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

Questions Nos. 1 and 2 will be taken together.

Niall Collins (Limerick, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

1. To ask the Minister for Justice and Equality the reasons behind his decision to relieve the Garda confidential recipient of his duties; his plans to change his relationship with the office; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9777/14]

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

2. To ask the Minister for Justice and Equality in view of the fact that the Garda confidential recipient has been relieved of his duties, the arrangements in place for members of An Garda Síochána who wish to make a complaint. [9946/14]

Niall Collins (Limerick, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Following the removal of Mr. Oliver Connolly from his position as confidential recipient, the Minister for Justice and Equality stated that he was asked to step down or was removed because he did not repudiate or deny what was in the transcript of the conversation between himself and Sergeant Maurice McCabe. I ask the Minister to expand on that statement and to outline the change in his relationship with that office now. I also ask him to state whether he has minutes of his meetings with the confidential recipient since his appointment.

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

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.

I was surprised that Deputy Collins raised this matter because it is my recollection that approximately one week prior to me relieving Mr. Connolly of his position, Deputy Micheál Martin said that his position was untenable and I had presumed that Deputy Collins agreed with that.

I detailed in the Dáil yesterday my reasons for relieving the confidential recipient of his duties. The background to this matter is as follows. The Garda Síochána (Confidential Reporting of Corruption or Malpractice) Regulations 2007, made under the Garda Síochána Act 2005, provide for the appointment of an independent confidential recipient. The independent confidential recipient was designed to enable members of the force and civilian support staff to report, in confidence, instances where they believe there may be corruption or malpractice within the Garda Síochána. Mr. Oliver Connolly was appointed as confidential recipient with effect from 18 July 2011 for a three year period. The appointment followed the required consultation with the Garda Commissioner, the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, the Garda Inspectorate, the Garda representative associations and the trade unions or staff associations representing civilian staff.

Rumours were circulating for some time regarding the existence of an alleged tape and transcript of a confidential conversation between Mr. Connolly and Sergeant Maurice McCabe. Given the importance of the office's confidentiality, no Minister for Justice and Equality could properly seek out such a transcript or tape. However, following an alleged extract from the alleged tape being placed on the Dáil record, I asked my Department to contact Mr. Connolly outlining my concerns that if the conversation as reported had taken place, then his actions had undermined the office of the confidential recipient.

Contacts with Mr. Connolly over the following two weeks did not satisfy me as to his response to the controversy. I wrote to him on 19 February 2014 and informed him that, in the context of his failure to unequivocally repudiate the content of the alleged conversation or take the necessary action to restore public confidence in the office of confidential recipient, I believed his position was untenable and I had no alternative but to relieve him of that position.

I have publicly said that I do not believe the office of confidential recipient and the legislation applicable to it is fulfilling the objective for which it was established. I have stated my intention to abolish the office and to enable members of An Garda Síochána who allege misconduct within the force to have their complaints considered and addressed by the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission. The Cabinet has agreed in principle that an appropriate amendment to the Protected Disclosures Bill 2013 should be prepared to enable the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission to be prescribed under that Bill as a body to which disclosures may be made by members of the Garda Síochána.

Interim arrangements will be made to fill the post of confidential recipient by the appointment of a retired judge. Every effort will be made to expedite the necessary consultation process so that the appointment can be made as soon as possible.

Niall Collins (Limerick, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister did not tell us whether minutes are kept in his Department of any meetings that he has had with the confidential recipient and I ask him to address that question. The Minister has also not addressed the fundamental issue here. What is contained in the transcript is not disputed by anybody, including by the Minister himself, but the Minister asked the confidential recipient to deny what he has said. Mr. Connolly said what he said and obviously he is standing over what he said to Sergeant Maurice McCabe and the Minister has removed him on that basis. That points to a very peculiar situation that the Minister is not addressing in terms of the comments that the confidential recipient made to Sergeant Maurice McCabe. In any event, I will be asking the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality to invite Mr. Oliver Connolly before it. Does the Minister support that proposal?

My colleague, Deputy John McGuinness, yesterday raised the issue of another Garda whistleblower to whom he has spoken and raised directly with the Minister her dealings with the confidential recipient. Is the Minister aware of that? Has he spoken to the confidential recipient about it or has he knowledge or detail in that regard?

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

I will take the Deputy's questions in reverse order. My only knowledge of the issue raised by Deputy McGuinness is what he said in this House yesterday and on "Morning Ireland" on RTE radio this morning. I do not have any knowledge of the matter.

I do not have knowledge of conversations that a confidential recipient has with members of An Garda Síochána. The essence of the office, as it was established when the Deputy's party was in Government, is that conversations take place between members of An Garda Síochána and the appointed confidential recipient in confidence. My only knowledge of the alleged conversation that the confidential recipient had with Sergeant McCabe initially derived from the reports of the content of the transcript that was allegedly made. It was an obvious cause of concern. I presume the Deputy is aware of why his party leader said that the confidential recipient's position was untenable. The confidential recipient, any previous one and whoever is appointed even temporarily, must ensure that a member of the force who comes to him or her has absolute confidence that an issue raised or a complaint made would be treated with seriousness, and that there is no question of them being under a threat of any nature from me or any Minister for Justice and Equality. What was said was absolutely unacceptable. It is something Deputies continue to repeat with great glee in this House. There is no question of my treating anybody in that fashion.

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

I call Deputy Mac Lochlainn. There are time limits on these questions.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How can there be time limits? This is Priority Questions. I should have two minutes on the clock.

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

The Deputy has one minute.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is two minutes and one minute, so why have I not been given two minutes?

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

It is two minutes for the Minister and one minute for each Deputy.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, this is Priority Questions, so it is two minutes and one minute for the Opposition spokespersons. Why are there not two minutes on the clock?

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

It is one minute.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will the Leas-Cheann Comhairle clarify why it is one minute? This question has been grouped with another one and, as spokespersons, we should not be disadvantaged. Usually I would have two minutes and then one minute. Why are there not two minutes on the clock?

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

The Deputy does not have two minutes plus one minute.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is Priority Questions, so it is two minutes plus one minute. I should not be disadvantaged because the questions have been grouped. I should have two minutes. Is there less time if questions are grouped?

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

There is not less time. There are two minutes for the Minister to reply and a minute for each supplementary question.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Do we only have one minute?

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

Yes.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What are the normal times for a priority question taken alone?

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

It is two minutes and one minute for a supplementary question.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Therefore, we get 30 seconds, one minute and one minute.

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

It is 30 seconds, two minutes for the Minister and one minute each for every supplementary question.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We get two minutes in total. I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for clarifying that.

When Oliver Connolly was appointed, the Minister testified to his character as an honourable man. Since he has been relieved of his duties, and I do not know the man personally, it has been reported that he is a respected solicitor. There is no question about this man's character. Why did he find himself having that type of conversation with Maurice McCabe? Why did he say the things he said? What has not been focused upon is what he said about the very close relationship the Minister has with the Garda Commissioner, which I have criticised for a long time. I am seeking the Minister's view on why a man who is honourable and decent, as the Minister testified and which has been confirmed by other peers, would say the words he spoke. Does the Minister have a view on what led him to give that advice to Maurice McCabe and to be concerned for Maurice McCabe in that way?

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

I can state quite categorically that I find the whole thing a complete mystery. I have absolutely no idea what Mr. Connolly was thinking. I have had very limited contact with Mr. Connolly in the context of his role as confidential recipient. I recalled from memory last evening, and there are no notes of this, that following receipt of his letter of 23 January 2012 there was a brief conversation in which he emphasised to me that these were important issues to be followed up. However, I did not have regular meetings with him. His job was to engage confidentially with members of An Garda Síochána.

To be frank, I am utterly astonished at some of the commentary that has now come into the public arena. I do not understand why he conducted himself in that way. He has a very good reputation as a sound lawyer and mediator. It remains as much of a surprise and mystery to me as I expect it should be to others. I cannot explain this. I can only say that it was an approach I regarded as untenable in the context of the important role of confidential recipient.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister intimated that there will be a replacement for Oliver Connolly. What will be the arrangement? What will the arrangement be in the interim? I presume the Minister intends to move to a position where gardaí, regardless of the issue, will go directly to GSOC in future. Will he clarify that?

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

As I said a number of times before any of these controversies arose, my judgment was that the office of confidential recipient did not work. I concluded, having been Minister for some time, that it was not appropriate that these matters are dealt with in this way. It was unsatisfactory. I brought a proposal to the Cabinet that the Bill brought forward by my colleague, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, be amended, which it will be on Committee Stage. It will require some modifications to what is already in the Bill to ensure that members of An Garda Síochána can bring complaints directly to GSOC. Of course, it will take some weeks for that Bill to be enacted. It has been passed by the Seanad but it must go through Committee Stage in this House and any amendments made by this House must go back to the Seanad. It will be some weeks but I was concerned to ensure there will not be an enormous gap.

One cannot instantly appoint a replacement. The view I expressed, and with which my Cabinet colleagues agreed, was that we should appoint a retired judge. I will consider the individual in consultation with the Attorney General. We must go through the consultative process that I described. As soon as that is completed, either by next week or hopefully the following week at the latest, there will be a new confidential recipient appointed. The confidential recipient will be in place on an interim basis pending the relevant part of the Minister, Deputy Howlin's, legislation becoming operative, which I hope will happen with some speed. We are dependent on the legislative process for that and on the work required in finalising the amendments that are necessary in the Bill.