Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Listening to the previous speakers, one would think this was all very clear-cut. Unfortunately, it is not clear-cut and I find it remarkable that many of the Government speakers feel we should not be discussing the interim Fennelly report at all. If we had three hours' debate it would be a disgrace, but we have had nothing like three hours because most people have not even spoken about the Fennelly report because they have not read it. That is very evident from the speeches that have been made.

There is a certain irony that some of those on the Government benches who are being wheeled out today to defend the Taoiseach were themselves only five years ago pushing ahead with their own motion of no confidence in Deputy Enda Kenny. Five years is almost a lifetime in politics. Back then, those individuals voted to remove Deputy Kenny from his post having no confidence in his ability even to lead the Opposition. Their judgment of his abilities then was better than their judgment of the Fennelly report today. Today, they will loyally defend the leader they once sought to depose but the tale of utter mismanagement set out in the Fennelly report has proven them right.

The Taoiseach's defence to the charge that he sacked the Garda Commissioner has been a weak one. It seems that he relies on the pedantic defence that he did not sack the Commissioner but merely forced him to leave office - a wafer-thin distinction that the public can see through immediately. Only the Taoiseach knows what he was thinking when he sent the Secretary General of the Department of Justice and Equality on the nasty mission of forcing the Garda Commissioner to resign. While the Fennelly commission refrained from concluding against the Taoiseach on the key issue of intent, how could it do otherwise when the Fennelly commission could not get into the Taoiseach's mind? On that very narrow point, the Taoiseach has built his entire defence. Mr. Purcell was an experienced civil servant, however, and he knew the import of what he was being asked to do. Indeed, even the Taoiseach was forced to concede to the commission that he could not dispute the fact that the Commissioner would be compelled to resign if the Taoiseach stated publicly that he did not have confidence in him.

No one who actually read the report could credibly state that the Taoiseach was exonerated by it. Repeating the mantra that the Taoiseach was exonerated a thousand times does not make it true. The fact is that the Taoiseach's evidence was rejected by the commission on a number of points. The Taoiseach's evidence was that Mr. Purcell's brief was to apprise the Commissioner of concerns and ascertain the Commissioner's views on that. Indeed, the commission notes that it was his evidence on several occasions that he wanted to have the view of the Commissioner. The commission rejected the Taoiseach's evidence on this point, finding explicitly that the Taoiseach in fact did not instruct Mr. Purcell to obtain the views of the Commissioner on any question. The commission noted that the Taoiseach was forced to concede in evidence that the Commissioner would be compelled to resign if the Taoiseach stated publicly that he did not have confidence in him. The commission also found that Mr. Purcell was instructed to tell the Commissioner that that was exactly what was on the cards; that the Taoiseach would be in a position where he might not be able to express confidence in the Commissioner. To any ordinary person it is very clear what the import of that was. While one would not think it to listen to Government Members today, we must remember that the fundamental finding of the commission was against the Taoiseach. It was that the immediate catalyst for his decision to retire was the visit of Mr. Purcell to the Commissioner's home and the message he conveyed from the Taoiseach during that visit. The simple reality is that the Taoiseach ignored the legal process that was in place for the removal of a Garda Commissioner. That process is a key protection in the national interest of any democracy. Equally, he ignored the requirements of fair procedures and constitutional justice provided for in the Garvey judgment.

The Taoiseach has offered a weak defence to these charges and it is a weak defence the public has already made its judgment on. No defence weak or otherwise, however, can be offered by the Taoiseach to the charges that he completely mismanaged this crisis. Not only did the Taoiseach show a complete lack of leadership, he shut down essential communication with the Garda Commissioner and the relevant Minister and kept himself deliberately in a position of wilful ignorance of key facts. In its own polite and professional tone, the commission is also scathing of the "serious information deficits and multiple failures of communication" over which the Taoiseach presided. The crisis being dealt with was a considerable one. Even now, we do not know if the final report of the Fennelly commission will conclude whether the systematic recording of Garda station calls was legal. The Attorney General stated that there had been "wholesale violation of the law by An Garda Siochana", describing this as "criminal activity". In her own words, speaking to the Fennelly commission, this was "a most grievous matter".

See this speech in context