Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I rise to support the motion of confidence in the Government, Taoiseach and Attorney General and oppose the Opposition motions. We have had the Fennelly commission and people, of course, are entitled to their own opinions about the circumstances that gave rise to the Commissioner's retirement. However, there are some things that no one can dispute. We had a commission of inquiry established in law and chaired by Mr. Justice Niall Fennelly, a respected retired Supreme Court judge. He is the only person who interviewed all of the key people involved and reviewed all of the evidence that was available. His conclusions were clear that the central claim made by the Opposition against the Taoiseach was not true. Despite these findings, we are having a debate today for some reason on a motion of confidence. I remember when Deputy Micheál Martin first became leader of his party, one of his preferred catch phrases was to say "That's old politics". To me, this is classic old politics; getting personal rather than focusing on the issues; scoring points, slinging mud in the hope that some of it sticks; and trying to get one over on the opposing party. It is old politics. There is a new leader, but it is very definitely the same old Fianna Fáil.

In assessing whether the House and the country have confidence in the Taoiseach, the Attorney General and the Government, we need to remember where we were before Deputy Enda Kenny was elected as Taoiseach to lead the country. Four years ago, the economy was in free fall. Europe and the IMF were calling all of the shots. Unemployment was soaring, forced emigration had returned and home values and incomes were plummeting. Today, we are the fastest growing economy in Europe, perhaps growing even faster than China. Some 120,000 jobs have been created in the past three years. Unemployment has decreased from 15% to 9.5%, we are turning the tide on emigration, incomes, home values and living standards are starting to recover and the national debt is decreasing again. Surely any reasoned or fair analysis would have to give the Taoiseach and the Government some credit for the leadership that brought about this turnaround, but the Members opposite cannot bring themselves to do so. Rather, they would try to bring someone down, just as they would like to bring the country down again by returning to the politics and economics of the past.

I wish to state my confidence in the Attorney General. Here we enter into important constitutional territory. Whatever about the rights and wrongs of motions of no confidence in a Taoiseach, we can all at least understand that they are a regular part of the Punch and Judy political process with its own history and traditions. However, there is something deeply disturbing about the way one party has attempted to drag the Attorney General into this dispute. In doing so, it is playing politics with the Constitution itself. The position of the Attorney General is governed by Article 30 of the Constitution, which provides that the Attorney General shall not be a member of the Government. Mr. Justice Kingsmill Moore, in McLoughlin v. Minister for Social Welfare, stated in the Supreme Court that the Attorney General "is specifically excluded from being a member of the Government, which again underlines his special position", in this case her position. The role of the Attorney General could be considered as "the adviser of the Government in matters of law and legal opinion", as prescribed by Article 31, and as guardian of the public interest. The Attorney General is also the key institutional link between the Executive and the Judiciary. What this means, and what the Opposition has chosen to ignore, is that, given the nature of the role of the Attorney General, he or she ought not to be dragged into political controversy or made subject to gratuitous attack. This does not mean that an Attorney General cannot be held to account,-----

See this speech in context