Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
IT’S EXPECTED THE Sunday Times will publish further details tomorrow on the security sweep carried out last year at the Garda Ombudsman Commission’s Dublin offices. GSOC Chairman Simon O’Brien said as much himself on Wednesday, telling an Oireachtas committee he was expected another “early Sunday morning”.
The issue of what happened at the garda watchdog body’s offices, and the political handling of the emerging controversy made the headlines every day this week. Given the potential for more revelations tomorrow, and the fact that Justice Minister Alan Shatter’s due to appear before the same Oireachtas panel next week — it looks unlikely that the story will go away anytime soon.
If you haven’t been keeping up to date — here’s a quick run down of the main developments since last Sunday morning, with a particular focus on the disagreement that developed in the latter half of the week between Shatter and O’Brien.
[Photocall Ireland]
John Mooney of The Sunday Times broke the story, writing that a “sophisticated surveillance operation” was used to hack into emails, wi-fi and phone systems at GSOC’s Abbey Street building.
The Times reported:
The espionage was uncovered last year after GSOC hired a British security consultancy to investigate whether its headquarters in Abbey Street, Dublin, and its internal communications system were bugged.
There were immediate calls for Justice Minister Alan Shatter to clarify what had gone on, and to declare whether he had previously been aware of the UK firm’s security sweep.
Fianna Fáil’s justice spokesman Niall Collins said:
“The minister needs to come forward and explain whether he has spoken to the Ombudsman and whether he was aware of this surveillance.“If he was, he needs to explain why on Earth this was going on. If he wasn’t — we need to get answers very quickly on who is responsible.”
Justice Minister Alan Shatter called GSOC Chairman Simon O’Brien in for a meeting at the Department, and was given a written and oral briefing on the security sweep.
Various Cabinet members commented at press events throughout the day that what was being reported appeared “sinister”.
Simon O’Brien [Niall Carson/PA Wire]
In a statement that night , GSOC said that its database had not been compromised but that “three technical and electronic anomalies” were found that could not be “conclusively explained” when a security sweep of communications systems was carried out last year.
The statement also said there had been “no evidence of Garda misconduct”.
Later, Garda Commissioner Martin Callinan released a statement of his own — taking issue with that line:
“It is a cause of grave concern that the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission’s statement contains a clear indication that An Garda Síochána was in some way suspected of complicity in this matter despite GSOC’s overall finding that the existence of technical and electronic anomalies could not be conclusively explained.”
Alan Shatter told the Dáil that An Garda Síochána had been subject to “baseless innuendo” over the previous 48 hours, and said a narrative had emerged suggesting that the force had some involvement in surveillance at the GSOC offices.
The Minister said:
“It has not been established that the offices of the Ombudsman Commission were under surveillance.”
Later, Garda Ombudsman Commissioner Kieran Fitzgerald appeared on RTÉ’s Prime Time, and said that while there had been no “definitive evidence” of surveillance at the offices, he could not entirely rule it out either.
“It would be lovely to be able to say we could be certain one way or the other,” Fitzgerald said.
[Image: RTÉ Screengrab]
GSOC Chairman Simon O’Brien also held a meeting with Garda Commissioner Martin Callinan on Tueday to discuss developments to date, and to address Callinan’s issue with the previous night’s press statement.
GSOC Chairman Simon O’Brien appeared before the Oireachtas Public Oversight Committee.
He said that while there was no evidence of spying:
“I certainly suspect or potentially suspect that we may have been under some form of surveillance.”
Following the meeting, chairman of the committee (and Sinn Féin justice spokesman) Pádraig Mac Lochlainn TD said that the members had “grave concerns about some of the issues raised”.
The committee requested an unredacted copy of the report carried out by the UK security firm, and asked that the Justice Minister appear before the panel next week to give his take on the saga.
[Image: Oireachtas.ie]
Eamon Gilmore told the Dáil he was satisfied that no arm of the State had put the Garda Siochána Ombudsman Commission (GSOC) under surveillance.
The Tánaiste also described the surveillance claims as “serious” and said that the intention of the committee to speak to Shatter about the issue was “the right course of action”.
In a Prime Time interview that night, Shatter took issue with O’Brien’s comments before the oversight committee, and said the GSOC chairman’s public testimony had diverged from what he had been told in the pair’s meeting on Monday.
Shatter said that the information he gave to the Dáil had been “based entirely” on the oral and written briefing he’d received from O’Brien and on GSOC’s press release.
[Image: RTÉ Screengrab]
And when asked about the apparent differences between the two interpretations of what had happened, Shatter said:
“I’m very conscious that Mr O’Brien and the other members of GSOC were at a committee meeting for up to four hours and a series of questions were put to them.“During the course of that event there were different answers given with regard to particular issues.
“Indeed, some of what was said during the course of that seemed to me to be a little confused or contradictory.”
Shatter stressed that there had been nothing in the oral or written briefing or in the press statement that indicated O’Brien or other GSOC members believed they had been spied upon.
He also said he had written to the Commission, asking it to clarify if it believed it was under surveillance.
Garda Commissioner Martin Callinan made his first public comment since the bugging reports first emerged. In an appearance alongside Shatter at a garda event in Templemore, the force commander said he was satisfied no member of the gardaí had ever spied on GSOC:
“I want to unequivocally state that at no stage was any member of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission or any of its members under surveillance by An Garda Síochána.”
[Image: Garda Info]
At the same event, Shatter was asked by reporters to specifically state that he had full confidence in Simon O’Brien as GSOC chairman, after he had declined to do so on RTÉ the previous night.
The Minister replied:
“I have confidence in GSOC, I have confidence in the GSOC Commission. I’m not going to differentiate between individual members because it’s the commission and they make decisions collectively.”
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
More useful would be a realistic way to eject the TDs that are there, something the population could use rather than the current situation where the government just brazens it out until the next election.
Wonder how they were put into power in the first place. Oh that’s right, the Irish public voted…
I agree in a certain way. I think that parties must be accountable for election promises with fines, and possible expulsions from parliament as penalties. This would have to be handled by a (possibly elected) third party of course, as allowing a howling mob to be in control would destroy the country’s ability for any kind of long term thinking.
You want another elected paid group to police promises made in elections? Do you understand the system of coalition? We would never get another govt other than one with an overall majority which is rare. Unworkable unrealistic suggestion.
Recalling elected representatives isn’t complicated, the yanks can do it for feck sake. Set a percentage of the electorate, say for example two quotas from the previous election, get that many signatures on a recall petition and have a recall election for that constituency.
Politicians should be elected on a National basis, just as the president was voted for.(it can be done) Candidates would then have to lay out National politics with national debate and not the parish pump nonsense we have suffered for years. If our TDs were elected by the “all the people” and they wanted to stay in power they would have to look after the Nations interests rather than getting the local potholes filled in and jobs organised for the neighbours cousins, uncles, brothers friend. It is time for a Minister for Health, Education etc who has all our interests at heart rather than his/her own re-election area. The system we have is not broken, it never worked.
You’d still have local canvassing, constituencies would still exist de facto as candidates would know how many votes they need. Local promises would continue.
We need national elections aimed at electing national politicians whose job would be to run the country. They should have no power over local issues which would be left to local government to run.
I like the idea of exploring alternative options to our current system – however, the idea of parties able to elect people themselves to “represent us” screams of cronyism.
The plan where you can vote for a party but also vote for the order of candidates does interests me however – anything that would move TDs from obsessing with local issues, is something we need to explore.
System changes will improve nothing however until we as a society change. Our representatives will do whatever it takes to get elected – and in Ireland, that means fixing potholes, calling the passport office etc.
This low level cronyism will attract a certain type of person.
Never voting again after the strokes the labor party pulled after the last election… Waste of time when they say a manifesto is only a passive document
If you don’t vote Linda then your opinion doesn’t matter. Your letting others make the decisions for you.
Then protest Linda…. apathy is exactly what these crooks are looking to foster among the electorate
The pr/stv system is not a bad system and much better than a first past the post system, had we used that system Brian lenihan not Mary Robinson would have been president. I’m interested in getting more information about the mixed system. Certainly a move away from 3/4 seat constituencies is a must. Local politicians such as councillors should be dealing with more local and personal issues rather than people having to go to a td to get things done, often things that if civil servants were more helpful we could deal with ourselves. Many great ideas and points were raised at the first convention on this and I would encourage people to watch it online particularly the next one on June 8/9. The convention is a great idea with the majority of people involved being ordinary citizens giving us a real say in shaping the future of irish politics. Some of the other points that came up at the last one were the education of children in politics beyond the junior cert and the lowering of the voting age to get them voting. The appointment of non dail members to cabinet. Doing away with by elections. Less td’s. roll of party whips, changes to the voting slip and much more
PR-STV is hands down the best system.
The reason its rare is because parties hate the system because it gives the electorate a lot of control. It is no wonder FF tried to get rid of STV twice through referenda in the past. Indeed STV was voted in in British Columbia by over 50% of the electorate, but, because they could, the parties were able to reject the overwhelming mandate to introduce it.
STV is also really really important in terms of avoiding extremist parties. The transferable vote acts in such a way that collectively, people also decide who NOT to vote for, rather than just who to vote for. Bar Ireland, all European PR systems are infused with extremist parties who often hold the balance of power. The cynic might think this is worthwhile, but overall it is very negative.
The STV system is also open to whomever wants to run. It is very rare to have independent candidates. In other systems representatives are constrained by their leaders and are incentivised to do whatever they can to get on the list. The closed list systems like that of Germany ensure that it is Merkel’s chums that get top billing. This is pure cronyism and in our country it would be a disaster.
There are plenty of other avenues to achieve real reform. Opening up opportunities through local government would be one. In the UK there are annual local government elections where people interested in their local communities and in politics generally get to cut their proverbial teeth. In Ireland, we only have local elections every 5 years, which, is frankly ridiculous by international standards. As such access to the political system is left to those that have long-standing ties to politics, usually through their family..
We’re still going to end up with clowns no matter what we do….
That’s the kind of attitude that will lead to a ff resurgence. If you don’t vote your opinion doesn’t matter.
This is a democracy. We will get what we vote for.
This is a democracy but sometimes you gotta vote twice.
A simple draw from the Electoral Register.
If your name comes up you can accept or reject a seat in parliament.
At least every five years the people have a say in who they want to represent them. The list system deprives them of that option. It’s undemocratic!!!
One of the big failings in our system is that TD’s spend a lot of their time dealing with local issues to get re-elected. This is not their job. A list system would fix this. And as you vote for the party it’s democratic. If you don’t like names on list don’t vote for them.
Our system has a party whip which is never broken. We need to force ourselves away from parish politics and realise that parties are the political entities in Ireland, not individuals.
Without the whip system nothing would get done. TD’s would be under constant pressure from interest groups and not take tough decisions as opponents could single them out.
The sheer volume of TD’s should be the starting point. The article states 120 in New Zealand , a country of similar size to here. With all the ancillary staff each TD necessitates this is where the focus should be rather than messing around with voting systems.
Do you suggest more or less?
Not everybody lives in cork or Dublin.people in rural towns need representation in government.
Why can’t we just elect based on ability? E.g. Representatives should apply to be a TD for a particular health ministry as they would any job, therefore need to have the correct skills & experience for the job too – this can be party or non-party relevant
Is there anything to be said for a little bit of dictatorship?
If you don’t make it in on the first count, then your not wanted. One way to get rid of a load of overpaid waste of space T.D’s.
I find the people who think that ”First Past The Post” is a good idea while also moaning about the current government funny.
If GE 2011 would’ve been fought as FPTP this is how the seats would currently be distributed:
Fine Gael: 114
Labour: 32
Independents: 11
Sinn Fein: 6
Fianna Fail: 3
An excellent video explaining the discrepancies with the PR system.
I don’t know whether the system is wrong or do we need changing.
The whip system, seems a rigid as it was when the Irish parliamentarians used it is Westminster to get home rule bills passed.
Another change that would make a difference would be bringing back minority governments. This would mean legislation not introduced by the government could be passed.
PR-STV as a system was supposed to allow for smaller parties and it has mild success in this
First past the post, muted by the convention but mentioned in the comments, favours bigger parties and wouldn’t change much albeit the bigger parties would simply get majorities rather than joining with smaller parties
As for list systems I have an feeling that a closed party list system exists already. Candidates are chosen by their respective parties and then put to the people. The list system would make this more transparent perhaps.
The party list system is the worse of all possible methods. It places loyalty to party above all else and suppresses healthy debate within parties.
The voter cannot cross the gender/party/sectarian divide if the electoral system is not preferential. We should therefore keep PR-STV, reforming it perhaps by having larger constituencies – all 5-seaters, or all 6-seaters – and perhaps by a regional or national top-up; that or we go for the even better preferential system, the Quota Borda System, QBS, which hapoens to be much easier to count. It’s all on http://www.deborda.org
For the record, the constitution does NOT set an upper limit of 7 TDs per constituency – nor any other upper limit.
have your say