Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Anti-Austerity Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the fact that we are going to have a public tribunal of inquiry into this matter. Thanks for that go to Maurice McCabe and the other whistleblowers who must be commended for speaking out in the face of everything that has been thrown at them precisely for speaking out. What will be uncovered is only a glimpse of the dark underbelly of the State and how it can be used in such a way as to destroy people who pose a threat to those at the very top. It will raise the need for a much broader public inquiry involving those who are victims of injustice and looking into what has been the role of the State in our society. How have they managed to protect those at the very top and what is the relationship between them and members of the media?

The timing of this debate is somewhat unfortunate. It would have been much better, and still would be, if we could have some time over the weekend to consider this and vote on it next Tuesday, instead of doing it now. I do not understand what the rush is for in that respect.

I want to respond to a point raised by Deputy O'Callaghan that it is not appropriate for political parties, unless they all agree, to call for the Garda Commissioner to resign. I do not agree. I note that Senator Michael McDowell, a former Minister for Justice, called in the Seanad today for her to go. I just do not think it is credible that we are agreeing to set up a public inquiry into allegations that the Garda Commissioner conducted and orchestrated the blackest propaganda against members of her own police force, yet we are going to leave her in place where she could potentially play a role in obstructing the tribunal.

The existence of a tribunal cannot be used as an excuse to avoid answering Maurice McCabe's six questions now or as quickly as possible. Nor can it be used to avoid criminal prosecutions which are needed. It cannot be that in a year's time we will have another tribunal report sitting on the DPP's desk gathering dust, and no prosecutions. If what is alleged is accurate, as I believe it is, prosecutions should follow.

The costs of the tribunal have to be closely monitored, restricted and not allowed to balloon out of control so we do not have a situation of creating yet more millionaires from a tribunal. Similarly, the timing has to be watched.

We are moving three separate amendments although they are listed as one. Amendments Nos. 2(a) and (b) constitute one amendment, while amendment Nos. 2(c) and 2(d) are the second and third ones. They should be taken separately because that is how they were submitted.

We are seeking to delete the words "to ensure public confidence in An Garda Síochána" in the seventh paragraph. We do not think public confidence in the institution of An Garda Síochána is warranted. I do not think the tribunal should have a pre-ordained outcome that it will restore public confidence in An Garda Síochána. In fact, I think it is going to reduce public confidence in An Garda Síochána and will open a debate in society about what kind of police force we have and the need for a police force to be democratically accountable and controlled by the communities it is meant to serve.

Amendment No. 2(b) seeks to emphasise the point "that evidence obtained during the inquiry can be used in criminal prosecutions".

Amendment No. 2(c) seeks to broaden the current reference to "members of the Government" to read "members and former members of the Oireachtas". In that way it would include Members of the Dáil but also Members and former Members of the Seanad. That is important because in the last 48 hours we had Deputy Deasy come out, as well as the former Deputy Pat Rabbitte, and Deputy Durkan, all claiming to have heard of these allegations. Apparently, loads of the establishment party TDs were aware of these allegations but did not really do anything about them. It is not really understandable why they did not do something about it. It is, however, appropriate to broaden the reference to them. Reference has been made to a very good reason why we cannot do so. However, I do not see why it is appropriate to say "members of the Government" but not to broaden it beyond that.

Amendment No. 2(d) relates to broadening subsection [p] so that not only gardaí who have made protected disclosures before today would be covered, but also any garda who has made a complaint or allegation which could, for example, be an internal Garda complaint. If they have been subjected to these kind of smears, they should also come within this tribunal's remit.

See this speech in context