Last evening, the letter from the former Commissioner, Mr. Martin Callinan, to the Department of Justice and Equality for the attention of the Minister in respect of the telephone recording issues was published along with a report from the Department's Secretary General. It is fair to say that the letter from the Garda Commission gives a clear sequence of actions, outlines the comprehensive interaction that the Commissioner had with many State agencies - the Chief State Solicitor's office, the Department of Justice and Equality and the Attorney General's office - and references that consultations would need to be held with the Data Protection Commissioner following advices from the Attorney General. It goes on to assert that the Attorney General advised that an inventory of all of the recordings would be compiled and also that the Commissioner's main concern was as a data controller. These are all important points because, when one reads the letter, it is difficult to find anything wrong with how the Commissioner responded to the issue, both legally and within his duties, given the comprehensive nature of his response.

The Secretary General's report is also interesting, but leaves many questions unanswered. On one particular issue, it is clear that the Secretary General is saying that he briefed the Minister on the content of that letter on the Monday evening, before the Cabinet meeting, at 6 p.m. Accepting that the Minister did not get the actual copy of the letter until the following day, he was clearly briefed on the issue. That is at odds with what the Taoiseach told me yesterday in the House when he stated categorically: "I am assured by the Minister for justice that he was not so briefed." This goes to the heart of the issue. Following on from this and the meeting between the Taoiseach, the Attorney General and the Secretary General, the Secretary General was sent to Commissioner Callinan essentially to put pressure on him to reflect on his position, leading to his resignation.

A question, please.

Will the Taoiseach correct the record of the House? Is the Secretary General correct in saying that the Minister, Deputy Shatter, was briefed on the content of the letter at the justice briefing meeting on the evening of Monday, 24 March or is the Taoiseach correct in saying that the Minister was not so briefed? Does the Taoiseach accept that, at the meeting that he held with the Minister, the Attorney General and the Secretary General, he should have been told about the existence of that letter from the Commissioner before the Secretary General went to the Commissioner's house?

And who did the Taoiseach send to Ms Angela Kerins's house?

I am sorry, but the Deputy is not the Taoiseach. I will call the Taoiseach.

The Taoiseach of Kerry.

First of all, I might bring to the attention of the House the fact that, this morning at the home of the Minister for Justice and Equality, an incident occurred where an item in the post contained-----

Sorry, please.

-----anti-Semitic material and a substance which, when analysed, was harmless. I am in this House a long time. We have had members of the Jewish faith here representing the Fianna Fáil Party, the Labour Party and the Fine Gael Party over the years. This has sunk to a new low. I might say for the information of Members of the House as well that a stream of similar material has been received in the Department of Justice and Equality. Irrespective of the rough and tumble that we can have here in our politics, I am sure all of the Opposition deplores that.

Hear, hear.

It is not in order that this sort of anti-Semitic material is being received by someone who happens to belong to a particular religion in our country irrespective of the political challenges that we have here.

When did he get that letter?

The question Deputy Martin asked me is this, and it has been cleared on many occasions by the Minister himself. In fact, on numerous occasions on his long stay in here, he indicated clearly that the letter was not furnished to him, was not seen by him and that the Department officials briefed him on the issues of the day, including the Bailey case and including the discovery of the transcribed recordings, which have a serious implication in respect of that particular case.

I should have been told about that letter, I would have assumed,-----

Sorry?

-----although when I spoke to the Minister and the Secretary General, I was coming from a position of having been briefed by the Attorney General on the wide range of issues here, the discovery process, the transcribed tapes and the existence of a much wider systematic business of having tape recordings made in numerous Garda stations all over the country.

So, the Minister did not see the letter. The Minister was not aware of the letter. The Minister, therefore, was not briefed on the contents of the letter. He was briefed on the issues that had arisen, including the nature of the Bailey case, which was quite explosive in terms of the content of those tape recordings.

This is an example, Deputy Martin, of information being brought to Government level where Government has responded speedily and decisively in the sense of putting together a commission of investigation to look into these matters to sort this out once and for all and to put in place a structure which will provide an independent Garda authority where political accountability will still remain with the Minister of the day to this House. That is a long way, I might add, from the Deputy's own style of refusing to speak to former Fianna Fáil Ministers for justice. It is a long way from the time when we had the geriatric costs implied in the nursing homes scandal where the Secretary General of the Deputy's own Department briefed him on two occasions and said so at a committee of the Dáil and the Deputy relied on the Travers report to have a difference between the Department knowing and the Minister being aware.

So, the substance here, Deputy Martin,-----

The Taoiseach should read what he said in the Dáil at that time. He should live by his words.

-----is of serious concerns to the citizens of this country and Government has moved decisively and swiftly to deal with that. The Minister has cleared up in the House here on a number of occasions the nature of the matters that he discussed, the fact that he did not see this letter, the fact that he was not told about the letter and that he did not get it or see it or receive it until the following Tuesday,-----

The Taoiseach will be sending someone to Mr. Brian Purcell's house next.

With a razor.

-----in the same position as I was myself. The point is, he has already referred to this in some detail on a number of occasions in his contribution here to the House.

Can the Taoiseach explain to the House how the Secretary General - I will cite the report - briefed the Minister on the matter on Monday evening? How could he brief the Minister on the matter without briefing him on the letter? Can the Taoiseach explain that? The letter is comprehensive and outlines a series of actions that the Commissioner took since last November on this issue. It is just not credible, particularly in the context of the Secretary General a few hours later being sent out to the Commissioner's house. I would love to have been a fly on the wall. I would love to have seen the Commissioner's reaction to the Secretary General. Was it, "Did I not send you a letter two weeks ago-----

The Deputy was often a fly on the wall.

Deputies, please.

-----detailing everything I was doing and voicing my concern?"

The Government is worried.

The former Commissioner wrote in his letter: "I am anxious to resolve any data protection issues... "

The issue of substance is a simple one - for the first time in 30 years, we saw the forced resignation of a Garda Commissioner-----

Sacked.

-----on the issue of telephone recordings because, as the Taoiseach told the House last week, he wanted the gravity of the situation conveyed to the former Commissioner. Sources close to the former Commissioner are saying that he was told by the Secretary General that there was anxiety in the Cabinet about the issue.

He was clearly forced out of the position. That is why it is very important, as an issue of substance, that we get clarity on this.

Can the Taoiseach get the Secretary General to say that he did not at any stage brief the Minister on the content of the letter? There should be less of the language terms "furnishing", "receiving", "get" and so forth. He says in this report that he accepts he did not get the copy of the letter until the following day, but he briefed him the previous day. There is a fundamental issue of substance here, because the sequence of events led to getting rid of the Garda Commissioner. The inescapable conclusion is that the Garda Commissioner was the scapegoat to protect the Minister. Unless we get clear answers I can come to no other conclusion, and I regret to have to say that.

The Deputy does not want to come to any other conclusion. That is the position. He has no interest in anything other than political damage to the Minister for Justice and Equality.

The Taoiseach is able to do that himself.

There was a case before the Deputy's time in the House when a relation of Deputy Collins, a former Minister for Justice, called in the Garda Commissioner and told him he had two hours to resign or be sacked. I considered it my duty-----

To get someone else.

The Taoiseach outsourced it.

A woman was murdered in west Cork. Her killer is at large, if the killer is alive. There is a court case of very serious substance arising from that murder. It is a live, unsolved case.

I was briefed by the Attorney General and if the Deputy thinks I should sit in the Taoiseach's office and not do something about it, he is badly mistaken.

No one can hear anything.

When I spoke to the Minister for Justice and Equality and the Secretary General, I made it perfectly clear that my concerns were grave, because the transcription of those tapes has serious implications for our international relations, the status of the Garda Síochána and the case in question.

How was the Garda Commissioner culpable?

That is a matter of serious substance.

What is the Garda Commissioner culpable for?

So the Taoiseach is accusing the Garda Commissioner of something.

Will you mind your own business?

It is my business, a Cheann Comhairle.

The Deputy is not the party leader yet.

It is not your business.

It is everyone's business.

Deputy Kelleher should wait for another few weeks until he makes his move.

When I spoke on Monday evening to both the Minister and the Secretary General-----

The Garda Commissioner was sacrificed to save the head of the Minister.

Hold on, this is a reply to the Deputy's leader. Please allow us to hear the reply.

-----I made it perfectly clear that I wanted my concerns communicated to the former Garda Commissioner.

What were the Taoiseach's concerns?

To hold on to his best buddy, Deputy Alan Shatter, as Minister.

The Secretary General did that.

I am not putting up with this filibuster. If the two Deputies do not stay quiet, I will ask them to leave the House.

Obviously I am not privy to the content of the discussion they had, and I do not wish to assume anything. I wanted my concerns about this communicated to the former Garda Commissioner. The former Garda Commissioner made his decision and I noted his press release the following morning regarding his retirement in the interests of his family and the Garda Síochána.

I think I will go of my own accord, a Cheann Comhairle.

To reply to the Deputy's first question, the Minister for Justice and Equality was not aware of the letter, was not informed about it and did not see it. The briefing that began in the Department of Justice and Equality was interrupted by me at 6 p.m. to call the Minister over to the Department of the Taoiseach. That briefing was about the Bailey case, the discovery of those tapes and their transcription and the need for an affidavit, and it had started when I called. It is not a case of the contents of the letter being the subject of a briefing, because the letter was not seen and the Minister was not made aware of it.

We are in a different spot now-----

A tricky spot.

-----with a very serious issue. When the terms of reference for the commission of investigation are finalised, in consultation with the eminent judge, we can then set out the strategy to deal with this. I assume the Oireachtas Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality will, in time, have the opportunity to discuss the exact timelines with the Secretary General and the Minister for Justice and Equality. That is the proper way to deal with all the detailed questions. For now, we are proceeding to follow clear Government decisions that will lead to a commission of investigation with clear terms of reference and also to the establishment of an independent authority for the Garda Síochána in order that the men and women in the force can have absolute pride in the uniform and the citizens of the country can have faith in its openness, transparency, professionalism and oversight.