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

Just to take the issue of the leak, in fairness to the chairman of the commission, he made it very clearly that it took that matter seriously. I am very anxious that we get back to a space where there is full public confidence in GSOC. It does a very important job. I spent an amount of my time in this Parliament many years ago talking about the need to ensure we had accountability where there were allegations of Garda misconduct. I would have, on behalf of my party, proposed a motion in the Dáil a long time ago seeking to have an inquiry into allegations of Garda misconduct in Donegal. Some five months later we had the Morris tribunal.

I have always believed that there is a crucial need to have a watchdog body. It is very important there is full public confidence in what it does, that its systems are secure and that its information is secure. So, I hope that issue is addressed in a manner in which it is resolved.

Every organisation at some stage has some issue surrounding leaks, no matter how good the organisation is. No organisation, no matter what functions it engages in, does not at some stage in its life have a problem of this nature. So, I am presuming that GSOC is addressing that. It will be addressed and it will not be an issue ultimately that will impact on public confidence. I hope that is the case.

Regarding Deputy Nolan's first question about the public interest inquiry, I have addressed that already. There is nothing I can add to that. Among all the myriad of different issues here, it is an issue, of course, that may be addressed by the judge who is going to look not just simply at that, but at a whole range of other issues. I have said that, when I met Mr. O'Brien, both myself and my officials raised with him - in a subsequent meeting my officials would have had with GSOC members, they also raised it, I am advised - the proportionality of the decision made at that moment to commence that investigation. At this stage I cannot add to what I said previously. There is a question mark about whether, at that moment, there was enough to indicate that it warranted commencing an investigation into An Garda Síochána. I do not know of evidence beyond a concern that two what were called "anomalies", potential threats or whatever had been investigated. In fairness to GSOC, it did not know what was causing the Wi-Fi problem, the telephone issue that the Deputy asked me about. The information I was given was that a test was undertaken on the telephone - I referenced this in my Dáil statement - and that, three seconds later, there was a call back. The report, the brief I received and the conversation I had were along the lines that GSOC tried to investigate this further and could not find anything.

The other information that I had was that this was some sort of telephone apparatus that was only usable or ever could be used for conference calls. Now, I have not seen it, but this was my understanding of it. In fact, it had not been used for anything, certainly not by the current commission. The information was that a sound signal was sent down the telephone and three seconds later it rang back, but the information also was that a telecom companies check had been done. There was no identifiable telephone call of any description recorded into GSOC's offices from any external source. Yes, at the time based on the report that GSOC received, it was something of a mystery, but what it was all about was not clear.

It is one of the issues that the Rits report has addressed. It has produced what I could describe as a theory as to why this happened, and I am very happy to let a judge address these issues with Verrimus, Rits and whatever expertise is there and work it out. The theory is that there was no finding of any external telephone call - this is the Rits theory and I am putting it in non-technical terms - because there was not one. The suggestion is that there was somebody undertaking surveillance, some spook out there who, when this sound came down the telephone, decided to ring back, which is a little bit difficult to understand. The Rits version of this is that when one sends a signal down a telephone of this nature, apparently in GSOC's offices there is some sort of telephone console at the reception area which the telephone receptionist would use to distribute telephone calls around the offices when they come in to the different members of GSOC. So, the Rits theory is that all that happened was the signal was sent down the telephone, it hit the console and it caused a reaction which made the console telephone back up the line. The signal bounced back up and it caused the telephone to ring. It was nothing to do with external telephone calls or surveillance at all.

Looking at that piece of advice, apparently this test was tried another time and that reaction did not happen, according to the Verrimus report. I cannot adjudicate on the technology of this, but there is a possibility there is nothing sinister about this at all.

Again, because of the seriousness with which this issue has been taken - I think in fairness, Deputy Boyd Barrett and I think Deputy Ó Snodaigh made reference to that matter - I want this looked at by a High Court judge. I do not have the technical knowledge to adjudicate between the two reports. It may well be the case that there was nothing sinister about it but it may be the case that there was something sinister about it. In fairness to GSOC, it was never suggested to it that it could have resulted from this telephone consul aspect, it was said that this could not be explained. I have now been given an explanation. We will have to see what the judge makes of it and what the technical advisers to the judge make of it.