Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

With the approval of the House, I would like to share my time with Deputy Billy Timmins.

The central question that arises in this debate is "Does it matter whether the Taoiseach tells the truth?". I think it matters quite a lot, and the public thinks it matters as well, in spite of the impression that is being created - or that the Government is trying to create - that nobody is really interested in this. I heard a reporter on RTE saying that the Fennelly report does not matter and that nobody is interested, but I do not think that is the case at all. The public is very exercised by this because it goes to the very heart of politics and whether one can believe a senior politician. For that reason, it is quite disappointing that Fennelly did not reach a clear conclusion on the central point of the inquiry, in spite of the fact that there was so much evidence from almost everybody else who was interviewed to support the contention that we are getting something less than the truth from the Taoiseach. That does matter to people.

The report paints a picture of quite staggering incompetence and panic on the part of the Taoiseach and a complete disregard for proper procedures. It also portrays quite serious dysfunction across a number of State offices, which should be a matter of concern to us all. The report is littered with contradictions, and any fair reading would lead one to conclude that the Taoiseach's claims of vindication simply do not stand up. In fact, the way the Taoiseach has portrayed this is reminiscent of Albert Reynolds in respect of the beef tribunal. The whole approach, in terms of honesty in politics, is very similar to what happened on that occasion.

We all know that the Taoiseach had a political problem. There had been relentless controversies emanating from the Garda and from the Department of Justice and Equality. It would appear that the Taoiseach used senior officials to help him to solve that political problem. Clearly, this was completely inappropriate and improper. There seemed to be a view that if the Garda Commissioner stepped down it would help to quell controversies. If that was what the Taoiseach wanted, he should have followed proper procedures and got Cabinet approval to remove the Commissioner. Instead, he sent a senior official to the Commissioner's home late at night to tell him that the Taoiseach could not express confidence in him. This, of course, meant one thing and one thing only, and that was that the Commissioner was sacked. If this was not the intention in sending Brian Purcell to the Commissioner's house that night, then what was the point of the visit? Many feel that the Taoiseach is treating the public like fools, but they are not fools. The public knows what the score is in this regard. Again, I say to the Taoiseach, if the purpose of sending Mr. Purcell out that night was not to get the Commissioner to resign, then what on earth was the purpose of that visit? The report itself is quite clear in this regard. It says that the commission accepts the Taoiseach's assurances that he did not, by sending Mr. Purcell to visit the Commissioner, put pressure on the Commissioner to retire. However, it goes on to say: "Seen objectively however, Mr. Purcell's message ... on behalf of the Taoiseach ... late at night, was likely to be interpreted as doing just that." The other issue is that while the Taoiseach claims one thing, everybody else in the room that night understood exactly what was involved. Everybody in the room that night was absolutely clear that the Taoiseach was sending Mr. Purcell out to sack the Garda Commissioner. For the Taoiseach to deny this is simply not believable. Irrespective of how he has spun the release of the report, it is just not believable.

I want to speak now about the role of the Attorney General in all of this. Fennelly described her actions as perplexing and puzzling. Certainly, it is very hard to know why she had a crisis meeting with the Taoiseach about phone taping on 23 March when her office had been told about the phone taping the previous November. Indeed, her office was involved with the Garda Commissioner's office right throughout the month of February with regard to taping in respect of the Bailey case. Reports that she was called back on four occasions would indicate that there were very serious problems with the evidence being given by the Attorney General. There are very serious questions to be answered regarding the functioning of her office.

In respect of the Department of Justice and Equality, an important letter came from the Garda Commissioner addressed to the Minister, but this was not passed on. Was there an awareness of that letter? Was the Taoiseach told about that letter on the night? Did Mr. Purcell tell him about the dysfunction within his Department that resulted in such an important letter not reaching the Minister?

One must also ask about the level of awareness of the taping of calls going into and out of Garda stations. Everybody seems to be claiming they did not know this was happening - that it was news to them. The system for taping phone calls was put in during the 1980s in a number of Garda stations, so it was not a question of its being done secretly. Furthermore, the system was upgraded in the 1990s and some half a million euro was spent on further upgrading it in 2008. How was it that nobody in the Department of Justice and Equality or in the Attorney General's office seemed to know anything about this? This raises massive questions about dysfunction at the very heart of Government and the Civil Service. Of course, critical questions also arise with regard to the functioning of the Civil Service and the relationship between the Civil Service and senior Ministers. We have a situation at the moment whereby Secretaries General hide behind Ministers and Ministers hide behind the Secretaries General. Deputy Rabbitte has drawn attention to this on numerous occasions but, of course, nothing has been done to reform this area. What advice did Martin Fraser give the Taoiseach concerning his powers in this regard? Are we not entitled to see that advice?

All of this is very important. We have had eulogies from all of the Ministers today who spoke about the leader of the Government and what he has done. The leader of the Government has doubled child poverty and is responsible for the fact that there are half a million people on hospital waiting lists. The leader of the Government is responsible for the increase in the housing waiting lists to 130,000 and has overseen a massive transfer of wealth from the poor and the middle classes to the wealthy. The leader of the Government used the budget last year to widen the gap between rich and poor. And, most importantly, the leader of the Government cannot be believed or trusted. That is why we cannot vote confidence in him.

See this speech in context