Ever since the reports appeared in The Sunday Times on the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC, being placed under surveillance, the Government, in particular the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, has sought until now to undermine public confidence in GSOC and essentially rubbish the allegations about the alleged surveillance. The Taoiseach told an untruth, deliberately or otherwise, about GSOC's reporting obligations under the legislation to the Government. That very cleverly switched the focus early on from whether the office had been bugged to the reason GSOC had not reported the matter to the Minister. Last Tuesday when he addressing the Dáil, the Minister essentially said, "There is nothing to report here. Please move on," and he withheld vital information given to him by GSOC in written form. If we look at his statement and contrast it with GSOC's document, it is fascinating to note the deliberate omissions by the Minister, matters he should have placed before the Dáil last Tuesday evening. They include, for example, the security company which was brought in to do the sweep stating the level of technology used was only available to government agencies. The Minister did not say this. In regard to threat No. 2, the conference call facility, the likelihood of the threat being benign was so small as to be at virtually zero. Again, this was air-brushed out of the Minister's presentation. Critically, a public interest investigation was launched pursuant to section 102(4) of the Garda Síochána Act of 2005; essentially, as gardaí were suspects in GSOC's perspective, there was, therefore, the invocation of that section of the Act.

A question, please.

I understand the Government has now decided to set up some form of inquiry, but does the Taoiseach accept that the Minister for Justice and Equality fundamentally withheld very basic and vital information that was in the public interest from the House last Tuesday evening? Is he satisfied with the Minister's behaviour in this entire episode?

The Deputy is over time.

I was reminded of what Ombudsman, Mr. Peter Tyndall, had said and ask the Taoiseach if concurs with him. He stated:

My job is answerable to the Oireachtas. It is not answerable to individual Ministers.

Does the Taoiseach accept that the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission is not answerable to him or the Minister?

I reject the Deputy's assertion that the Minister for Justice and Equality set out to deliberately undermine GSOC. This is a matter on which there has been a great deal of confusion in the last period.

Well organised by the Taoiseach.

I apologised to the House for the reference to section 80(5); I had misquoted the section of the Act. However, the point is that in regard to the responsibility of GSOC which is to oversee the Garda Síochána, when GSOC initiates a public investigation into a matter of public interest, it can only be about the Garda.

In that sense, section 103 states that the commission shall provide the Minister with information regarding what it has done. GSOC has dealt with that issue. The commission stated that it considered the decision to be very difficult, it chose not to inform the Minister at the time and it regretted that. The matter has been dealt with.

It was carpeted by the Minister.

Under section 103 of the Act, where an investigation of public interest into the Garda is initiated by GSOC, it is required to report. The Minister for Justice and Equality will go before the Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions. That committee was set up by this Government and it now deals with this purpose. The Minister has no difficulty in going before the committee to deal with whatever questions, concerns or anxieties members of the committee might have. The Minister's sole remit is to obtain the facts and the truth because, as we have said on many occasions, it is imperative that the working relationship between and the integrity and credibility of the Garda Síochána and GSOC be maintained at the highest level. Under section 103, the duties imposed by subsection 1 do not extend to requiring the ombudsman to provide information where disclosure would, in its opinion, prejudice a criminal investigation or prosecution, jeopardise a person's safety or for any other reason is not in the public interest.

What is the relevance of that?

Will the Taoiseach repeat that?

The Government considered the matter this morning. The Minister briefed the Cabinet on the events that have occurred in the GSOC controversy following from the committee's hearing last Wednesday. He also briefed the Cabinet in regard to further information and documentation received from GSOC since then and further technical information he has received regarding the alleged surveillance of GSOC. In light of all of that information and his briefing, the Cabinet decided to appoint a retired High Court judge to review all of these papers and reports completely independently -----

Roll over.

-----and to inquire into all matters of relevance. It is more than two weeks since this controversy developed. The Minister announced that he would be bringing to Cabinet a number of amendments to the Garda Síochána Act 2005 relating to GSOC and it was agreed at today's Cabinet meeting that the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality will be asked to hold hearings for members of the public, agencies and organisations. I have heard a number of comments from noted members of the public about the inefficiency of the law in this regard. The joint committee will hear views on how the law should be changed or amended, and will furnish its findings to the Minister. The Minister will appear before the Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions to address any questions, anxieties, concerns or issues that members may have fully, openly and comprehensively in the interest of truth and the facts.

They will need counsellors.

The only people who have been endeavouring to sow confusion on this issue are the Taoiseach and the Minister. I ask the Taoiseach to clarify the role and remit of the retired High Court judge. Can we expect a commission of inquiry under the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004 or simply the appointment of a retired judge to review documentation and make subsequent recommendations? Is that the scale of what will happen in respect of a matter that is extremely important?

I put it to the Taoiseach that the Minister did not level with the Dáil last week. He did not share written information that was in his possession because he wanted to down play the entire matter by saying it was just a bottle of smoke. One could hear the message on the news bulletins over the following 24 hours that we should move on because it was a bottle of smoke. The members of the commission had to go on "Prime Time" to bury that notion. The Minister did not refer to the fact that a public interest investigation had been invoked, that government level technology was being used or that the likelihood that the threats were benign was remote or close to zero. He should man up and apologise to the House for his behaviour on this issue and the manner in which he treated GSOC. The issue is wider than this. I raised it with the Taoiseach last week and it is not going away because I will be raising it again this week. There is something fundamentally wrong at the very core of the administration of justice. The Minister has taken the wrong route on this issue and on a number of other issues that go to the very heart of the administration of justice in this country. I know that certain Ministers know this. It is time the Taoiseach wised up to it.

I suggest to Deputy Martin, as leader of the Fianna Fáil Party, that if he has information about the maladministration of justice in this country it is his duty and bounden responsibility to bring it to the notice of the Minister for Justice and Equality.

Deputy Martin can look up all the trees.

The way that the Minister has acted gives me little confidence.

I advise the Deputy that if he has information to back up what he has just said in this House as the leader of his party, he has a duty to bring it to the notice of the Minister and to do so in person. That has happened on many occasions previously. I was speaking about the appointment of a retired High Court judge to review all of the documentation and reports that have been produced on this matter to date. That will be done completely independently.

Just a review.

I said: "to review all of the documentation and reports" under terms of reference set by the Minister for Justice and Equality -----

This is farcical.

-----and the Attorney General, to report to the Minister within eight weeks.

To whom will the judge be answerable?

If Deputy Martin wants to question the independence of a High Court judge, he can do so. The judge will look at all the documentation, the process, the technical reports and the statements that have come from everybody in a completely dispassionate and independent way and report to the Minister in the next eight weeks.

Interview the Minister and report to the Minister.

I repeat that if Deputy Martin has information about the maladministration of justice in this country, he should bring it to the notice of the Minister for Justice and Equality.

The Minister can write the report.

Will he or she be an independent judge?

It is evident from the Taoiseach's stance that he has been brought to the position of commissioning an independent inquiry very reluctantly. It is also a matter of fact that we have clear cut information on the matter and it is on the record that the Minister was less than forthcoming in his account to the Dáil. His account of matters did not tally with the document he received from GSOC. I ask the Taoiseach his response to that matter and what he intends to do about it.

We need clarity on the proposed inquiry. All we know thus far is that it will involve the appointment of a retired High Court judge. Will the Taoiseach provide the Dáil with the full terms of reference for this inquiry? Why is the Minister for Justice and Equality setting the terms of reference? He has hardly covered himself in glory throughout this episode. What powers will the judge have and how much access will he or she be given to the systems and documents of An Garda Síochána? Will he or she be able to draw on a panel of experts who can read, understand and interpret technical data and matters relating to surveillance? This cannot be confined to the appointment of a judge to review documents. That is not sufficient. We need a thoroughgoing investigation that is fully equipped with the necessary expertise and powers to compel witnesses and papers so that the investigators can make balanced judgments and findings of fact. Why is the judge being asked to report to the Minister for Justice and Equality? Given that GSOC is accountable in the first instance to the Oireachtas, is it not more appropriate that the judge, following a full inquiry such as I have outlined, would report to these Houses?

Surely Deputy McDonald is not questioning the independence and objectivity of a High Court judge. I do not expect she is insinuating that in her comments here. The High Court judge will be appointed shortly. The terms of reference will be drawn up by the Minister for Justice and Equality with the advice of the Attorney General.

That is the problem.

Of course, those terms of reference will be published. It means the High Court will have access to all of the documents and all of the technical reports. With regard to the requirement for clarity about the sophisticated technical issues in those documents, he will have the opportunity to have expert personnel explain what those complex technicalities might be. These can be difficult for many to understand.

Statements.

Deputy McDonald's point about balanced judgment is fair, and I expect that the decision taken by the Government here is a decision in the interests of finding fact and truth from all the documents, comments and statements, some of which have been quite confusing. It is important that that clarity brings the issue of the integrity of both GSOC and the Garda Síochána right into play here. For that reason, the decision of the Government to have the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality reflect in public hearings on the efficiency, effectiveness and robustness of the law is important. There have been many claims made about that. There is also the decision already announced by the Minister for Justice and Equality to make changes to the Garda Síochána Act in so far as GSOC is concerned to make it more accountable, transparent and professional in the issue of the Act.

There are a number of processes here: the Oireachtas committee, the High Court judge, the Minister going before the committee tomorrow and the Private Members' motion that takes place here today and tomorrow. In all of these, the interest of the Government is to see that what has emerged out of all of these hearings leads to a conclusion in which the law can be made absolutely clear and transparent, in which there is integrity, belief and trust in both organisations, which have an important job to do, and to ensure that the committee in due course will respond to the Minister, for public discussion here, on recommendations in so far as the Act might be changed or amended.

The Taoiseach knows full well that I was not questioning the independence of any member of the Judiciary, much less this judge, whoever she or he may be. Is he establishing this inquiry under the 2004 legislation?

No.

We have clarity on that.

The Taoiseach is entrusting the setting of the terms of reference for this inquiry - it is an inquiry, not a review - to the Minister for Justice and Equality. Can the Taoiseach see how there is a difficulty not only for Members of the Dáil but for members of the public with that approach? The Minister, Deputy Shatter, has been deliberately evasive and has used tactics deliberately to distract attention from the issues at play in respect of this GSOC debacle. He has done that consistently and all of us, not only here but in the wider public, know that. Why leave the terms of reference in his hands? Why ask that inquiry to report back directly to him? Why would this inquiry not report to the Houses of the Oireachtas? Can we be guaranteed, for instance, that the full report, as and when it finds its way back to the Minister, will be made public? We need reassurances on these matters. We also need assurance that the judge in question will not only have access willy-nilly to expertise should the need arise, but will have an established panel of experts to assist that person in carrying out his or her inquiry. The judge would also have to know that he or she would have the power to compel, if necessary, different individuals, including, perhaps, the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, to co-operate with the inquiry and, for that matter, the Garda Commissioner or any personnel from GSOC.

We are over time.

It is important that the Taoiseach clarifies and is specific on these matters this evening. I take from Taoiseach's remarks that he and his Government colleagues will be supporting the Sinn Féin motion when it comes before the House for debate this evening and for a vote tomorrow evening.

Call in Maxwell Smart.

The Government will not be supporting the Sinn Féin motion, aided and abetted by Fianna Fáil, in this matter. The Minister will introduce a clear set of amendments to Sinn Féin's motion which are in the interests of bringing about clarity, transparency, fact and truth.

Anything but.

It is typical of Deputy McDonald to play the old political football in all of this. This is not an inquiry under the 2004 Act. The terms of reference are being set by the Minister for Justice and Equality as advised by the Attorney General. Is Deputy McDonald insinuating that the Attorney General is in any way complicit in something that might not be fair and objective?

The Attorney General only gives advice when the Government has a question on a point-----

The Attorney General never decides policy.

Members, settle down, please.

Nor do I accept that the Minister for Justice and Equality was trying to distract people's attention from the basic issues at stake here.

Just like the Taoiseach now.

Was the Taoiseach listening to him?

The Minister was given a written brief by the chairman of GSOC.

We have it. We know.

The Minister reported to the Dáil on that. He goes before the committee tomorrow, where Deputy Mac Lochlainn, who is beside Deputy McDonald, can ask him any question he wishes in regard to this matter. I quite sure Deputy Shatter will deal comprehensively and at length with all of this for Deputy Mac Lochlainn.

The question is: will the Minister answer?

The Taoiseach is allowing him do that.

Would Deputy Dooley ever stay quiet and let Deputy McDonald hear a reply to her question?

Of course, the judge's full report, unredacted, will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas and will be discussed by them because, from a Government point of view, what we need here is to look at all of these papers, statements and technical reports and see, arising out of all of this, what is best to do.

Will they call witnesses?

In the meantime, Deputy Stanton's committee will reflect on the efficiency, effectiveness and robustness of the law, take into account public hearings from those personnel and others who have been forthright about their views on the law as it currently stands, and make recommendations to the Minister for Justice and Equality.

Can the judge call witnesses? Can the judge compel witnesses?

We are over time.

This is not an inquiry for calling witnesses.

We are way over time.

It is not an inquiry, just a review.

Of course, the judge will have at his disposal the opportunity to have expertise available in respect of complex technical equipment.

It is not a statutory review.

It is a librarian exercise.

It is not an inquiry under the 2004 Act.

The judge cannot call witnesses.

Sorry-----

It is an opportunity for a judge of the High Court to review all of these papers and present-----

So it is not an inquiry.

-----a completely objective and independent report to the Minister for Justice and Equality in the interests of sorting this out.

One could get a librarian to do that.