I want to put three issues to the Taoiseach followed by a question, all arising from the statement made today by the Minister, Deputy Shatter. The fact is, and Teachta Martin has dealt with this to some degree, that the Minister accused Garda Sergeant Maurice McCabe of not co-operating. That is clear. He did not take the opportunity to rectify that during his statement. In the Committee of Public Accounts in response to a question by Teachta Mary Lou McDonald, John O'Mahoney responded that he did not interview Maurice McCabe and he did not seek to interview Maurice McCabe - so it is clear. There was an opportunity for the Minister to rectify that and he did not do so. I now ask the Taoiseach to consider doing so.

Second, the Minister did not even mention the sacking of the confidential recipient - the only head to roll. Could some explanation be given to this Oireachtas as to why this man was sacked?

Finally, because we did not get this clear yesterday, could the Taoiseach outline to me and explain to the Dáil why he did not establish an independent inquiry under the Commission of Investigations Act 2004 when he has at his disposal legislation which he could have utilised and when he has an Act whereby the person or persons appointed to conduct an investigation can compel all witnesses and documentation and make findings of fact without huge cost and in a timely fashion? I put this question to the Minister earlier but I ask the Taoiseach why did he himself not act in this manner? Why does the Government not set up an independent inquiry under the terms that are provided under the 2004 Act? Those are the three issues to which I would ask him to respond.

Where is the Labour Party?

In respect of the question that Deputy Martin asked, I referred to Garda Sergeant McCabe's own words when he spoke to Assistant Commissioner, John O'Mahoney, when he was invited to make a contribution or information that he had available to the investigation team. He said he ended the call because he was alarmed that the assistant commissioner wanted to speak to someone on the investigation team, and that was before the report was published. Deputy Adams, like Deputy Martin, is focusing on a specific issue here. The bigger elements concern the material Deputy Michael Martin gave me, and he was right to give that to me because of the serious nature of the allegations.

Deputy Adams asked me why did we not set up a special investigation commission immediately. The truth of the matter is that a number of these bodies are completely independent of this House. GSOC is independent of the House. It was set up for a particular purpose, that of receiving complaints from citizens or in the case of gardaí who wished to make a complaint about elements in the force and that this could be done through the confidential recipient process. That has not worked. The Government approved an amendment to change the law in this regard - that gardaí or serving members can go directly to GSOC, which is utterly independent of this House, as is the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, over which I have no authority, nor has the Deputy, nor has this House. In respect of the matters that were investigated by the Garda Commissioner, in some cases by the Director of Public Prosecutions, or in some cases by GSOC, two of those are completely independent bodies.

It is only right and proper that there should be the scoping exercise, to which the Government has agreed, as happened in the case of the scoping exercise in regard to the Morris tribunal. A similar instance arose when the Minister for Health initiated an inquiry in respect of the very serious matters that arose regarding the maternity situation in Portlaoise hospital. This scoping exercise can inform the Minister as to the need for a formal investigation or otherwise. In this case the decision of the Government will bring into focus the assessment of the investigative process that was followed arising from the allegations.

Deputy Martin gave me his documentation from Sergeant McCabe and one of the issues is an allegation that a garda perjured himself in court and was berated by the judge. That was part of a case that was brought to our attention. What was the outcome? Did this go the Director of Public Prosecutions, was there an independent decision, an investigation by the Garda Commissioner followed by the allegation from Sergeant McCabe? That is why it is necessary to have a proper scoping exercise by a qualified, competent person who can put all this in coherent manner and make a recommendation to me as Taoiseach for presentation to the Oireachtas. If that recommendation is that there be a requirement for a special investigation commission, then that is what will happen. That is clear. I believe it was the right and prudent thing to do, in view of all of the documentation, all of the reports, all of the allegations and all of the investigations that have taken place, to put that process in place and bring clarity and truth to it. That will enable us to focus on the serious issues that Deputy Michael Martin brought to my attention following the presentation to the Deputy Adams from Sergeant McCabe.

Of course the allegations in the dossier are very serious but they are allegations. They are deeply wounding and traumatic for the victims' families and we need to appreciate all of that, but it is the Government's handling of these allegations which has caused the erosion of public confidence. If the Taoiseach misses that, he misses everything. We end up operating here in a bubble, impervious to the concerns of the citizens. The fact is that the Minister had the opportunity to set the record straight around the accusation that Maurice McCabe did not co-operate.

It is without question that the Minister miscalled that. He should be man enough to own up to that and, rather than defending him, the Taoiseach should have a word in his ear after this to try to rectify that particular element.

It may not be the most important element but we are in the public eye and we are used to the blizzard of media controversy that sometimes surrounds us. These are serving garda who are not used to, as their families are not used to, this type of treatment. I am not impressed or persuaded by the Taoiseach's defence of not going for the type of independent inquiry under the Commissions of Investigation Act that he has the ability to go for. He could have done that but he has decided not to. As we tell each other all the time here, politics is all about choice. The Taoiseach decided not to go for that option.

The Taoiseach also decided not to answer my question about the sacking of the confidential recipient. Summarily, he came to the House one day and announced that the guy was gone. Could we have an explanation? I was sent here by citizens who want me to represent their views. They are wondering what happened to this person. Could it be one of those strange ironies that he said to the-----

He did not disappear like Deputy Adams disappeared people.

That is the Government Whip, a Cheann Comhairle. I know I always ignore him but that is to set an example.

We are way over time.

He said: "I’ll tell you something, Maurice, and this is just personal advice to you, if Shatter thinks you’re screwing him, you’re finished." The person who said that is now gone. Could we be given an explanation? Could the Taoiseach, who announced this to the Dáil, explain under what terms of reference, what rules or what protocols this man was dismissed?

Yes, it is called truth. The position is that the confidential recipient was appointed for a particular job - to receive confidential information from serving members of the Garda for transmission to the Commissioner or to the Minister for Justice and Equality. When the transcript arose of an alleged conversation that took place between the confidential recipient and Sergeant Maurice McCabe, the situation was that the Minister saw to it that the Department of Justice and Equality contacted the confidential recipient to see whether this was true. The allegations contained in the transcript were outrageous.

Which ones?

In respect of the Minister's intentions, or rather the remarks about the Minister's possible intentions with a view to following through if confidential information was given. As the confidential recipient did not answer the question about whether he said these words, and if this was what he said, we could not have a situation where, without answering those straight questions, somebody could continue in that position. For that reason, his position became untenable. That is the answer to the Deputy's question.

So he denied the conversation.

He would not deny the conversation.

It was because he did not answer the question.

This gets worse.