Ivana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Senator Mooney welcomed the decision to establish the independent review into the matters arising from the alleged bugging of Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC. Most people - not everyone - broadly welcomed the fact that an independent review is being established. Many individuals sought such a review. I recently criticised the Government's handling of this matter on radio. Many of us were concerned with regard to the drip-feeding of information from different sources as to what actually occurred and, in particular, the very recent information which emerged in respect of the technical findings contained in the Verrimus report. We are all operating in the dark because we have not seen that report or the letter of clarification provided by GSOC to the Minister, Deputy Shatter, on Friday last in respect of his request for clarification. The Minister will be appearing before the Joint Committee on Public Oversight and Petitions later today, a development I very much welcome. It is important that a committee of these Houses should hear directly from him as to the sequence of events relating to this matter and why the relevant information did not emerge more quickly. It will also be useful, however, to have a review carried out by a retired judge. A number of names have been circulated in that regard. It is essential and extremely important that there should be a clarification as to the sequence of events with regard to exactly what happened in this case and that the drip-feeding of information should cease.

Senator Mooney also sought a debate on the viability of the post office network. He referred to the briefing to be held later for Oireachtas Members and his concerns with regard to the use of An Post's facilities for electronic fund transfers. The Senator is seeking a debate with the Minister for Social Protection on this matter today. I cannot accept his amendment to the Order of Business. I would be happy to ask the Leader's office to arrange a debate on the viability of post offices. Having sought a briefing on the matter, I know the Government is committed to sustaining a strong and viable An Post and supports the maintenance of the maximum number of economically viable post offices. Ireland has one of the most extensive networks of post offices per head of population in Europe. There are 1,145 post offices and 141 postal agents. Some 65% of post offices are in rural areas and we are all aware of their huge importance to communities. I grew up in a small village in Cork and I distinctly recall the enormous role the post office there played in people's lives in the context of facilitating telephone calls through its exchange, postal deliveries, etc.

As a commercial State body, An Post faces a challenge. Mail volumes have fallen by 25% in the past five years. We are witnessing a real challenge to the traditional business of post offices.

The Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport and Communications produced a report on the sustainable future of the post office network in March 2013. I do not think we had a debate on that report, but I will check. If not, we could have a debate on the report and address many of the issues raised by colleagues. An Post is now bidding for other business, given the fall in mail volumes. For example, the local property tax is paid via An Post outlets, and An Post has been selected by the Department of Social Protection, following competitive tender, to provide over-the-counter cash services to social welfare recipients. I understand that it will pitch strongly for the e-payment of social welfare from the Department. That has not yet been allocated.

The closure of individual post offices is a matter for the board of An Post. The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and the Minister for Social Protection do not have a direct role in that, but I have set out Government policy as far as An Post is concerned and the position in which the company finds itself. However, I cannot accept the amendment today.

Senator Coghlan agreed on the welcome review of the GSOC controversy and rightly pointed out that it will take this issue out of the political arena, although I think the Oireachtas committee hearing is important today. The Senator also raised a concern about the liquidators of IBRC and a potential conflict of interest. I understand there is a case currently before the courts on this, so perhaps I will not comment any further on it other than to note the Senator's comments.

I am always happy to agree with my friend and colleague, Senator Norris, and to agree in particular that we are lucky to live in a wonderful country, especially on such a lovely sunny day. His comments on Java Republic made me think that it is time for us all to wake up and smell the coffee. He also mentioned the bugging of his own telephone in the 1980s. I seem to remember in the 1980s it was a badge of honour for all of us to have our phones bugged. We had our phones bugged in the Trinity College Students' Union, and we used to boast about it. Sadly, I cannot agree with the Senator's comment that the review is a waste of time. I think it will be very helpful to have an independent adjudicator come in and make sense of the myriad of different allegations, including the serious allegations of bugging at GSOC. The big question is whether GSOC was bugged and, if so, by whom. We still do not have an answer to that critical question and it is very important we get that. An independent review is the way to do it.

Senator Norris also referred to the debate on homophobia and free speech last night. I commend Senator Zappone on taking the initiative on it, which we all supported. I was very proud to second the motion she put forward. I thought it was an excellent debate. I thought the comments of the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, were also really important because he focused on the need to address the so-called 50-50 rule in the lead-up to a referendum debate on marriage equality next year. It is good that we have that debate now and that he invited the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland to look again at how that 50-50 rule is being implemented in practice. There is a question as to whether it is a rule that binds broadcasters. That was a very useful debate, and I am sorry that Senator Mullen was not here to listen to it and to the Minister's response in particular.

I had no knowledge in advance of the visit by Senators and one Deputy to Japan. I have made inquiries with the Seanad Leader's office. I understand that the invitation did not come through that office. In spite of being the leader of the Labour Party in the Seanad, I was not aware of the visit in advance, nor was the Labour Party Whip. I made queries internally within the party as to how the invitation was processed. It is not an invitation I would have wanted myself, but I wanted to see the process and I understand it came through the Whip's office. However, I will make further inquiries as to how an invitation apparently to Senators came through a Whip's office.