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

The point was made last week that the question is not about the fact that errors were made or that issues arose but about how those issues are responded to when they arise and how those errors are responded to when made. It has to be said that, in their response to this, the Minister and his Government have made a complete hames of it. That is a charitable reading of the situation. At the core of the Minister's defence is his statement that he thought the work was being done on a voluntary basis. That is a very revealing statement to make. How could anybody with any political experience at all think that vans with corporate signage on them and teams of guys in high-vis jackets are doing the work voluntarily? How could the Minister possibly think that was the case?

The other point about this is that, even if the Minister is claiming he was completely ignorant of the rules, ignorance of the law is of course no defence. It is particularly not a defence when the breaching of the law is by the Minister responsible for implementing it. Does he really expect us to believe the work was being done on a voluntary basis and that it was okay if was being done on that basis? Is he not familiar with the returns we all have to make every year, for example, those regarding donations? Under question 3 on the donations statement, which we are all filling in this month, there is a reference to the nature of donations and a footnote referring to cash, cheques, the use of property, services etc. That seems perfectly clear. As the Minister responsible for the law, how does he expect us to believe he was ignorant of it and thought the work was voluntary?

See this speech in context