Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Renua Ireland) | Oireachtas source

In many respects, this confidence motion is irrelevant. It is born out of an adversarial system that has ill served the public. The outcome is well known in advance, the debate predictable. The Opposition comes in and casts a jaundiced eye on the workings and failures of Government and Cabinet Ministers and others line up like King Lear's daughters, protesting their undying obedience and confidence in the Taoiseach and the Government.

This Government has done some good and some bad. However, with respect to the issue at hand - namely, the interim report of the Fennelly commission - the Government has not covered itself in glory. The Taoiseach has a view that he did not sack the Commissioner, a view I believe he genuinely holds. However, his actions, which resulted in the visit by the Secretary General of the Department of Justice and Equality to the Garda Commissioner's home, caused the Commissioner to resign. Irrespective of the rights and wrongs or how the Commissioner was performing in his role, a public servant does not deserve that treatment but deserves fair process, whether he or she is the highest ranking member of the Garda or the lowest.

This view is shared by the majority of people. This was a case of government by innuendo, which is not how things are meant to be. While both sides of the House can selectively quote from the interim report, members of the public will draw their own conclusions and will not come down on the side of the Government.

I would like the Minister for Justice and Equality to address a few minor issues arising from the interim report before the final report is published. I refer to the failure of the management team to inform the Garda Commissioner about the tapes and the shredding of ten bags of material, which I understand took place ten days after the Commissioner resigned. Under section 42 of the Garda Síochána Act 2005, the Minister has the power to appoint a relevant person to carry out an investigation into such matters. It would be helpful if such an investigation were completed before the publication of the final report.

An attempt was made to manipulate the media in respect of the publication of the report. It should be a requirement in future that such reports be laid before the House at the same time as they are received by the Government.

This debate will be ignored by members of the public who have made up their minds and moved on. Is it not regrettable that we cannot approach this debate with open minds, rather than adopting partisan positions with predetermined outcomes?

See this speech in context