Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Deputy Ó Snodaigh has missed something in all of this. I am advised that what he has stated is not the reason the investigation was initiated, and I am surprised the Deputy is saying that Mr. O'Brien was trying to backtrack last week. Mr. O'Brien was quite clear last week on the matter that ended up in the public domain on Sunday last. He said there was a document that had leaked from GSOC's offices which contained some inaccurate factual matters that gave rise to the suggestion that the security sweep it had done in September was the result of a senior garda knowing something he or she should not have known. I am paraphrasing what was said. Mr. O'Brien said that this was completely untrue but he was predicting that a story along those lines would appear in The Sunday Times or another newspaper the following Sunday. Lo and behold, that story did appear in The Sunday Timeslast Sunday.
In the briefings I have received since last Tuesday week from GSOC, it is clearly set out that Mr. O'Brien had some type of conversation with some of the employees of GSOC in the summer of 2013 which seemed to be misunderstood by two employees. This misunderstanding is quite serious because it sets the scene for an aspect of this whole matter which the committee has not had the opportunity to explore. It is an issue I do not want to comment on beyond just setting out what I know. It is for the judge dealing with these matters to address. What Mr. O'Brien said was that two members of GSOC were under the impression, wrongly, that the commission's security systems had already been breached and something confidential was known by an individual by whom it should not have been known. Mr. O'Brien said this was not true or accurate and had led to a misunderstanding, which misunderstanding fed its way into the report that was received from the security firm, Verrimus. He is right in that because the reports I have received reference it.
In terms of the brief given to Verrimus, Mr. O'Brien understood the brief - as the explained it to me and to the committee, although other things were then added in - was set out on the basis that GSOC had not had a general security sweep done since 2007. Other security matters had been done since but a security sweep of a general nature had not been done. The commissioners though of doing this on their appointment but did not get around to it in 2012. It was finally done in 2013. I believe it was Mr. O'Brien's understanding that it was being done for general reasons of ensuring the security of GSOC's offices, which is eminently sensible and something that should be done with some regularity. It is something that should happen in the Garda, in GSOC and in Departments.
However, it seems that Verrimus was led to believe when it commenced its work that there was already a breach of security in GSOC when, in fact, there had not been. I would have thought Deputy Ó Snodaigh would understand that Mr. O'Brien said that what he anticipated would appear last Sunday was inaccurate. It has seemed like the Deputy is placing great reliance on it; he referenced it last night in the House. If he accepts that Mr. O'Brien said this was untrue, that a mistake was made, that employees of GSOC were under the wrong impression and this impacted on the work done by Verrimus, then I do not know why the Deputy should then discount what Mr. O'Brien told the committee about the matter. That is where the issue is. Mr. O'Brien said at the committee last week:

The security check, a security sweep, initially was in relation to a general level of risk to identify risks and mitigate these risks. I had nothing in my mind to say we were under surveillance.

I appreciate very much that other comments were made during the course of the presentation to the committee from which other inferences could be taken, but what Mr. O'Brien said in the statement I referenced totally tallies with the advice he gave me when I met him and with the brief I circulated to committee members following on from the controversy that developed.