific concern which led to the security sweep. The commission concluded there was no definitive evidence of unauthorised technical or electrical surveillance of its offices. This was confirmed last night by the GSOC commissioner on "Prime Time".

He also stated he had no issue with what the Minister had said. Moreover, the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission was very clear in confirming its databases have not been compromised. It concluded in its findings that no definitive evidence existed and decided that no further action was necessary or reasonably practicable.

The Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission is an independent entity. Deputy Adams wants a public inquiry into an independent entity which has every capacity to carry out its own investigations, as it has done and these were its findings. I hope its representatives, when they appear before the committee set up by the Government on taking office, will be able to provide the clarification or answers to questions that Deputies from all sides of the House may wish to ask. I hope we can move on with maintaining the balance of integrity and credibility that the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission has in respect of the job and responsibilities allocated to it in respect of oversight of the Garda Síochána.

Deputy Seamus Healy

During Leaders' Questions on Tuesday of last week, I asked a number of basic questions on water charges, which the Government will introduce on 1 October 2014. I asked whether families would be charged for water in cases where their water supply was not fit for purpose, a boil water notice was in place or hard water was being provided that was affecting electrical appliances. I also asked what would be the charge, whether a free allowance would be provided, if so, how much the allowance would be, and if a higher free allowance would be provided for larger families and persons with a medical condition which necessitates greater use of water. The Taoiseach refused to answer my questions and dismissed my suggestion that he was attempting to kick this issue down the road beyond the European and local elections. However, he provided a definitive assurance that members of the public would know the precise position in respect of water charges before the European and local elections. He stated: "In the next couple of weeks, the Government will bring to the House the financial and structural model under which Irish Water will operate and it will include a very clear analysis and presentation of how this will operate, the extent of the charges that will apply, the follow through on the use of an allowance of water and the charge thereafter." At a meeting of the Joint Committee on the Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht yesterday, representatives of Irish Water and the Commission for Energy Regulation stated precisely the opposite, noting that an indicative charge would be announced by June and the charge would be set in August, both of which months fall after the European and local elections. Either the Taoiseach misled the House yesterday week or Irish Water and the regulator misled the joint committee yesterday.

Members of the public and Dáil are entitled to know the truth about water charges. The Taoiseach must clarify the position today. Did he mislead the House last week? Did the regulator and Irish Water mislead the joint committee yesterday or does one hand not know what the other hand is doing? Will the Taoiseach specify the date on which the report he promised last week will be laid before the House for debate? He indicated it would become available in a couple of weeks. I presume that means it will be presented not later than next week.

The Taoiseach

I am not sure how the Deputy can conclude from the words "a couple of weeks" that it will be this day next week.

Deputy Patrick Nulty

The Taoiseach is engaging in an exercise in crazy maths.

The Taoiseach

I stand by my statement to Deputy Healy last week that the Government will, before the local elections, produce, publish and debate the financial and business model dealing with the structure and running of Irish Water. In its commitment to set up Irish Water, the Government stated there would be a free allowance per person and a charge would be levied for usage thereafter. The business and financial model and structure the Government will present will include the level of subvention the Government intends to provide from the taxpayer for the allowance that will be included in that structure. This will set out the average charge per household. Shortly thereafter, Irish Water will submit to the regulator its detailed plan, taking into account what has been determined in Government policy and decisions. The Government will make the decision about the level of subvention, which will determine the extent of the allowance and the average charge per household. I cannot tell Deputy Healy what he will be charged in January 2015 when he receives a bill because I do not know the culture of water usage he will adopt.

What we have said is very clear. The Government will set out its structure, that is, the financial and business model for Irish Water, and the level of subvention will determine the average charge, which will be known by everybody before the local elections. The plan Irish Water will submit to the regulator must be open for consultation and debated in a full, open and transparent manner. The statistical details are a matter for the regulator. The Government sets policy and the Deputy will know the policy long before the local elections. While it will not be produced next week, I stand by my statement that it will be produced in the next couple of weeks.

Deputy Seamus Healy

What the Taoiseach promised last week is very clear and on the record of the House. I remind him of his statement that the Government would, in the next couple of weeks, have "the extent of the charges that will apply, the follow through on the use of an allowance of water and the charge thereafter". He is not fooling anybody. Is it not time to stop ducking and diving, come clean and explain in plain language to the public the details of the charges? Will a family be charged for water if a boil water notice is in place and the water supplied to it is not fit for purpose? Will a family which is being supplied with hard water that is damaging electrical kettles, dishwashers, showers and washing machines be charged for water? Will large families be provided with a larger free allowance? Will people who have medical conditions which require the use of additional water receive an additional free allowance?

It is clear from the Taoiseach's reply that he and his Government are making a deliberate attempt to confuse the public and hide the details of the charges from them until after the local and European elections. It is the Taoiseach's responsibility, particularly in view of the confusion that arose at yesterday's meeting of the joint committee, to clear up this issue and inform the House of the exact position regarding water charges.

An Ceann Comhairle

Before the Taoiseach replies, it is not in order to accuse the Taoiseach, a member of the Government or any Member of deliberately misleading the House. If an allegation of that sort is to be made, according to Standing Orders, it may be done only by way of substantive motion.

The Taoiseach

As I have stated on many occasions, the cost of dealing with water is currently €1.2 billion, some 18,000 people are on boil water notices and the Environmental Protection Agency reports that 16% of supplies are at risk. We are under threat from the European Commission, which has launched a pilot infringement procedure against Ireland in respect of 80 treatment plants. These measures are necessary and there should not be any confusion.

Deputy Patrick Nulty

The Taoiseach should answer Deputy Healy's questions.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

He is misleading the House.

The Taoiseach

I do not know if Deputy Healy washes his car three times per week. As we set out at the beginning, a free allowance will be provided and thereafter a charge based on usage will apply. While I do not know what Deputy Healy will be charged next January, I will be able to tell him before the local elections, based on the business and financial model published by the Government and debated in the House, that the subvention being provided by the taxpayer through the free allowance-----

Deputy Seamus Healy

The Taoiseach is providing cover for the Labour Party.

The Taoiseach

Together, these will determine the average charge.

Deputy Patrick O'Donovan

Deputy Healy does not want to pay for anything.

The Taoiseach

The details to which Deputy Healy refers must all be worked out. The end result will not be in excess of the average charge determined by Government decision. The Government is the only body that can make the decision on what will be the average charge. There are a couple of issues here. The Government produces a business and financial model, and the subvention included determines the average charge.

Issues such as statistics and so on will be dealt with by the regulator in a public consultation process. The end result will not be in excess of the average charge.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

The Taoiseach did not answer the question asked.