Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

We know that in September last year two protected disclosures were made. I have never seen the content of those protected disclosures but I know from what is in the public domain that in general they allege that a campaign launched at senior levels in An Garda Síochána to discredit a whistleblower.

When Mr. Justice O'Neill was nominated by the Government to investigate the matter in October of last year, we supported his nomination. We hoped his investigation would produce a conclusive report. We have not had an opportunity to see the complete report of Mr. Justice O'Neill. In fact, all we have seen is what is in the public domain, that is to say, the conclusions and recommendations and the terms of reference he proposed. We are told that the reason the remainder of the report is being redacted is because it affects the rights of other individuals. I take the Government at its word when it says as much. I assume there is nothing in the remaining part of Mr. Justice O'Neill's report - a report that has been seen by no one here - that suggests wrongdoing or makes negative comments about any of the principal actors involved in the issue.

The issue in the past 48 hours has become focused on the personalities and individuals involved. In one corner we have the superintendent and the sergeant. In the other corner we have the Commissioner and the former Commissioner. Members are perfectly entitled to affiliate themselves with either corner and to advocate on behalf of either corner. However, I will not be doing that. I believe the most important thing is to stand in the middle and try to establish the truth. The only way the truth can be established, unfortunately, is through the establishment of a commission of investigation. Mr. Justice O'Neill tried to establish the truth and was unable to do so. A commission of investigation has now been recommended by Mr. Justice O'Neill. It is imperative for the House to agree to this and to establish such a commission of investigation promptly.

The main issue is a net issue. Is it true that there was a campaign seeking to discredit the sergeant at senior levels of An Garda Síochána? Was that encouraged and promoted by the current Commissioner or the former Commissioner? If there is a finding to that effect against any senior member of An Garda Síochána, the position of that senior member would be untenable.

I note the repeated calls for the Garda Commissioner to stand aside. We have not joined those calls. Other Members are perfectly entitled to make those calls. We believe that such a call should only be as a consequence of what was in a commission of investigation report. We believe the commission of investigation should be established first and that the truth should be established. After that, let individuals call for whatever consequence they believe to be appropriate.

When allegations are made against an individual and the individual in question denies those allegations, that individual has an entitlement to the constitutional right to his good name. We do not hear much about that right, but it is a right that has meaning. It is not an anachronistic right. This means that an individual who denies allegations is entitled to defend himself against those allegations. Let us suppose I stand up in the House and make an allegation against a Member and it turns out that the Member denies those allegations. I believe it would be most unfair if, as a result of my making those allegations, the Member would be forced to stand aside. It would also have a more detrimental consequence in terms of the establishment of commissions of investigation. If it were the case that once a commission of investigation is established, the subject matter of that investigation were compelled to stand aside, then we would never have commissions of investigation because the mere establishment would have a significant consequential effect.

I wish highlight a point relating to the superintendent who made the protected disclosure. He has a grievance. His grievance is legitimate in that an allegation was made against him that was altogether separate from the issues we are discussing. He denied those allegations. He should not have been suspended from his post in An Garda Síochána. He was entitled to his good name and to defend himself.

I want to get on to the subject matter of the terms of reference of the inquiry. I wish to advocate for two changes that the Minister and the Government should adopt. The first arises in the context of paragraph 1[b]of the terms of reference. The paragraph states: "The allegation of Superintendent Taylor in his Protected Disclosure, that he was directed to draw journalists’ attention to an allegation of criminal misconduct made against Sgt McCabe and that this was the root cause of his agenda, namely revenge against the Gardaí." We support the investigation of that particular issue. However, we believe it is not broad enough. The allegation that the sergeant was involved in criminal misconduct should be investigated in its generality. Under paragraph 1[b], an allegation can only be investigated if it is the subject matter of a communication by the superintendent to members of the media. We believe it should be broader. We are suggesting to the Government that at the end of paragraph 1[b], the following should be added: “Also, to investigate what knowledge former Commissioner Callinan and/or Commissioner O’Sullivan had concerning this allegation of criminal misconduct made against Sergeant McCabe and whether they acted upon same in a manner intended to discredit Sergeant McCabe." We maintain this is necessary because if it is the case that this allegation of criminal misconduct by the sergeant was being used by An Garda Síochána to discredit him, then the matter must be investigated. Unfortunately, the terms in paragraph 1[b], as drafted, simply limit it to communications between Superintendent Taylor and members of the media.

It may be the case that members of An Garda Síochána at senior level used the allegation of criminal wrongdoing on the part of the sergeant to discredit him elsewhere. The inclusion of that paragraph will include coverage for the point raised by Deputy McDonald earlier in her questions today. She asked whether there was any other communication between An Garda Síochána and any other State agencies. That would be covered by the amendment. I urge the Minister to accept the amendment.

The second amendment I am proposing relates to paragraph 1[h]. It refers to the meeting that took place between the former Commissioner, Mr. Callinan, and Deputy John McGuinness. This is in the public domain and is being investigated because Deputy McGuinness openly referred to it on the floor of the House. Let us suppose it is the case that the former Commissioner was prepared to contact Deputy McGuinness to communicate what Deputy McGuinness alleges was said. Then there is also a strong possibility that the former Commissioner would have contacted members of the Government. For that reason, we believe paragraph 1[d]should be amended such that after the words “broadcasting personnel” the Minister should include “and/or members of the government”. If that text is included, it would cover this issue of concern. Presumably, the reason the former Commissioner contacted Deputy McGuinness was because of the position of Deputy McGuinness as Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts. Similarly, there must be a concern that if the people in question were prepared to contact a member or the Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts, then they may also have sought to contact members of the Government.

It is important to establish confidence in An Garda Síochána in the public mind. The force plays too important a role in the country for there to be any question mark over senior figures in An Garda Síochána. The commission of investigation is merited and that it will be in the public interest to find out, once and for all, where the truth lies. I am not an investigator. No one else in the House is an investigator. However, what we can do is establish investigations to help us to find the truth. Let us find the truth and let the consequences fall wherever they may.

Mr. Justice O'Neill's inquiry was established in October.

Not only did Fianna Fáil welcome it, we said that it should be extended to include complaints made by other whistleblowers, namely, Garda Harrison and Garda Keogh. Prior to receiving the documentation we got from the Tánaiste yesterday, I was intending to say that the complaints of both officers must be included in the terms of reference of the commission of investigation we are about to establish. However, I am aware, from the Government's statement yesterday, that Mr. Justice O'Neill stated in his report that the commission of investigation should deal solely with the issues concerning the Garda Commissioner and the former Commissioner. I am prepared to abide by that, in the context of its importance and relevance. However, I would argue that we need to establish a proper forum at which the complaints of Garda Harrison and Garda Keogh can be properly, adequately and thoroughly investigated.

See this speech in context