The Taoiseach might often have heard it said that there would be no need for the establishment of statutory inquiries to inquire into issues if we had clear and transparent statements on the floor of Parliament from the Taoiseach or indeed Government Ministers about specific issues. The Taoiseach will recall that on 25 March 2014, he informed the House that the former Garda Commissioner was resigning. He said that announcing his retirement must have been a very difficult decision for the Commissioner to make. The Taoiseach also announced that he was establishing a commission of inquiry into the tape recordings in many Garda stations since the 1980s and the potential impact of the contents of some tapes on cases being heard, cases going through courts, cases to be followed and cases that are yet to be dealt with.

Observing the civil case of Ian Bailey, I did not see the world collapsing in terms of any recordings of phone conversations at Garda stations. I remember that when the Taoiseach asked myself and Deputy Adams in on that date, there was a certain sense of very grave issues around phone recordings that would essentially undermine almost the entire judicial system and could lead to the unravelling of many convictions. When he informed the House of the Garda Commissioner's resignation, the Taoiseach did not mention that he had sent the Secretary General of the Department of Justice and Equality to the Commissioner's house. The entire Cabinet found out about the former Commissioner's resignation through the media despite the fact that the Taoiseach had had some very important meetings at the time with key officials and, in particular, with the Minister for Justice and Equality.

I have a number of questions for the Taoiseach. In the first instance, why has the Taoiseach consistently refused to give a straightforward account to this House of all the circumstances that led to the resignation of the former Garda Commissioner and the reason he sent the Secretary General to the home of the former Garda Commissioner? Second, can the Taoiseach confirm if he was called to appear before the commission a second time, if he believes that in confirming this he would be breaking the law, and what law forbids the Taoiseach confirming whether he gave evidence?

In regard to the module of the Fennelly commission dealing with the resignation of the former Garda Commissioner, will the Taoiseach give a commitment to the House that he will publish the final draft report of that module immediately it is received by him and that there will be no attempt to delay its publication?

The Deputy asked a number of questions. The reason for setting up the Fennelly commission of investigation was the recording over many years at Garda stations of citizens' telephone calls without their knowledge. This matter was brought to my attention at that time, with potentially serious consequences. The commission of investigation was set up primarily for that reason. The Deputy has also tabled a parliamentary question to me on this matter.

Subsequent to the Government having made the decision to establish the commission the Oireachtas Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality wrote to me and requested that two other matters be included in the terms of reference of the Fennelly commission. These matters were the sequence of events leading to the retirement of the former Garda Commissioner and the matters concerning the issuing by him of a letter in regard to matters raised a number of days previous. I agreed with the Oireachtas committee and included those matters word for word in the terms of reference of the Fennelly investigation. The Deputy's comments today differ slightly from those he made previously about the Fennelly commission. Mr. Justice Fennelly has an exemplary record. It is a matter for him as to how he conducts his investigation. He is not subject to pressure from anyone, including the Deputy or me.

On the question of my contributing to the commission of investigation, I have complied fully with my responsibilities in this matter. Mr. Justice Fennelly wrote to me and I responded to him. I was called before the commission of investigation and I responded to that. The law states clearly that it is offence to make any comment about any evidence given before the commission. I took that view literally. I am satisfied that I have complied with my responsibilities in so far as the commission of investigation is concerned. The Deputy can rest assured that when Mr. Justice Fennelly issues the final report in respect of the commission of investigation, I will publish it.

Maybe that will be after the election.

There should be no big deal about the Taoiseach confirming whether he was called to appear before the commission a second time. I find it difficult to understand the reason he refuses to confirm that. There is no law that says he cannot say whether he has attended the commission. The law under which the commission of investigation was established does not state that. It does state that a person may not go into the content of the evidence given, but no one has asked that the Taoiseach do so. As I understand it, the Taoiseach was only asked if he been recalled by the commission or if he appeared before it a second time. It is clear from comments made by the commission spokesperson, who is a solicitor, and the law itself that there is nothing stopping the Taoiseach confirming whether he was called to appear before the commission a second time. It is important that a Taoiseach does not cite something that is not true. It is not true for the Taoiseach to say it is an offence for him to confirm whether he appeared before the inquiry a second time. The Taoiseach has stated publicly that it would be an offence to do so. It would not. The Taoiseach should withdraw that public assertion. As leader of this country he needs to state clearly what the law actually states and not otherwise.

A question, please. Thank you.

I welcome that the Taoiseach has indicated he will publish the module of the Fennelly commission dealing with the resignation of the former Garda Commissioner immediately it is received.

He was sacked.

I do not believe the motivation for Government including that module was the Oireachtas committee request.

Sorry, Deputy, we are over time.

I can only surmise about the choreography that went on behind the scenes. It seems to me that essentially this bought time for the Taoiseach.

A question, please. Thank you.

The Taoiseach could have prevented all that if he had answered the simple and straightforward questions which I and others in this House put to him on the floor of this House about what he said to the Secretary General, what the Secretary General said to the former Garda Commissioner and so on.

Sorry, Deputy, you are over time.

However, the Taoiseach chose not to do so. Again, parliamentary accountability was the loser in terms of the sequence of events that have unfolded. The reason I put the question regarding the publication of this report is because the progress report was not available on the website, or to the media, until six weeks after it had been received.

The Fianna Fáil spokesperson requested that a commission of investigation be established. That is what the Government approved at my request. The commission is independent and not subject to pressure from any quarter. The terms of reference are very clear. They were adopted by the Government and voted on and adopted by this House. They include the two matters referred to by me in response to the Deputy's earlier question. This was part of a series of changes in the judicial system, including the establishment of a policy authority to restore trust and confidence in the work of An Garda Síochána and the justice system in general. The Deputy will be aware of those changes. The Deputy will also be aware that I published Mr. Justice Cooke's report in June 2014 and Mr. Guerin's report in May 2014. As in the case of Mr. Justice Cooke and Mr. Guerin, Mr. Justice Fennelly should be allowed to do his work. I take the view that the law is clear that it is an offence to comment in respect of any evidence given before the commission of investigation. As I said earlier, I am satisfied I have complied fully with my responsibilities in terms of my having responded in writing to Mr. Justice Fennelly and having appeared before the commission. Mr. Justice Fennelly should be allowed to finalise his report.

In terms of the requests I received, both of which were in writing and have been published, the first was in respect of a request for an extension of time, which was granted. I can confirm to the Deputy that whenever Mr. Justice Fennelly submits his report, it will be published. The intention is that it will be published. It is a commission of investigation report that will not be a secret or left lying on a shelf.