Differing Coalition views on GSOC

While Taoiseach Enda Kenny and Tánaiste Eamon Gilmore yesterday sought to defuse the controversy over alleged bugging of the Garda Siochana Ombudsman Commission, there have been differing political views within the Coalition.

Late last week, Minister for Communications Pat Rabbitte criticised Garda Commissioner Martin Callinan's insistence that no members of the force were involved in any surveillance, and his dismissal that rogue elements of the force could be involved.

Minister for Education Ruairí Quinn has also been critical of the handling of the affair, and said Minister for Justice Alan Shatter "needed to respect the authority of GSOC and its accountability to the Oireachtas".

“I don’t think it’s been terribly well handled,” Mr Quinn said. “There has been a lot of uncertainty.”

Mr Gilmore yesterday said he is satisfied no organ of the State was involved in the bugging of the GSOC but Labour is pushing for Mr Shatter to clear up the controversy quickly, and, from a Government perspective, the Minister for Justice must put it in a confident performance at Wednesday's Oireachtas Committee hearing to shut down Opposition demands for an independent inquiry.

Mr Gilmore yesterday bought some time on that front and said the process put in train by the committee, which is chaired by Sinn Féin TD Pádraig Mac Lochlainn, must be allowed run its course.

Minister for Social Protection Joan Burton hinted at what it is expected of Mr Shatter, and basically said he needs to eliminate the need for an expensive independent inquiry.

Questions arising
"He has come into the Dail and he has made a statement to the Dáil," Ms Burton told Newstalk radio. "People have questions arising from that. He has agreed to go into the committee and talk to the committee.

“If you want for instance instead to have some very, very long and lengthy investigation that will take two or three years and the end it will tell us nothing. I am not in favour of that.”

Ms Burton’s statement reveals a common feeling within Labour, with many uneasy about Mr Shatter’s statement to the Dail last week and how it differed from subsequent accounts given by the GSOC itself.

Fine Gael backbenchers have largely rowed in behind Shatter, and would be expected to provide him with political cover at the committee on Wednesday.

However, Mr Mac Lochlainn, who was praised for his steady chairmanship when the GSOC appeared before the committee last week, has now come in for criticism himself.

Fine Gael parliamentary party chairman Charlie Flanagan is a member of the Oversight Committee, and accused Mr Mac Lochlainn of having a conflict of interest because of his role as Sinn Féin justice spokesman.

“As Sinn Féin’s justice spokesperson he has expressed strong opinions on the GSOC controversy,” Mr Flanagan, a Laois-Offaly deputy, said.

'Sound judgement'
"However, as chair of the committee he must at all times be seen to exercise independence, sound judgement and discretion. On the one hand he is calling for an independent inquiry, on the other hand as chair he must be seen to give all sides a fair hearing before coming to any conclusions.

“Deputy Mac Lochlainn’s behaviour and utterances have the potential to undermine the integrity of the committee.”

Five questions still to be answered

Why didn't Mr Shatter fully detail the GSOC's suspicions it may have been bugged, and that it believed An Garda Síochána may have been involved, when he gave his statement to the Dáil?

Will the UK company’s report on the security sweep at the GSOC be published in full to clarify the various differences among the parties including what prompted it in the first place?

What exactly prompted the sweep? Was it because GSOC believed a senior officer had access to confidential information in its possession? If so, who was the senior officer involved?

Did the comments by the senior officer referenced in the security report refer to the case of Kieran Boylan, a convicted drugs trafficker from Louth, whom some gardaí are alleged to have allowed smuggle drugs in exchange for setting up arrests?

If there were misunderstandings, why wasn’t the UK report changed instead of letting it sit on the record?