Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

12. To ask the Minister for Defence the reasons a person who acted as whistle blower in a case (details supplied) was not interviewed by the military authorities as part of their investigation into the matter; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29414/13]

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The individual referred to by the Deputy as a whistleblower sent a letter dated 22 April 2010 to the then Minister for Defence, Mr. Tony Killeen. The letter, which contained a number of allegations pertaining to serving and former Defence Forces personnel, was brought to the attention of the military authorities. The letter was referred to the military authorities without providing personal details for the whistleblower as the letter had specifically requested that the home address of the whistleblower would not be given to the Irish Army. The letter indicated that the author had verbally received his information from another party and through sight of documents held in that other party's possession.

I am advised by the military authorities that in July 2010, military police investigators met with the other party in the presence of his legal team and some of the allegations contained in the letter were discussed. The whistleblower appeared to be a third party to the matters in question with no personal involvement in any of the alleged activities and had specifically requested that home address details would not be given to the military authorities. Accordingly, it was not considered appropriate for military police personnel to interview him.

The investigation, when completed, found no evidence to support the suggestion that Defence Forces equipment was utilised in any of the alleged activities, nor was there any evidence found of any illegal arms purchase or sales. In addition, the investigation undertaken by the military authorities found that Defence Forces regulations were not breached.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am given to understand that the whistleblower in question was asked by the director of a private security company, Confidential Investigations Athlone, to work for the company in the Seychelles in respect of the recovery of a €25 million security contract which he had lost to former employees, including former and serving Irish soldiers. As the Minister is aware, this relates to the claim that arms were being bought on the black market in South Africa and shipped to a special forces unit in the Seychelles to train and arm same. I understand that the former Minister with responsibility for justice, Michael McDowell, was working with Confidential Investigations Athlone on this issue because the company believed it was being double-crossed by former employees.

It is somewhat unusual that shortly after the investigation the Chief of Staff updated the Defence Forces policy on off-duty employment. The Defence Forces must have seen something that was not completely in order. Does the Minister agree that the testimony of a whistleblower would be critical to an investigation of this order? The Minister has referred to the person in question as a third party and that may be so. I cannot say for certain how much validity there is in the case, but I found it odd that a person who brought the information into the public domain and who informed the Defence Forces about it was not interviewed. Does the Minister not believe that would be a good idea?

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you, Deputy. I will come back to you.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As the Deputy is aware, these are matters that go back prior to my time in office.

If a person provides information that appears to be hearsay from a third party, if the person who provides the information is not involved in it, and if the person whom the Deputy apparently describes as a whistleblower - anyone who has information about anything - provides the information on the condition that no one is told who they are, that they are not interviewed and they do not talk to anyone, I cannot understand how the Deputy can complain that the person who gave the information and requested that their identity would not be revealed and said that they would not talk to anybody could now complain that no one talked to them.

If an issue or allegation is being made by a company operating in this State of illegality and improper conduct on the part of a member or members of the Defence Forces, the company should put the allegation in writing and send it to me and I will have it investigated, as opposed to people going through circuitous routes. There is no need for people to be anonymous. If there is a serious allegation that someone has behaved illegally, that something illegal has happened relating to the Defence Forces, the person making the allegation should set out the factual basis for the allegation. If I am furnished with the information, I will have the matter investigated. However, if the matter involves the purchase of weapons in the Seychelles, the information I am given - assuming it is the incident I am advised the Deputy is addressing and we are both talking about the same incident - is that weapons were purchased legitimately by the Seychelles Government. I am further advised that no members of the Defence Forces behaved illegally or unlawfully.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you, Minister. I must call Deputy Wallace.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If there are serious allegations to be made, let the people making them set them out in writing, detail the evidence and furnish it to me.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand that the person concerned gave his name, so he was not an anonymous contributor. I will put the Minister’s offer to him. I know the incident did not happen on the Minister’s watch. It happened long before his time. I will put it to the individual concerned that the Minister has offered to examine whatever evidence he supplies.