Dáil debates

Tuesday, 18 February 2014

Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission: Motion [Private Members]

 

8:20 pm

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I know that. I did not say the Minister did not publish it; I said it had come into the public domain. I will continue without interruption. What the document shows is that what the Minister said in this Chamber was not the full facts. It is no understatement to suggest that at this point the situation has become a farce and public confidence is on a downward spiral. This must be stopped.

This is the reason Sinn Féin has put forward this motion calling for an independent inquiry and for all options to be considered, including a commission of investigation as provided for under the existing Commissions of Investigations Act 2004. Unfortunately, today's announcement by the Taoiseach, following a briefing to Cabinet today, falls far short of an independent inquiry. It is evident that the Government made this decision reluctantly. As Deputy Mary Lou McDonald said earlier today, it has been brought kicking and screaming to this decision to have what now appears to be nothing more than a review of documentation.

The Taoiseach confirmed a number of matters during Leaders' Questions. First, he confirmed that a High Court judge would be appointed shortly to undertake a review within eight weeks. The terms of reference will be drawn up by the Minister for Justice and Equality in conjunction with and on the advice of the Attorney General, and the judge will report his findings to the Minister. Second, the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality will reflect, through a series of public hearings, on the efficiency and robustness of the law in regard to GSOC. Third, the Minister for Justice and Equality will appear before the Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions to answer questions on the issue. The Taoiseach also confirmed that a full, unredacted report would be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas and that a debate on it would take place in the Chamber. What was announced today is not acceptable. Given the gravity of the situation that has unfolded over the past ten days, a number of questions remain unanswered. I hope some of them will be answered tonight and tomorrow, particularly in the Minister's contribution.

It is evident that the Government came only reluctantly to the point at which it decided to appoint a High Court judge to review documentation. It is also evident the Minister was less than forthcoming with the information he provided to the Dáil in regard to the briefing he received.

We need clarity. Why is the Minister setting the terms of reference for the review? That is like the fox designing the chicken coop. It makes no sense whatsoever, given the Minister’s performance in this regard in the past ten days. This is not personal. On many occasions, at committee meetings and in this Chamber, I have congratulated and commended the Minister on some of his initiatives. In this area, on this issue, as Opposition Members, we have a responsibility to hold to account this Government and make no apologies for doing so in a robust manner. This is not personal.

In essence, we are dealing with an allegation that An Garda Síochána in some way had the Garda Ombudsman’s office under covert surveillance. This is a serious situation. Why does this Government not see fit to enact the powers it has under the 2004 legislation to investigate an issue of such importance to the State? If this is not an issue of such national importance that it warrants a commission of investigation under that legislation, what is? The decision to hold a review does not restore public confidence.

The question being asked and discussed around the country is who gains by not having a full, independent investigation into this matter. Who gained by the fact that all the information at the disposal of the Minister and his Department was not put on the table last week? Who will gain by having a High Court Judge review the documents and report back to the Minister, under terms of reference set by the Minister? We do not know whether the judge will have a panel of experts at his or her disposal. The Taoiseach stated today on Leaders' Questions that the judge will not have the power to compel witnesses or to take statements. The High Court Judge is being appointed to review documents and to come to a conclusion and report to the Minister. Who will gain by that?

Why did the Minister not see fit to initiate a commission of inquiry under the 2004 legislation? Why has the Government decided to go for a review rather than a commission of inquiry? This is a very serious matter. Public confidence has been damaged. Questions remain. Answers must be given. Every Member of this Chamber, not just Opposition Members, has a responsibility to ensure that those who are tasked under law with the job of holding to account the policing authorities in this State can do so free from hindrance and from any targeting of their offices. It is essential that public confidence in this process is restored. We need a thorough, in-depth investigation into this, with the scope to examine all of the relevant papers and documentation as well as the power to compel witnesses to testify. This is needed so that a balanced judgment can be made with findings based on the full facts. We do not have that. That is why we will press our motion to a vote tomorrow night.

We do not accept what the Government announced today. I, and many outside this Chamber, see this as the Government trying to wish away the issue, just as the Minister has been doing for the past ten days. His attitude has been cavalier, as much as to say there is nothing to say, let us move on and get on with business. This is the business tonight in this Chamber and will be the business of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions tomorrow. This is the business about which every member of our society is talking. We need a full, independent investigation, not a review of the documents. Nothing less than a full, independent investigation will suffice.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.