I would love to be able to ask the Taoiseach why Ireland has just been referred to the European Court of Justice for a breach of the water framework directive. I would love to ask him about the national planning framework, which is, as the Minister for Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government, Deputy Simon Coveney, stated, the most important thing that can be done in the lifetime of this Government. However, I cannot ask these questions because I must ask questions about the Maurice McCabe case, which goes to the heart of whether the Government can function and whether we have trust in it. If something can be done to one, it means it can be done to all. This goes to the heart of confidence in our democratic republic and constitutional system.

In that regard, rather than concentrating on who said what to whom, we need to concentrate on specific issues to ensure this does not happen again. I understand a meeting of justice spokespersons to discuss the framing of the tribunal of inquiry's terms of reference has been postponed. Will the Taoiseach provide a timeline for reaching agreement in the House on the terms of reference? He stated the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality is considering whether other whistleblowers should be included in the tribunal of inquiry. What is the Taoiseach's opinion on whether the terms of reference should be extended to include other whistleblowers who are alleged to have suffered the same type of smear campaign?

Does the Taoiseach believe the tribunal of inquiry should be fully transparent? We all agree with Maurice McCabe that we should not return to the O'Higgins version where an inquiry is carried out in private in an adversarial manner. Can we make the tribunal of inquiry fully transparent by broadcasting proceedings on the web, on television or by other means? If so, how will the protection of journalistic sources be protected given that, at the heart of this story, we will have to arrive at an understanding as to who contacted whom among the Garda, the journalistic profession and Members of the House? Deputy McGuinness inferred last night that everyone knew, including the dogs on the street. That is not the case. We need to find out the truth in terms of who knew and who was telling whom. The cornerstone of this case was a smear campaign and we need to work to find out who contacted whom to create that smear campaign.

I do not know from where Deputy Mick Wallace got his sources but he read out a document in which he set out that such-and-such a garda texted someone else and another individual e-mailed someone else. This is the level of forensic inquiry we will need. If the tribunal of inquiry is to be transparent, as it should be, how will we agree terms of reference to provide for transparency and allow all our correspondence, mobile telephone and e-mail records to be made accessible? This is as much an issue for the journalistic profession as for Members.

I am concerned that it may be difficult to complete this process this week. Part of the problem is that we constantly rush through stuff without thinking it through or working it out properly. Will we be able to reach agreement this week? Will the Taoiseach provide an approximate timeline setting out how long the tribunal of inquiry will take? We must avoid the fate of previous tribunals which lasted for years and cost hundreds of millions of euro.

I thank Deputy Eamon Ryan for his question. This is about trust and confidence in government and the institutions of the State. More so, it is about the central issue of determining the answer to the question as to whether there was a deliberate smear campaign organised by senior gardaí against Sergeant Maurice McCabe and, as a consequence, his family.

As for a timeline, I hope we will be in a position to have the spokespersons on justice sign off on what could be the terms of reference today. We could then have a Government meeting on them tomorrow and have them discussed in the House, although it may not be possible to do this.

The Deputy asked my opinion in respect of extending the tribunal for other whistleblowers. As the protected disclosures centrally involved the two senior police officers in the State, Mr. Justice O'Neill recommended a commission of investigation arising from these two protected disclosures. While this will be a matter for the judge who conducts the tribunal of inquiry, it would be appropriate to provide a facility whereby the inquiry might be extended to other whistleblowers if the judge saw fit to do so. Ms Justice Mary Ellen Ring is restructuring the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC, to deal, in a much more trustworthy and I hope professional manner, with complaints made by members of the Garda and others and protected disclosures or other information that may come that way.

I expect that the question of protection of sources is central here. At paragraph (g) of its draft terms of reference, the proposed commission of investigation was directed to "investigate whether Commissioner O’Sullivan, using briefing material prepared in Garda Headquarters, planned and orchestrated broadcasts on RTE on the 9th of May 2016, purporting to be a leaked account of the unpublished O’Higgins Commission Report, in which Sgt McCabe was branded a liar and irresponsible." This is an issue that will require some consideration by the judge in charge. Also, it is a matter for whomever is appointed as a sole member as to how the inquiry should be conducted in public. A tribunal of inquiry will have the support of the McCabe family if it is held in public and, therefore, will be fully transparent and accountable. The matter of whether it is broadcast on the worldwide web or whatever would be for the judge to decide.

I hope we can get agreement from everybody that it is absolutely necessary that the commission of inquiry be set up under the tribunals of inquiry Act. Every day that passes denies the opportunity to have the central question answered as to whether there was an orchestrated smear campaign against Sergeant Maurice McCabe. That is the function and purpose of the tribunal of inquiry and I hope all Members will be in a position to sign off on it. If necessary, the Government can meet tomorrow and we can have the debate in the House and its decision and that of the Seanad on the matter. It is in everybody's interests that this happen as quickly as possible.

It would be interesting to hear the views of every party on whether other gardaí who have suffered in this way should be included in the terms of reference of the tribunal of inquiry. While this is a tough call, if the Dáil were to decide collectively such cases should be included, it would be unwise to leave the matter to the judge. It may be better for the House to give direction on the terms of reference. As we did not have the meeting this morning, I am uncertain as to whether this could be done in time for a meeting of the Cabinet tomorrow.

The wider question of trust in government is at the centre of this issue. I recall difficult times in government. When a ministerial adviser indicates to an adviser to the Taoiseach in advance of a Cabinet meeting that a matter is being looked at, it sets off red lights. If officials or advisers to the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs informed the Taoiseach's officials that the Minister was setting up a meeting with Maurice McCabe, I cannot understand how the matter did not become a subject for discussion at the subsequent Cabinet meeting. The way the system was set up in the days when Deputy Brendan Howlin was a Minister was that advisers iron out or signal difficulties in advance. Under this system, all the red lights would go off in any functioning Government to indicate that this issue would have to be discussed at Cabinet.

While I do not wish to get into who said what and where, is there a difference between the current Cabinet and previous Cabinets of which the Taoiseach was a member? Is the difficulty that we have a minority Government which includes a number of different Independents? Is this a different experience from the experience of having two parties in government? Is that the reason the Cabinet is not having proper debates, this issue was not tackled by the Cabinet and the Dáil is in disarray as a result?

No, it is not. In respect of the direction in the terms of reference, the Minister is examining this matter to see if it is possible to have a facility whereby an expansion of the number of cases that might come before the tribunal of inquiry can be considered.

The judge nominated to head up the commission of investigation is a serving member of the Supreme Court. He has set out a timeline for consideration of the commission of investigation. It will be a matter for the judge if he wishes to take on this responsibility and the timeline required to do so.

In regard to the workings of the Government, as the Deputy will be aware the Government has a range of challenges to consider every week. Members of the Independent Alliance work well with Government. It is true that one is always learning lessons in terms of how business should be conducted but the discussions took place at Cabinet because the protected disclosures do not allow for a discussion of the detail. The Minister, Deputy Zappone, made it clear yesterday that following her discussion with Sergeant McCabe she did not want to put in the public domain the graphic details of the discussion she had with him. As I pointed out earlier, the false allegations made to Tusla about Sergeant McCabe were clearly covered in the terms of reference about criminal misconduct.