During the debate earlier today Deputy Shortall said that telling the truth matters. It matters very much to people generally and to Members of this House. In the context of the Fennelly report, there is a disquieting contradiction between the Taoiseach's evidence and the evidence of the former Secretary General of the Department of Justice and Equality, Mr. Brian Purcell, the former Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, former Garda Commissioner, Martin Callinan and the Secretary General of the Taoiseach's Department, Mr. Martin Fraser. Taking the evidence of the two Secretaries General first, on the issue that the Taoiseach might not have confidence in the Garda Commissioner, they are very clear that it should be conveyed to him if the matter arose at the Cabinet the following morning. The Taoiseach's evidence is very non-committal on that and very unsatisfactory.

What is even more worrying is the evidence of the former Tánaiste, Deputy Gilmore. Paragraph 31.31 of the Fennelly report states:

The Taoiseach, according to Mr Gilmore, went on to say that, if he were asked in the House if he had confidence in the Garda Commissioner, he would not be able to say that he had. He added that, if he said that he had confidence in the Garda Commissioner on the Tuesday, and information relating to these tapes emerged on the Wednesday, he would then be in a very difficult position.

Paragraph 31.32 states:

The evidence of Mr Gilmore, although it relates to what the Taoiseach said the following day, provides significant corroboration for the proposition that the Taoiseach did express doubts about whether he could continue to express confidence in the Commissioner. Although this conversation occurred after the Commissioner had retired, it is significant that, in an entirely different setting, the Taoiseach was speaking to Mr Gilmore of the issue very much in the same terms as are attributed to him by Mr Fraser, Mr Shatter and Mr Purcell on the evening before.

The Taoiseach's response to Mr. Justice Fennelly is very difficult to comprehend. He initially tried to suggest that he did not agree with the then Tánaiste. He then said he could not, as he stated, "recall the accuracy of what he said" and, later, that he could not verify whether they - the words attributed to him by Mr Gilmore - were the actual words that he used. He then returned to the theme of the necessity for him of being able to "defend", to use his word, the position.

I put it to the Taoiseach that it is of fundamental concern that his evidence is significantly at variance with the evidence of four very senior active personnel involved in this entire scenario. I ask the Taoiseach to, first, comment-----

Sorry Deputy, we are way over time. Thank you.

-----on the former Tánaiste's account of his meeting with him an hour before the Cabinet. Does the Taoiseach agree that is what he said to the Tánaiste?

If the Deputy reads the report he will find, both in respect of the meeting on the Monday and on the Tuesday, that the commission of investigation points out a difference of recollection by people who were at the meeting. The important point is that 16 months later a learned Supreme Court Judge goes through all of that evidence, which was given on oath to the best of people's ability, and draws his conclusions and findings, as per the terms of reference given to him by the Government. The interim report that we referred to today pointed to two elements of that aspect that were requested of me from an all-party Oireachtas committee, which I complied with completely. I asked that the judge would deal with that, which he did and requested that he would produce an interim report on both of those issues before the main report.

It is disquieting. It is disquieting also for Deputy Martin because he was party to wanting a commission of investigation, which I complied with and which the Government complied with. That is a statutory sworn commission of investigation. When the justice wrote to me and said that he would not be able or did not intend to produce his report on an interim basis until after the Bailey case was dealt with, Deputy Martin said that this should be challenged.

Sorry.

The Deputy said that this should be challenged, which was a direct attempt by him to have the sole member of the commission of investigation produce the report at the time he would like it. What is important are the conclusions that are drawn by the commission of investigation.

Would the Taoiseach give us that again?

I do not know what the Taoiseach is saying.

The Deputy is not listening to the Taoiseach. He was listening to Deputy Dooley.

Sorry, would you please stay quiet. The Taoiseach is well able to answer himself.

The commission of investigation has reported after 16 months. It has set out its conclusions. It has set out the fact that variations in accounts have been given by different people. The learned judge has drawn his conclusions and given his findings in that regard. His findings are a direct contradiction of what Deputy Martin said in this House, namely, that I sacked the Garda Commissioner. I have rejected that consistently.

The Taoiseach got someone else to sack him.

The findings of the commission of investigation support that strongly, in that there was never an intent, discussion or motivation in any way to remove the Garda Commissioner from his position.

I asked the Taoiseach a very simple question. Does he agree with the testimony of his former Tánaiste, Deputy Gilmore, who was very clear in his evidence? Basically, he stated that the Taoiseach said that if he were asked in the House if he had confidence in the Garda Commissioner, he would not be able to say that he had. That is what the then Tánaiste said. The commission makes a finding on what the Taoiseach calls the variations of evidence. The report states: "The commission has given careful and very detailed consideration to the question of whether, at the meeting of 24th March 2014 in the Taoiseach's office, there was discussion, whatever words were used [by the Taoiseach]."

A question, please.

The report continues:

The Commission finds it impossible to resist the conclusion that, in some form, the Taoiseach did, indeed say that, putting at its lowest, he might, in light of an impending difficult Cabinet meeting, have difficulty in expressing confidence in the Commissioner. He did so in the knowledge that any equivocation in his expression of confidence was problematic for the Commissioner.

The Taoiseach sent the Secretary General out on what I consider to be a very improper journey.

A question, please.

It was an improper thing to do to use a Secretary General to do the Taoiseach's dirty work for him. Fundamentally, Mr. Justice Fennelly is saying that he believes the testimony of Deputy Gilmore, Mr. Fraser, Mr. Purcell and the former Minister, Deputy Shatter, over and above the Taoiseach's evidence or his inability to recollect anything. The fundamental problem-----

Sorry, Deputy; you are over time. You had a one-minute supplementary question.

The Taoiseach is not telling the truth on this. He is not telling the truth.

Would you resume your seat, Deputy? Thank you.

He sent the Secretary General out with one purpose in mind. The Commissioner is in no doubt about it. The Secretary General was in no doubt about it. He said what was being asked of him was wrong. The Taoiseach is not telling the truth on this one.

That is not the first time Deputy Martin has called someone a liar. Today, Deputy Martin asked why I did not ring the Commissioner.

Look what happened to the last Taoiseach.

If Deputy Martin knows his business - I am sure he does - he will know that the Garda Commissioner of the day is accountable to the Minister for Justice and Equality through the Secretary General of the Department of Justice and Equality.

The Taoiseach sidelined him.

Deputy Martin knows that, yet he asked me why I did not ring the Commissioner.

Second, the Commissioner did write to the Secretary General under the relevant section of the Act introduced by the former Minister, Mr. McDowell, which brings it to a different level. The requirement of the first line of that letter was to bring this to the notice of the Minister for Justice and Equality. Had that happened, the Minister for Justice and Equality would have acted upon it. When the Secretary General attended the meeting on the Monday and went to speak to the Commissioner to give him my view that this was a serious matter, he knew he had been written to by the Commissioner of the Garda. He knew because it had been received ten days before that in the Department of Justice and Equality. As I said today in my brief contribution here, I found it absolutely incredible that this situation applied.

He told the Taoiseach that.

Please, will you stay quiet?

He told the Taoiseach that the Commissioner had-----

As I said-----

There are other Deputies waiting to speak, Deputy Martin. Thank you.

With respect, a Cheann Comhairle, we were waiting because the Taoiseach was opening a newsroom downtown.

Hold on a second. Would you mind your own business, Deputy Dooley?

Hear, hear.

It is my business, a Cheann Comhairle, with respect. I am elected to this House and I have a mandate just as everyone else does.

No. You do not have a mandate to challenge the Chair.

Deputy Dooley is not the leader of a party yet.

Deputy Kehoe is okay the way he is going.

Deputy Adams, please.

Deputy Durkan, will you allow Deputy Adams to ask his question, please? It is not a good idea having Leaders' Questions at 8.30 p.m. at night. That is all I will say.