John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

On the last occasion on which the Secretary General was here, we spoke about a particular case in Donegal. I will not go into the detail but we were told the matter was with the Chief State Solicitor's office. However, it was not until after the meeting that a file was sent to that office. I asked at the time whether the Department would, given the history of the matter and the moneys involved, consider entering into some type of mediation process in another attempt to resolve matters. We are told the case is with the Office of the Chief State Solicitor, as I said. I will give Mr. O'Driscoll the details after the meeting and ask that he examine the matter with a view to coming back to us on it.

I request that he do the same in respect of a couple of other cases. We have had correspondence from a gentleman in west Cork and from another individual who is represented by somebody in Dublin. Again, I will give Mr. O'Driscoll the names after the meeting. We would like to get a final reply on these matters in respect of which we have been dealing with correspondence on an ongoing basis. They seem to be genuine cases. Where mediation might work, we would like to know. If, however, it is the end of the road, the Secretary General might tell us so and outline the exact background and so on. In addition, an issue has arisen in regard to health treatments being administered to horses. There is correspondence on this matter which is not yet before us but which I intend to send to Mr. O'Driscoll. As I said earlier, I will send him the correspondence on the court case where the client argues that payment is due but has not been issued.

The Secretary General mentioned in his opening statement that a lot of what the committee has been told in respect of the special investigations unit is untrue. I do not want to get into a discussion on this today, but we spent a long time listening to a number of individuals who were prepared to come forward and have that conversation with us. It is hard to believe that most of what they told us was untrue. Aside from that, there were other individuals who came forward but, out of fear of how they might be dealt with by the special investigations unit, were afraid to give us the details. One or two of them might very well be still in the process of the investigation.

It is difficult to hear from individuals that they have a fear of an agency of the State to the extent they do not want to discuss their issues in a public way and do not feel comfortable dealing with Members of this Parliament because of that agency. While we have dealt with these matters with the Chief State Solicitor's office and the Department in terms of the costs involved, it seems from what we were told by those who are part of the report given to Mr. O'Driscoll by the clerk, as well as those who were unwilling and afraid to give information on the record, that they have spent considerable sums of money in an attempt to defend themselves. Looking at the figures that were given to us in terms of the cost to date, it is hard to see how it could have cost so much on the private side of it while the cost on the part of the State was so little. There is something not adding up in terms of what we are being told. It is difficult for the committee to deal with the Office of the Chief State Solicitor and then the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine on this issue. There is toing and froing all the time as to who is responsible for what. Will Mr. O'Driscoll provide us with a more comprehensive note on these cases, indicating whether compensation or anything else was involved? I cannot equate the figures we were given with what might have been required in some of those court cases. If the figures given do represent all of the cost to the State, the Secretary General might give us the names of the counsels and solicitors involved, because there are very few around whose services are apparently so cheap. I certainly want to know the detail of all of that.

It is wrong of Mr. O'Driscoll to make a broad statement that what we have heard is untrue without providing us with what he refers to as the robust, point-by-point rebuttal of the claims made by the other side.

Once a document is submitted to the committee and becomes a document of that committee, it enjoys privilege. I ask Mr. O'Driscoll if he will respond in the public interest to each and every point raised by the individuals involved. I asked Mr. O'Driscoll why they were not paid and how much they were due but he said they were not due money. That is a substantial conflict of opinion and I want to resolve it and determine where the issues arise in respect of those individuals who came forward.

I cannot reconcile Mr. O'Driscoll's complete defence with the previous evidence presented to us, although I understand he has a job to do as Secretary General and that other Secretaries General do the same thing. My job is to listen to the complaints that are brought before this committee and to investigate the costs that emerge for the State. There are too many stories. Mr. O'Driscoll stated that the Department always acknowledges fair procedure. I will take him at his word but I do not think the special investigations unit follows his word. We have been informed about too many cases, none of which are connected. My experience of the Kilkenny case led me to raise it on the Order of Business one morning because I could not believe what I was being told, and which turned out to be true. A pregnant woman was pushed about and a car was damaged but the officer flashed his credentials and told a garda that he was from the special investigations unit and, therefore, almost beyond the law. In fairness to the garda, he said that was not the case. My knowledge of that case indicates that what is being done on the ground is not compatible with the story that Mr. O'Driscoll is telling. I accept that a job is being done but when I hear about a veterinarian's practice being entered through a window or of veterinarians not being able to renew their insurance because of the activities of the special investigations unit, I have to ask questions. There are too many common strands in these cases to ignore them. I ask Mr. O'Driscoll not to ignore them. I understand that he has to defend them but if I found someone in my business who was acting the cowboy I would hang him out to dry. These inspectors represent the Department. They do not represent the special investigations unit on its own.

Two individuals in different parts of the country gave us similar evidence about how their families were treated. They entered the property of a man in Carlow, who is not represented here, and confronted his mentally challenged son. That was not made up. I urge Mr. O'Driscoll to go beyond the defence he has to offer and investigate what is happening. It is not right. They cannot all be telling us untruths. While I am sure members will agree to dispose of Vote 30, we will not close off the issues that were brought to our attention. They have not been heard fully due to the fact that we have been unable to examine Mr. O'Driscoll's side of the story in the type of detail presented by previous witnesses.

There is another way of doing business. Given the devastation caused by the special investigations unit to a small number of businesses, it is hard to comprehend why the State would invest an endless amount of money to take people through the courts only for nothing to happen. It is hard for a business person to rebuild trust after the State presumed him or her guilty and visited his or her customers as part of its investigation. That is what happened in the case with which I am familiar. Rebuilding trust with customers is difficult when the State believes a business person is guilty. Fair procedure is necessary. The unit's officers are entitled to carry out their investigations but accusations of bullying were made in too many of the accounts I have heard. There are also too many stories about businesses being devastated and family lives being interrupted for me to ignore this issue.

I have listened to the evidence given by Mr. O'Driscoll and others but the committee has not received a written explanation. It is my intention to revisit this matter once we receive the written explanation. I will also inquire into the issue of fines, details of which I will send to Mr. O'Driscoll.