Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

What has been evidenced in the past week is an unhealthy relationship or partnership between the Minister and the Garda Commissioner, Mr. Martin Callinan. The Commissioner is standing over and supporting the Minister in the face of the closure of 140 Garda stations and the failure to replace thousands of retired gardaí and hundreds of Garda vehicles whose period of service has expired. Garda morale is at an all-time low. The Minister knows that gardaí on the front line have spoken up against these issues. They have spoken to Members of both Houses about their concerns. The Commissioner has stood by the Minister and has talked about efficiency, modernisation and smart policing. Such is the anger among the ranks of An Garda Síochána that, for the first time in 35 years, gardaí did not invite the Minister to attend their conference. There were walk-outs at the AGSI conference. This demonstrates the anger on the ground. Despite this, the Garda Commissioner stands solidly behind the Minister in defending the cutbacks that are having an effect across the board.

In the past week, there were three serious moments that are very worrying for every citizen. The first concerns the Garda ombudsman's report, the public-interest investigation into what is known as the Kieran Boylan affair. A convicted drug dealer, alleged to have been in possession of heroin and cocaine worth €1.7 million, he had charges dropped against him without any clear explanation. He also benefited from a haulier licence after his conviction. The relationship of Mr. Boylan with some within An Garda Síochána at quite a high level is a serious matter.

The ombudsman, having completed four years in office, has reported to the public in a remarkable summary of the full report. The ombudsman has grave concerns about the level of co-operation from An Garda Síochána. The report refers to the Morris tribunal and states lessons have not been learned. The report refers to the failure to keep contemporaneous notes of issues surrounding the handling of informers, which issues were so central to all the crises associated with the tribunal. Very serious matters were raised, including the failure to co-operate continually. Only 17 of 62 requests for information were returned within the 30-day period. The Minister had nothing to say about that other than that he will pull the Garda Commissioner together with the ombudsman. We know that sources within An Garda Síochána briefed against the ombudsman's office on the weekend in question in the media, unchallenged by the Minister. He let the matter continue and issued no comment since.

Next was the penalty points debacle. Two Garda whistleblowers came across what they believed to be considerable malpractice in regard to the rescinding of penalty points that have been issued. They tried to raise those concerns through the appropriate Garda channel, the confidential receiver. They did not seem to get anywhere with that. I understand they brought the matter to the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Road Safety Authority, and that they tried to make contact with the Taoiseach repeatedly. Having make all these attempts, they then took their concerns to Members of the Oireachtas, as was their right because they felt the matters of serious concern were not dealt with.

The Minister chose to ask senior police to investigate senior police rather than ask the ombudsman to carry out an independent examination of the serious matters in question. Was there a paper trail behind every single penalty point that was rescinded? If somebody said he was in a medical emergency and that points should not be issued, as was his right, there should be backup documentation to prove there was indeed a medical emergency. Where is the paper trail behind all the hundreds and thousands of penalty points that were rescinded? How can the motorist be sure the law applies as much to him as everyone else? These were the matters that very courageous whistleblowers put into the public domain. On the day on which the report was published, the Minister chose to go on the offensive against them.

This State was brought to the edge of economic crisis because too many people in the public and private sectors failed to blow the whistle and shout "Stop". The Government is preparing whistleblower legislation. What encouragement will whistleblowers receive from the Minister's attacks on the two courageous gardaí? One of the gardaí said he has been driven out of the force because of the choices he made. At a meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts, the Garda Commissioner spoke about hiding behind a cloak of anonymity. He must know the whistleblowers' identities, however, because they went through the appropriate authorities.

We have had the Garda ombudsman's report and the penalty points debacle in which the Minister chose to shoot the messenger, the whistleblowers, rather than shed more light on these issues. Next was the Deputy Mick Wallace debacle on “Prime Time”. We now know the Minister was briefed by the Garda Commissioner on these matters. Under what remit was he operating? Was there a legal requirement? What was the legal basis? Could the Minister refer to the legal basis, under sections 41 and 62 of the Garda Síochána Act, in respect of which the Commissioner would have given him the information? How did the information make its way from the two gardaí, who did not charge the Deputy but who instead gave him a brief slap on the wrist, to the Garda Commissioner without its being filed within the system? Why did the Commissioner feel it was essential to give the Minister that information? Was the timing not fortuitous? When did the Minister receive the briefing from the Garda Commissioner?

Let me read to the Minister his press release some years ago on the then Minister, Deputy Willie O'Dea, who had to resign: "It must be presumed that any such information, when furnished by a member of the Gardaí, to a Government Minister would be expected to be kept confidential and disclosed to no other persons, other than to members of Cabinet within the confidentiality of Cabinet discussions, where the information is sufficiently serious to require such discussion." The Minister continued:

Such conduct is entirely unacceptable by any minister in any Government. Such conduct by a Minister for Defence, part of whose constitutional duty is to secure the security of the State, renders the Minster unfit for Cabinet office.

Deputy Shatter is the Minister for Justice and Equality and the Minister for Defence. He has a unique array of powers that very few, if any, Ministers have in the developed world. With these powers comes access to some of the most sensitive information. We expect the Minister to use that wisely. For the life of me, I cannot understand how a man such as the Minister, who has undoubted intellectual and legal capacity and who is not just an ordinary legal practitioner but one of great repute, felt it would be acceptable to make the intervention he made in the debate in question. I cannot figure it out. The Minister was entirely wrong.

What was the legal basis for the information provided to the Minister? When the Minister was on "Prime Time", he did not name the exact date, time and location of the incident in question. How is it that a journalist got hold of that information after the "Prime Time" debate and was able to contact Deputy Wallace with specific details on where he was stopped? How did that information come to be in the hands of a journalist such that those questions could be asked?

Who in An Garda Síochána felt it necessary to get that information to a journalist to assist the Minister? Does he not find that strange? I certainly do. I would like to get his thoughts on that.

A very unhealthy relationship is developing. It is a disservice to the overwhelming majority of members of An Garda Síochána who have very low morale as a result of cutbacks and all of the challenges they have faced. They need to be assured that those at the very top of An Garda Síochána answer questions and deal with them effectively, and that the Minister of the day holds them to account, deals with issues of legitimate concern and does not let them down.

See this speech in context