Gerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

It might be worthwhile to try to contextualise this a little. The former Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, was embroiled in a series of controversies brought to the attention of the Taoiseach and others by Garda whistleblowers John Wilson and Maurice McCabe. Many of the claims made by these two courageous public servants have since been vindicated. The response of the Government and the Garda Commissioner was to prevaricate. Then, the Garda confidential recipient resigned. That resignation was followed by that of the Garda Commissioner and then the Minister for Justice and Equality, an Teachta Dála Alan Shatter.

The Guerin report recommended that the Government establish a wide-ranging commission of investigation into allegations of misconduct in the Cavan-Monaghan Garda division, including allegations of malpractice and corruption made by sergeant Maurice McCabe. The manner in which the commission was established by the Government without a full and proper debate led to a walkout by Opposition Deputies. The Ceann Comhairle took the view, as he is perfectly entitled to, that no debate which strayed outside the terms of reference was possible as it would be in conflict with Standing Order 57. The Opposition parties took a different view.

My understanding of sub judicewas and is that it applies to cases involving juries. There was none in this case. I also understood - I said all of this at the time - that sub judicedoes not apply in cases heard before judges, especially High Court or Supreme Court judges. I accept that the Ceann Comhairle acted in keeping with his duties and without undue influence from others. However, it is also my view - I stated it then and it remains my opinion - that the sub judicerule was not being equally or appropriately applied. For example, no similar concerns were raised about sub judicewhen the Fianna Fáil leader named Padraic Wilson, a private citizen and a respondent at that time in legal proceedings. He was named in this Chamber.

This brings us to the nub of the question. On 28 January, in the midst of the row over the Ceann Comhairle's ruling to block a debate on the commission's terms of reference, the Taoiseach referenced receipt of a letter from the law firm Gallagher Shatter Solicitors, which was acting for the former Minister. In his letter, an Teachta Dála Shatter attempts to influence the terms of reference of the commission of investigation by specifically excluding his name from it. He also claimed that the tabling of the motion and the subsequent debate would encroach upon the courts. This position is at odds with his attitude in May 2014 when he resigned. At the time he wrote that it was appropriate that these matters be the subject of a statutory inquiry. He also said he was resigning because he did not want to distract from the role of the Government or create any difficulties for Fine Gael and the Labour Party.

In the course of lengthy debates in the Dáil, we eventually persuaded a reluctant Taoiseach in February to produce the details of the correspondence that surrounded this case, including the fact that an Teachta Dála Shatter had written to him as far back as last September. As a consequence, many in the Dáil, including myself, and others outside of the Dáil were left with the clear belief that the Taoiseach engaged in a series of diversions to avoid giving a full, accurate and timely account to the Dáil on ongoing and extensive correspondence between him and an Teachta Dála Shatter.

It also emerged that included in a letter to an Teachta Dála Shatter sent on behalf of the Taoiseach on 21 November was a copy of the draft order with the terms of reference for the commission of investigation. This was done a month before the draft order was presented to the Houses of the Oireachtas. Was it appropriate that a Fine Gael backbencher who played a central role in the issues under investigation should be given the draft terms of reference which, as it transpired, the Dáil was subsequently unable to debate? Another letter to Deputy Alan Shatter dated 17 December stated that Mr. Justice Kevin O'Higgins would be the sole member of the commission of investigation. Once again, this information was provided for an Teachta Dála Alan Shatter before it was presented to the Dáil or made public. Is this normal practice? Is it not evidence of the frequently-dismissive approach that the Taoiseach and the Government take to the Dáil?

See this speech in context