Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

The response of Government backbenchers from Fine Gael and the Labour Party to the motion has been predictable, I would say depressingly predictable. They level an accusation at Members on this side of the Dáil that we set out to disrespect the men and women of An Garda Síochána. They level an accusation at those of us on this side of the House that we question the integrity of a member of the Judiciary. They make valiant efforts to dismiss this debate as what they call a political football or political grandstanding. All of these are part of a brass-necked attempt to play down, minimise, set aside and even perhaps to whitewash what has happened.

Tonight's debate, just so we are clear and so Government backbenchers are clear, is taking place because of information in the public domain suggesting the office of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission may have been bugged. This is a very serious matter. Furthermore, and in the public domain also, is a concern the offices of GSOC may have been bugged by An Garda Síochána, whether sanctioned or otherwise. This brings public concerns to a whole new level. I was glad to hear the Minister of State, Deputy Lynch, concede these are not trivial concerns because they are matters which go to the very heart of Garda accountability and credibility and public confidence in the administration of justice. It is precisely because public confidence in An Garda Síochána and the body charged with its oversight, GSOC, is so crucial to this administration of justice that the motion has been tabled.

I have no difficulty in stating the motion should not be necessary, because it should not be. The Government, recognising the gravity of all of these concerns, should have moved speedily to institute an independent inquiry into all of these matters. This is what it should have done but it chose not to do so. Instead, as others have recounted, it pointed the finger of blame at GSOC. From the outset the Government endeavoured to create a narrative which sought to lay the blame squarely at the door of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission.

After the bugging story broke in the media the Minister for Justice and Equality, as we know, deliberately and publicly summoned the Garda watchdog to his office. During this meeting the chairman of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission provided the Minister, Deputy Shatter, with a written briefing which was used to inform his statement to the Dáil the next day. Despite this briefing and written documentation, the Minister came to the Chamber and made a statement which fell very short of the information available to him. For example he failed to note one of the anomalies identified suggested calls could have been tampered with. He omitted to state the experts who conducted the security sweep advised the technology in use was available to government agencies only. Despite knowing all of this, the Minister stood in the Dáil and categorically refuted the suggestion there was concern regarding An Garda Síochána and told Members of the House any suggestion otherwise was, to use his term, baseless innuendo.

The Minister of State, Deputy Lynch, has stridently come here to recite the script of the Minister, Deputy Shatter. She set aside the fact the Minister failed to make reference to the public interest investigation in the course of his commentary. The record reflects this is the fact. This was deliberately done; if it was not it poses several questions. Does, or did, the Minister consider GSOC's concerns as baseless? Does, or did, he consider that GSOC had proceeded simply on the basis of innuendo? We all know neither of these holds true because Simon O'Brien, the Chairman of GSOC, came before the committee and made this very clear.

It is now very evident the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, is absolutely incapable of impartiality in this matter. As recently as last night he appeared again in the Dáil to tell us of a new peer review he had carried out.

He has moved and hardened his position from stating there is no conclusive evidence of surveillance to now making the claim that, in fact, there is no evidence whatsoever of any surveillance. This is the man charged by the Government to draw up the terms of reference for the review. As to how that could be publicly or politically credible or in any way be desirable is, frankly, baffling.

I ask the following question of the Minister which I encourage members of the Government to ask: why is he so absolutely determined, when an issue of controversy emerges on the public scene, to shut it down? He might regard this in his own mind as a pro-Garda stance. He might think or believe he is doing the right thing in trying to distract public attention from the concerns of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC, and now the concerns of the public about this alleged bugging. However, he needs to be aware that these actions are not favourable to An Garda Síochána or the oversight body, that they are, in fact, highly damaging. They are damaging in the same way the Minister's approach to the two Garda whistleblowers who had come forward was damaging. Members should recall that in that instance the Minister was utterly dismissive to the point of almost being abusive towards these two men because what they had to say did not suit him. He would probably typify his actions at the time as being concerned with safeguarding the integrity of An Garda Síochána, but they did nothing of the sort. It is now impossible to imagine that any serving officer who has concerns or information would not be highly cautious about stepping forward because he or she knows the view of the Minister. Furthermore, he or she knows the view of the Garda Commissioner of those who choose to step forward. Sergeant Maurice McCabe is still subject to frustrations regarding his appearance before the Committee of Public Accounts. While he seeks a transcript of his evidence, there are those in this House who do not wish him to have it. However, one should remember that many people elected to this place did not want him to appear before the committee in any event. They wanted him to be quiet and go away.

See this speech in context