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

I will take the Deputy's questions in reverse order. This issue arose at an extraordinarily early stage last week when people were demanding that there be some form of inquiry. I met with Mr. O'Brien and received a brief from him in writing and GSOC issued a statement. If one looks at it in the round, what occurred, based on the information I had, was that a security sweep was initiated by GSOC. What was termed "Anomalies", "potential threats" and "vulnerabilities" were identified. The commission independently decided to commence an investigation. A GSOC investigation can only be into Garda misconduct; it cannot be into anything else. GSOC concluded, as the commissioners said in their press release, that there was no evidence of Garda misconduct. That was GSOC's conclusion.

On other occasions where GSOC investigated matters and found evidence of Garda misconduct it has reported properly and extensively on that misconduct. There has never been a call for an inquiry into the outcome of GSOC deliberations where it found evidence of Garda misconduct.

The conclusions of GSOC have been accepted, whether by the current Government or that which preceded it. At that stage, confidence in GSOC would have been seriously undermined if it had been decided, because it had independently commenced an investigation and found no evidence of Garda misconduct, that an inquiry be conducted.
The criticism on this issue has dissipated since I circulated the brief furnished to me by GSOC. The commission also concluded that there was no definitive evidence of technical or electronic surveillance at its offices. Effectively, it did not establish that surveillance had taken place but it had established the fact that there was no Garda misconduct. I am afraid some people may have been disappointed that there was no evidence of Garda misconduct. The issues quite properly addressed by Commissioner FitzGerald to which I referred earlier continued to be aired publicly for quite some time. Unfortunately, during the course of the four-hour hearing before the committee, I think matters became somewhat confused. Following on from that, I received the three technical reports from Verrimus. I received, and read, on Friday last the section 103 report. I engaged in correspondence with the commission to seek to clarify matters. I sent it a very detailed letter, received a response and subsequently wrote to it again.
As a result of my concerns regarding the technical matters and because it appeared, when I received the section 103 report, that neither what had occurred in respect of the WiFi issue nor the conclusions reached by Verrimus had ever been adequately explained to me or to this committee, wisdom indicated that a peer review should be carried out in respect of the documentation and conclusions relating to the technology. That peer review was carried out and I only received the report relating to it yesterday. I briefed Cabinet on all of these matters and expressed my concerns about them. I did so because there were now two technical reports - which were contradictory in places - and because it would be a matter of great seriousness if GSOC had been under surveillance. One of the technical reports stated - on the basis of the peer review - that there was no evidence at all of surveillance. I was firmly convinced no one would believe that. I do not know which is true. I do not have the technical knowledge and I can only report the information I am given. This had been a continuing controversy and I was not happy with the responses I received to the correspondence I sent. I was of the view that greater clarity was required. In addition, the content of the section 103 report gave rise to other concerns. As a result, I briefed Cabinet on the matter.
I was very anxious that no impression be created to the effect that if an inquiry was held, this would for some reason give rise to my avoiding coming before this committee. I will be perfectly frank and state that one of the considerations was that had the inquiry been announced yesterday, I was concerned someone would suggest that it was only taking place to avoid my coming before this committee. As a result of the level of public discourse in respect of this matter, the major difficulties to which it was giving rise in the context of GSOC getting on with its work and credibility issues relating to public trust in An Garda Síochána and GSOC, I concluded that we had gone beyond the point of it being a matter of an inquiry because GSOC had reached a particular conclusion. It was now an issue where myriad information - some of it contradictory - was available and I was of the view that it would never be cleared up without a judge being appointed to address it. This is the reason why we reached that decision. I am of the view that it was the right decision.
The terms of reference will be finalised by this evening. All sorts of comments have been made to the effect that I am going to develop those terms of reference and that I have some nefarious motive in respect of this matter. The terms of reference are essentially being drawn up by the Attorney General. They will come through the Department in the usual way as a result of the fact that I am the line Minister. The terms of reference will be agreed by Cabinet on the basis of the recommendation of the Attorney General. That is the normal way in which these matters are dealt with.
I was asked if I received the same information as this committee. The answer in that regard is not precisely. Expansions and additional comments were made during the course of the committee's hearing. Some of those expansions and comments were somewhat confusing. One of the commissioners was asked whether the outcome of their investigation exonerated the Garda Síochána and the reply that was given was that it neither did or did not exonerate the force. In view of what had been said on "Prime Time" with regard to the conclusions reached, I can well understand how that created confusion. It was quite proper that in his opening presentation to the committee, the chairman of GSOC referenced issues of tension between himself and the Garda Síochána. It is right that GSOC be fully independent and free to publicly comment on issues of concern. He referenced all of that, which seemed to be a lead-in to the suggestion that this is why the security sweep took place. Later on he clarified that matter in the quote to which I referred earlier. He did not preface it to me in that way and that reference is not in the brief. There was something of a variance between the information I received and the way matters developed. However, I totally and genuinely understand that in the context of the four hours of questioning which took place.
The section 103 report clearly should have been furnished to me much earlier and well before the matter leaked to The Sunday Times. That report contains information that neither this committee nor I had in our possession. There are genuine issues in respect of that matter. I hope I have answered the questions the Deputy raised.