Niall Collins (Limerick, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

The legislation would also allow the commission to inquire into policies and procedure, which I hope would serve to fend off complaints or avert problems before they arise. We are trying to play a constructive role and the Minister should enact that legislation as soon as possible. Perhaps there are further or more far-reaching reforms in the Minister's mind but these are four basic requirements. Mr. Conor Brady, a former commissioner, has articulated those points for a long time and I am sure the Minister heard the comments of Baroness Nuala O'Loan at the weekend.

This is against the backdrop of the disastrous handling of the penalty points fiasco by the Minister. Let us call a spade a spade. The Minister finally referred the penalty points issue to GSOC and the matter was referred to on Question Time when we had our last session. He did not tell us what had changed in his mind when he referred it to GSOC when it could have been referred in the first instance. The Minister needs to put on record why he did not act sooner. It will be very interesting to see the Garda Síochána Inspectorate report on the penalty points issue, as it has compiled a fairly comprehensive report that will be quite revealing when it sees the light of day.

There is also the issue of the confidential recipient, and the Minister will have to man up to this matter. The politics side of the issue is becoming irrelevant. The way the man spoke to the whistleblower and what was said about what the Minister would try to do to him - a section of the transcript from the whistleblower - is now on the record. It is very disturbing.

The whistleblower used all the relevant channels. As in the GSOC case, rather than being regarded as the victim he was turned into the villain. That is very concerning. It is regrettable that the Minister has not shown sufficient concern in any of his public utterances over the penalty points whistleblower controversy. He has not given any indication that he was genuinely and humanely concerned about the treatment to which the man was subjected when he tried to use the official channels. The Taoiseach stated in the House that the man did not co-operate with officialdom and the relevant channels. That is a very serious statement from the Taoiseach because it is completely misinformed. The whistleblower attempted to communicate with the Department of the Taoiseach on many occasions. This puts the Taoiseach's statement into an even more alarming context.

The people rejected the Minister's referendum on Oireachtas inquiries. The Minister has not given us much detail on what he announced today. What is mooted is nearly a form of ministerial inquiry rather than an independent inquiry. All the Minister told us is that he is appointing a High Court judge to inquire. His statement read that it was agreed by the Cabinet today to appoint a High Court judge to inquire into all relevant matters. I was asked today whether I welcome this. I will welcome it when this controversy is dealt with satisfactorily and conclusively. However, we do not seem to be getting that. The Minister's proposal is a step in the right direction but we want to see the details. He has not given us any.

When the Minister spoke earlier, he did not address the content of the Sinn Féin motion and our call on Monday of last week to establish, under the very effective 2004 legislation, a commission of investigation. This has been shown to be a very successful mechanism for conducting an inquiry in the State. There are many examples of it. He did not say in his contribution why he would not use this vehicle.

The Minister said there were false claims and allegations that he misled the House. He spoke last Tuesday evening during statements and claimed there was no evidence of unauthorised technical or electronic surveillance found. He said it was unfortunate that the Garda found itself to be subject to what appeared to be completely baseless innuendo and he also stated no information had been furnished to him. Why did he not tell us what was in the briefing that GSOC gave him? It was important. A three-page brief that was made available at the committee and which is now in the public domain showed that the Minister was absolutely informed that GSOC had opened a public interest investigation. This is significantly relevant to the debate. The Minister chose not to reveal the information. This is very serious. He may dismiss it and refer to false allegations but it is not a case of false allegations as we did not write the Minister's statement. We did not deliver his statement here last Tuesday, nor did we prepare the GSOC briefing note. The Minister chose to cut and parse it and to insert his own interpretation, in keeping with the narrative that obtained all week, that is, that there is nothing to see and that we should move along. Unfortunately, this caught up with the Minister.

We called last Monday for a inquiry under the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004, headed by a High Court judge and assisted by a person with expertise in technology and surveillance, and possibly a policing expert from outside the State. What are we getting? All we know at present is that a judge is to inquire. Will there be compellability? Who will set the terms of reference? Will it be the Minister? Will the report come back to the Dáil or Minister? Will the Minister appear before the House? All these questions are outstanding. It appears tonight that the Minister is trying to manage the process the whole way along. If he is setting up a truly independent inquiry, it must be independent of him. This is why the 2004 legislation exists. If there is a judge who is not sufficiently resourced, is constrained by the terms of reference and must report to the Minister and not the Oireachtas, many questions will remain in people's minds. Many doubts will remain in their minds also because they will have seen how the Minister acted in the past and how he acted regarding the narrative in the past eight to ten days. The people are concerned.

There is a problem to be addressed regarding the outstanding question on the bugging and surveillance. The Minister may refer to Wi-Fi and all the rest but the incident at 1 a.m. is the one that is sticking with people. We witnessed the Minister's attempts to create a diversion, as if to move away from the substance of the matter and engage in camouflage and deflection from what is happening. There was an effort in the past two days to discredit Verrimus, which is very concerning also. We do not want a cover-up but an independent investigation under the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004.

See this speech in context