In terms of the Government's approach to the establishment of a commission of investigation into allegations of misconduct in the Cavan-Monaghan Garda division, I wish to raise a number of issues. In general, I suggest to the Taoiseach that there should be broad consultation with the Opposition prior to the lodging of the terms of references before the Dáil. Having reflected on and observed what has transpired, it seems to me that the only Deputy who persisted in trying to influence the outcome was a member of the Fine Gael Party, Deputy Alan Shatter, a former Minister. He wrote to the Taoiseach, as acknowledged last week, and to the Ceann Comhairle requesting he be excluded from the terms of reference of the inquiry. It was also his view that the tabling of the motion and the subsequent debate would encroach upon the courts.

I find this very odd, given that in his resignation letter to the Taoiseach on 7 May 2014 - a letter he published - Deputy Shatter said: "It is appropriate that these matters be the subject of a statutory inquiry." He also said he was resigning because he did not want to distract from the role of Government or create any difficulties for the Fine Gael and Labour Parties in the period leading up to the European and local government elections. If he is not careful, he will continue to cause difficulties, right through to the general election, but that is another matter.

It would be incomprehensible that the terms of such an inquiry would not include the relevant Minister. The core issue is the persistence of a Member of Parliament, a former Minister, to seek to try to restrict and stifle debate on a matter of fundamental, public importance and to do that in a context he knows well, that Parliament under the Constitution always has the right to propose and the right to dispose. Did Deputy Shatter approach the Taoiseach personally about this issue? Does the Taoiseach think it is appropriate that a Member should seek to undermine the capacity of the Parliament to debate matters of public interest in such a manner?

I have seen the correspondence and call on the Taoiseach to publish the correspondence Deputy Shatter sent to him. Is he prepared to do that? Did Deputy Shatter speak to the Taoiseach at any stage in regard to this matter or did he speak to the Minister for Justice and Equality on the matter? I note Deputy Shatter wrote to the Ceann Comhairle initially on his own notepaper and that this communication was subsequently followed by legal representation. I understand from what the Taoiseach said last week that it was a legal firm that wrote to him. Did Deputy Shatter write to the Taoiseach in his own capacity as a Deputy and will the Taoiseach publish that conversation?

Deputy Shatter writes about the separation of powers in the correspondence, but he is straddling, in a selective manner, both domains when it suits. I respectfully suggest he should make his mind up as to where his duty lies and consider why he was elected to this Parliament in the first place. I suggest it was to facilitate free and open debate and to articulate the will of the people, not suppress it.

First, in respect of the question about consultation with Members on the terms of reference before their being tabled in the Dáil, I respect completely the independence of the Ceann Comhairle in the decision he made and I am glad that matter has been cleared up.

The Government had scheduled a two hour debate for Wednesday, 28 January on the commission of investigation in respect of the Cavan-Monaghan Garda division. This debate was to be taken by the Minister for Justice and Equality. However, in a letter of 27 January, the day before the proposed debate, the Ceann Comhairle informed the Minister for Justice and Equality of his ruling. He was perfectly entitled to make his ruling. The important point is that the Government had already decided there should be a commission of investigation.

In the normal process and procedure followed, the terms of reference are adopted and approved by Cabinet and are laid before the Dáil by the Whip in the ordinary way for discussion and approval by the House so that the commission of investigation can start up and do its business. In this case, I believe that given the Ceann Comhairle's ruling, it was more important that the work of the commission of investigation should be able to proceed. Therefore, the terms of reference were adopted by the Dáil. Mr. Justice O'Higgins has been appointed to conduct the commission of investigation and the commission can now start its business.

I have instructed my officials to publish on merrionstreet.ie all of the correspondence received from the firm of Gallagher Shatter Solicitors by the Department of the Taoiseach and the replies to that correspondence. As Deputy Martin pointed out, observations were made by the firm that the former Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence should be excluded from the terms of reference.

Why?

As Deputy Martin will see, the replies from the Department of the Taoiseach are clear and consistent. That observation was not taken into account and the terms of reference accurately reflect the terms as set out by Mr. Guerin. There are one or two words where this is absolutely clear in the terms of reference adopted by the Dáil. I have instructed my officials to publish all of that documentation so that people can see the position, from 9 September when the firm wrote to the Department of the Taoiseach.

A reply was sent from the private secretary of the Department on 7 November. A further letter was received from the firm on 17 November, repeating that the terms of reference should not include a reference to the former Minister for Justice and requesting written confirmation of that. On 19 November, the Cabinet approved the terms of reference, which covered all of the areas recommended by Mr. Guerin, including in regard to the former justice Minister. On 21 November, a letter was sent from the private secretary of the Department to the firm, informing it that the draft terms of reference had been approved by the Government and that these would be presented to the Houses of the Oireachtas in the ordinary way. On 25 November, a further letter from the firm objected to the Government's approved terms of reference. On 8 December, a letter, enclosing a letter from the former Minister to the Ceann Comhairle objecting to the terms of reference which referred to him, was received from the firm.

He must have been practising for his next book.

On 17 December, a letter from the private secretary of the Department of the Taoiseach was sent to the firm rejecting its arguments and reiterating the Government's decision to proceed with the commission of investigation with the terms of reference unchanged.

Did he take Christmas off?

I have instructed my officials to publish all of this documentation, so that Deputy Martin and everybody else can have sight of it.

I asked the Taoiseach two questions at the outset. Is it appropriate that a member of the Fine Gael Party, a Dáil Deputy, should be so persistent in endeavouring to change the terms of reference and prevent debate in the House on a matter of such public concern? I also asked whether the Deputy approached the Taoiseach or the Minister personally on this matter. Apart from in written communication from him or his legal firm, did the Deputy approach the Taoiseach personally on the matter during this period?

Perhaps he might indicate whether he approached him on the issue. Did he approach the Minister? Is that the totality of the communications involving Deputy Alan Shatter or his legal firm? Has he written today or in the past day or two? I know that he has communicated again subsequently - I believe to the Ceann Comhairle's office. - but has he communicated with the Taoiseach on foot of his decision? Did he make a personal approach to the Taoiseach at any stage?

In writing.

It seems the only person who had a persistent, consistent engagement on this issue is Deputy Alan Shatter and no one else.

In writing.

I said in writing.

He would not say, "No."

This is a very serious issue in respect of serious matters brought to my attention by Deputy Micheál Martin, brought to light by a whistleblower and brought to attention here by others in regard to matters in the Cavan and Monaghan district and in respect of the Government's decision to set up a commission of investigation into how they were handled by the Garda, the Department of Justice and Equality and the former Minister for Justice and Equality. It arises from the Guerin report and the terms of reference that have been set. Deputy Alan Shatter has not written to me and has not approached me personally. I called him out of a parliamentary party meeting last year to ask him how he was getting on in view of the fact that he was no longer Minister for Justice and Equality.

You were shafted.

We did not discuss the terms of reference for the Guerin inquiry.

Love bombing.

That is a matter for the Government. The Government has been very clear on the position it adopted and consistently followed through in the passing of the terms of reference here in order that the commission of investigation could start its work and deal with the very serious matters outlined in the reports brought to light last year. I cannot speak for Deputy Alan Shatter or any other Deputy in the House who wishes to make constant or repeated contact with Ministers or members of the Government or anybody else.

What is the Taoiseach's own view?

It is not for me to issue instructions to any Deputy to cease writing in that sense.

What is the Taoiseach's view?

Was it right or wrong?

As a Parliamentarian, what is the Taoiseach's view?

Yes, but no more than any Fianna Fáil Deputy who wishes to make contact with Departments and Ministers on a regular basis.

That is not in the same league.

I know it is not-----

The Taoiseach is the leader of his party.

-----but, as I say, this is a serious matter.

Was it right or wrong?

The commission of investigation has now been set up.

It goes to the core of parliamentary democracy.

The Taoiseach is leader of Fine Gael.

The terms of reference have been very clear. The Government was very consistent in setting out what it wanted to do. Despite the correspondence which will be published after I leave the Chamber this evening, the Government was very consistent in ignoring any of the observations made on the exclusion of the former Minister from the terms of reference.

He is trying to influence them.

Deputy Micheál Martin will see that it is also included specifically in the Government's decision setting out the terms of reference-----

But was it appropriate?

-----that I will also publish.

It is important that the Taoiseach reminded us of the events around the whistleblowers' allegations and the way the Government had responded to them. It pooh-poohed, dismissed and slandered an Teachta Dála Mick Wallace for raising these issues. Without taking up too much time, we know the chronology that led to the retirement of a Garda Commissioner - the Taoiseach's words - and the resignation of the then Minister for Justice and Equality. When this issue came up last week, if the Taoiseach had had his way, we would not have had this discussion. We now know that there was a voluminous amount of correspondence-----

Withdraw that remark.

-----between the Taoiseach and Deputy Alan Shatter. I asked the Taoiseach at least twice formally if he had received any correspondence from Deputy Alan Shatter, if his Department had received any, if the Ceann Comhairle had received any or if any other agency had received any, but he refused to answer. He only answered eventually when pressed. Now we hear about all of this correspondence. As I said the other day when I contested the Ceann Comhairle's advice, my main issue was with the Taoiseach and the Government for not reordering the debate at another time in the schedule. While I am no historian of this Parliament, it seems unprecedented - perhaps the first time in the history of the Parliament - that terms of reference of a commission of inquiry were pushed without one word from any Teachta Dála, not just Opposition but also Government Teachtaí Dála.

If I might summarise, it strikes me that a member of Fine Gael is able to prevent a debate on these issues because the Taoiseach refused-----

It was not our decision.

It was not our decision.

The Taoiseach could have met the leaders and outlined the problem as it was seen. He could have allowed for the discussion to take place and explained the letters. He then made a virtue of necessity and is now going to publish the letters as if it was a mighty act of kindness on his part. That discussion could have been held in private with the leaders of the various groups in the Dáil. Alternatively, the Government Whip could have had it with the other Whips. It is now clear that rather than dealing with the issue as it should have been dealt with transparently and as part of the democratic revolution to which the Taoiseach aspires he just tried to ram the whole thing through.

I disagree with the Deputy. On 27 January the Government Whip informed the other Whips of the decision and ruling of the Ceann Comhairle that no debate would be allowed on the terms of reference which the Government had tabled for discussion. I fully accept the Ceann Comhairle's decision in that regard.

I would not be aware of whether the Ceann Comhairle or anybody else was in receipt of correspondence. Deputy Gerry Adams asked me if I was aware that the Ceann Comhairle had received correspondence. I was not so aware, nor could I have been.

If the debate was to be reordered, obviously, there would be a very different story. This is a serious matter about the conduct of some gardaí in the Cavan and Monaghan district in regard to a number of very serious matters brought to attention by a whistleblower and brought to the attention of the House. After this morning's Cabinet meeting I signed the order setting up the commission of investigation under Mr. Justice O'Higgins. The terms of reference were finalised on 17 December.

Of course, the former Minister for Justice and Equality is a member of the Fine Gael Party. It is not a case of a member being able to prevent a debate. Deputy Gerry Adams is now fully aware that the Ceann Comhairle in his constitutional office and independence made his ruling and that that ruling was carried. That matter has now been cleared up. The Deputy is wrong to suggest a member of a party, in this case, my party, was in a position to prevent a debate from taking place. That was a separate decision made independently by the Ceann Comhairle.

The more important point is that the Government made a decision to set up a commission of investigation. It adopted the terms of reference set by Mr. Guerin. It ignored and did not take into account the submissions being made for the exclusion of the former Minister for Justice and Equality from the terms of reference. It was quite clear that the commission of investigation would examine the method for the conduct of the examination of the issues raised by gardaí, the Department of Justice and Equality and the former Minister for Justice and Equality. The Sinn Féin Whip was informed of the ruling of the Ceann Comhairle on Tuesday, 27 January.

I gave an instruction today that the correspondence from the legal firm and the replies to it from the Department of the Taoiseach be published. As I said to Deputy Micheál Martin, Deputy Gerry Adams will see consistently throughout the correspondence that the Government was not in any way bound by observations made by a legal firm. The terms of reference and the decision of the Government reflect this very accurately.

The Ceann Comhairle has very graciously acknowledged that there could be another interpretation of Standing Order 57(3).

He said he was going to summon the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, which is what the Sinn Féin Whip, Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh, proposed should happen. He did so in writing to the best of my recollection. To hide behind the Ceann Comhairle in light of his statement today defies any logic. I asked the Taoiseach whether there was correspondence from Deputy Alan Shatter with the Taoiseach or any agencies. He did not answer me and when I pressed him he gave me a grudging response. Let us compare that with what we have just heard today. I may have received this letter inadvertently but the Taoiseach said he did not know of any correspondence between the Ceann Comhairle and others. I have a copy of a letter supplied to me by the Ceann Comhairle to the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald. This was discussed at Cabinet. Was the Taoiseach not apprised of it? I cannot recollect if the Ceann Comhairle wrote to the Taoiseach on these matters but Deputy Alan Shatter definitely did. What is the law firm to which the Taoiseach referred? It is Gallagher Shatter Solicitors. A response on behalf of the Taoiseach to Deputy Alan Shatter, showing the courtesy and relationship enjoyed between the Taoiseach's Department and a member of Fine Gael, states:

A copy of the draft Order, with the Terms of Reference attached, is included herewith for your information. The next step is for the draft Order to be presented to each House of the Oireachtas and that will take place shortly. The Government considers that the matters set out in the Terms of Reference are matters of significant public concern.

This is the correspondence between the Taoiseach and the Fine Gael backbencher, Deputy Alan Shatter. Is the correspondence and the context not also a matter of significant public concern? Was the Taoiseach not failing in his duty as Taoiseach in not answering the question I put to him about any correspondence he may have received from Deputy Alan Shatter or, as I carefully said, anyone acting on his behalf? Deputy Enda Kenny is the Taoiseach and I am a duly elected mandated Member of the Oireachtas. This party represents citizens. Is it not a matter of significant public concern for them that the Taoiseach failed to tell us and, by extension, the citizens that he had voluminous correspondence with Deputy Alan Shatter?

Let me clear up any misunderstandings for Deputy Adams. Sometimes in here, there is a lot of noise. I had one letter with me last week, which is relevant to something I just said a few minutes ago. I said I was not aware of any letter or any correspondence the Ceann Comhairle received from Deputy Alan Shatter. In fact, the letter sent to my Department on 8 December from Gallagher Shatter Solicitors contained a copy of the letter sent to the Ceann Comhairle. From that point of view, I want to correct the record----

There we go, the Taoiseach was aware.

Absolutely, Deputy Adams. As I just had that correspondence with me last week, perhaps I was not able to be as accurate or fulsome in my response as I could have been.

It is called arrogance.

That is why I think it is appropriate, in this matter of great importance, that I publish all correspondence from the legal firm of the former Minister for Justice and Equality to the Department of the Taoiseach and the responses that were sent back, including the publication of the decision of the Government, which makes it clear to the Cabinet that correspondence was received but that the Government was not shifting from its consistent position of the commission of investigation being able to follow through on its view of the conduct of how the serious matters were dealt with by the Garda Síochána, the Department of Justice and Equality and the former Minister for Justice and Equality. My apologies to Deputy Adams if I was not as accurate as I should have been in respect of a matter brought to my attention when the letter sent to the Ceann Comhairle was forwarded to the Department of the Taoiseach with a covering note from the legal firm on 8 December.

The Taoiseach had it and would not tell the Opposition.