Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Yesterday in the House the Taoiseach announced the appointment of a senior counsel to deal with very serious issues pertaining to a dossier I sent him. I welcome that and I hope for at least an inquiry. However, I ask the Taoiseach to intervene in one aspect of the saga and try to bring it to some meaningful solution. It relates to the assertion and allegation on the floor of the House that the whistleblower, Sergeant Maurice McCabe, and Mr. Wilson did not co-operate with the investigation conducted by the assistant commissioner, Mr. O'Mahoney, into the penalty points saga. When a serious allegation of non-co-operation against a serving garda is made on the floor of the House, it either needs to be stood up or withdrawn with an apology made to the person.

I have gone through this at great length. The Minister's speech this morning does not deal with that aspect of it in any comprehensive or adequate way. The Road Safety Authority made it clear to the Minister that it regarded it as a major failing that he was not interviewed and, in fact, communicated that to the Minister, Deputy Shatter, I believe in the presence of the Minister, Deputy Varadkar. When it was asked for its views on the inquiry, it sent its views to the Minister, Deputy Varadkar, outlining that this was the major failing of the penalty points inquiry.

Based on the record of the Committee of Public Accounts, it seems that the only person in the entire system who made the accusation that Sergeant McCabe did not co-operate was the Minister, Deputy Shatter. To be fair, the assistant commissioner, Mr. O'Mahoney, did not make that assertion. When the Commissioner was pressed by Deputy McDonald at a committee meeting, he said:

When I was responding to Deputy Ross, I did so in the context of whether these people had been interviewed. The report from the Assistant Commissioner, having looked at the allegations and established the facts, did not see a need [to interview these people] on the basis that the Assistant Commissioner had not uncovered criminality. Therefore, there was no need to defer to the Director of Public Prosecutions. However, had it been the case that he saw clear evidence, or even a suspicion, of corruption or malpractice within the allegations he had before him, I presume that would have triggered those people being interviewed.

No one along the way has ever suggested that he was interviewed or that he did not co-operate. The only person was the Minister. He has gone to great lengths to try to justify that but it does not stack up. The simple way out of this would be to have that very serious claim of non-co-operation withdrawn. That would be the simplest way out of it. It would bring some resolution and clear the person's name. The person is anxious that his name be cleared.

See this speech in context