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

I can tell the Deputy that I am one of the most enthusiastic supporters of the work that is required of an organisation like GSOC. Way before he was in this House it was the type of body that I wanted to see in place. That is one of the reasons why, for example, we had to set up the Morris tribunal. It was because there was no body that existed that could independently investigate allegations of misconduct by the gardaí.
When we had the Abbeylara inquiry I was a member of the justice committee that commenced that inquiry. As the Deputy will know, it ended up in the courts because members of the gardaí were unhappy that a parliamentary committee conducted that inquiry. I have spent a large amount of my time, unusually, in the High Court and the Supreme Court arguing why an Oireachtas committee should be able to undertake that work. The Supreme Court and the High Court took a different view. Why did I do that? I believed that where there are serious concerns about Garda failure it is important to have independent oversight.
All I want to see out of this is restored public confidence in GSOC. Now GSOC is the watchdog. There is a difficulty - I am not saying that it has happened in this case - that if something goes wrong with the watchdog then who watches the watchdog? We cannot have a myriad or series of organisations in place. Difficulties have arisen out of this issue and we have appointed a judge to deal with it. I hope that at the end of it, whatever the difficulties are, they will be identified. If there is learning required by GSOC, by the Garda Commissioner, by myself or by anybody arising out what is determined by the judge then that learning should be implemented.
It was referenced I think earlier, but nearly two and a half weeks ago - that was Monday fortnight and before any of this controversy broke - I issued a press statement which is on my Department's website. In view of my anxiety to ensure that GSOC can properly carry out its functions I made an announcement - among other announcements - that we were going to amend the legislation in regard to GSOC. I said I was going to bring before Cabinet proposals to address some of the issues necessary with regard to GSOC. The Act has existed for a number of years and GSOC itself is seeking amendments. That is why in the Cabinet decision yesterday, in addition to the work that is going on in my Department to prepare amendments, we said we wanted the justice committee to take submissions and make recommendations. What is brought before Cabinet will be the result of an inclusive consultative process. Why am I doing that? It is because I want GSOC to do its work and to be able to do so and I also want the public to have confidence in that work.
I shall speedily answer a couple of other questions. The Deputy referenced what knowledge I have that the security sweep was required because of comments by the Garda Commissioner. We addressed that issue a long time ago. I do not know whether the comments of the alleged senior member of the Garda were the Garda Commissioner's or not because I have not asked him, nor have I asked GSOC. GSOC has said this it is fiction, that there was a misunderstanding by two operatives in GSOC, that there was no comments made by a senior garda despite the report in The Sunday Timesthat indicated someone had breached GSOC's security. GSOC said that a document had been prepared in error that indicated that. The document prepared in error, and I think Simon O'Brien referred to it, was basically whatever document contained the request to Verrimus that it undertake work because it seemed to have indicated that there had been a breach. This was then repeated in the GSOC reports.
The Deputy asked was it the Garda Commissioner? I think the Sunday Independent addressed this, referred to the Garda Commissioner and addressed why this was not accurate. I had no engagement with the Sunday Independent, and that did not come from any leak or conversation I had with the Sunday Independentbefore someone suggests it to me. That part of it - I hate to use the word because people have been using it in other circumstances - was a puff of smoke. Simon O'Brien himself said a mistake was made within GSOC. I do think it is unfortunate that if one is going to have a security sweep undertaken the company one asks to undertake the sweep is not given careful instructions. It is unfortunate that the remit it was given was based on a misunderstanding within GSOC. I would hope whatever created that is addressed because I think that it is very important if a security sweep is being undertaken - in fairness to the company undertaking it - that its brief is clear and it is not resulting from a misunderstanding within the organisation that gave the brief.
The question was asked if there was any authorised surveillance on GSOC. I presume the question is have I authorised surveillance on GSOC. Of course I have not.