Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

Is it not a fact that the Minister told the lobbyist of his intended course of action when he had a statutory duty to make that decision? That information did not become public for a further two months. There was a statutory process in place that the Minister pre-empted. In his own words to the House yesterday, he expressed "a purely personal view that the likely course of action would be a referral to a phase 2 assessment in accordance with the guidelines". As others have said, he did not divulge this information to the House in response to questions weeks later. He correctly said yesterday that this is not a secret process and that guidelines are available. It is now clear, however, that he indicated to the representatives of an interested party his intended course of action in advance of receiving any formal advice from his officials. The House was told this yesterday. The Minister made much yesterday of access to the full file in the Department, as the Tánaiste has done today. The problem is that there is no record of this call on that file, and no official was alerted to it. In simple terms, a statutory process involving the control of the shareholding of the media in Ireland was undoubtedly compromised by the premature advising of one party of the intended course of action of the Minister in a statutory role.

In response to my question yesterday on whether this was the only communication the Minister had with representatives of a PR agency or agents of INM, and on whether there were other calls, the Minister answered only partially, saying he had a discussion with Mr. Leslie Buckley on 3 May. Could the Tánaiste now clarify whether he has ascertained whether there were any other calls or exchanges of views between interested parties and the Minister?

The attempt to separate a personal conversation from the Minister's statutory duty is really a worrying one. A Minister performing a statutory duty is always a Minister. The Cabinet conduct rules are clear that Ministers cannot be private citizens when they choose to be in the middle of carrying out a statutory function. What is clear now is that the Minister should not have taken the call. He should not have provided his views on his likely course of action. He undoubtedly, albeit unwittingly, compromised a statutory function. If the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment does not recognise these facts, responsibility then falls to the Tánaiste and the Taoiseach to acknowledge them. Will they do so?

See this speech in context