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

I am grateful for the opportunity to address issues arising from last Thursday's "Prime Time" programme. I regret that comments made by me may have inadvertently resulted in concerns being expressed that I am prepared to use confidential Garda information to damage a political opponent. Nothing could be further from the truth, but I am happy to offer reassurances to Deputies on this point. I give a solemn assurance to the House that I am not in the business of receiving, seeking or maintaining confidential, sensitive information from An Garda Síochána on Members of this House, the Seanad or anyone in political life, nor are gardaí in the business of providing it.

As Minister, it is necessary that I am informed of certain matters. Section 41 of the Garda Síochána Act provides a clear statutory basis for the information provided for me by An Garda Síochána. In turn, I am subject to the laws of the land in respect of the use to which I might make of that information, but, more important still, I am responsible to the House for how I discharge my office. The House will appreciate that there could be exceptional circumstances where it would be necessary for the Minister of the day with responsibility for justice to receive confidential information on the activities of Members of this House. It would arise, for example, if Members of this House were also involved with organisations carrying out terrorist activities. However, all Members of this House and I can agree that it would be absolutely abhorrent if An Garda Síochána were to collect information on anyone, regardless of whether he or she is involved in public life, for political purposes. There is no question of that happening. There are simply no circumstances in which I would countenance the abuse of Garda powers.

For my part, as Minister for Justice and Equality and Minister for Defence, I am acutely aware of the importance of ensuring confidentiality with regard to sensitive information and information relating to the security of the State. My discretion in maintaining confidences and not revealing information inappropriately is well known to many who have been writing and commenting on this controversy. On reflection, they would regard it as absurd to suggest I keep files on anyone.

I want to turn to the very particular circumstances in which I mentioned on "Prime Time" a particular incident involving Deputy Mick Wallace. I emphasise that, despite some of the subsequent commentary, I was making absolutely no allegation of wrongdoing on the part of Deputy Wallace in his dealings with An Garda Síochána. If I had been referring to some very serious incident involving the Deputy, no doubt he would have been immediately able to recall it. The manner in which I acquired the information was quite straightforward and there is nothing sinister about it. I have taken the allegations made about the integrity of the fixed charge notice system and the controversy that arose with great seriousness. In the circumstances, I asked that the allegations made be fully investigated and was briefed on the matter by the Garda Commissioner. During the course of one of our conversations in which a number of matters relating to the reports on the fixed notice charge issue were discussed, including circumstances in which gardaí exercised their discretion on traffic offences, the incident involving Deputy Wallace was mentioned by the Garda Commissioner. I most certainly did not request any information on Deputies and no big issue was made of the incident involving the Deputy. I have no doubt that the Garda Commissioner was mindful that Deputy Wallace might make public reference to the incident as part of the public controversy which was ongoing about fixed charge notices and, in these circumstances, he had a duty to mention it to me.

It is important to see this matter in perspective and context. Deputy Wallace and his colleagues put in the public domain a whole range of allegations about the operation of the fixed charge notice system and they had no way of knowing if they were true or not, many of which have since been disproved. They wanted to put in the public domain information on third parties, implying wrongdoing on their part, with no basis for any assertion of wrongdoing. Above all, they have been demanding transparency in this area. They wrote to the Taoiseach on 22 April saying the review which was taking place of the issue of penalty points must "address the lack of transparency surrounding the process". Their position seems to be that any information from whistleblowers, regardless of whether it is correct, should be placed in the public domain, but they are outraged when anyone provides information relating to this matter.

Despite the extensive nature of the investigation conducted under the supervision of Assistant Commissioner O'Mahoney and the report published, Deputy Wallace and other Independent Deputies continued to denigrate An Garda Síochána and sought to undermine public confidence in and damage the reputation of the force. They also rejected all of the conclusions contained in the report when it was clear to any fair-minded observer that some of the most serious allegations made had no basis in reality.

At the very start of the "Prime Time" programme Deputy Wallace stated gardaí should not exercise a discretion and that their doing so was unlawful. This was clearly a gravely serious allegation against An Garda Síochána. His initial comments were absolutist in this regard. I responded by saying gardaí could quite properly and lawfully use their discretion. I believed it was grossly unfair to suggest it was improper for gardaí to do so or that where a discretion was exercised in ease of a member of the public, the member of the public was engaged in some form of illegality. I believed that in the performance of my duties and functions as Minister for Justice and Equality it was necessary for me to ensure continuing public confidence in the force and that it was wrong of Deputy Wallace to pillory others for the proper exercise of a lawful discretion. It was my judgment that it was both necessary and in the public interest that I point out that he had been a beneficiary of that discretionary exercise. I believed there was an extraordinary inconsistency between what the Deputy had to say and what had actually occurred in his case. I made the point, not to make a political charge against him, nor for any personal benefit, but to defend the integrity of An Garda Síochána. I did not make any allegation of wrongdoing against him in his dealings with the Garda Síochána. In the context of the transparency demanded by him on this very issue and the information furnished to me relating to it, I was simply making the point that, like tens of thousands of others, he had been the beneficiary of Garda discretion being properly exercised.

I believe I acted in the public interest and my doing so should have none of the connotations some have ascribed to it. However, as I have acknowledged on other occasions, none of us has a monopoly of wisdom. If Deputy Wallace believes I did him a personal wrong by mentioning it, I have no problem in saying I am sorry.

See this speech in context