By any standard, the past few days have been damaging to the Government. This has been another damaging episode for this short-lived Government. By extension, the past few days have been damaging to politics. We had the spectacle of a senior member of the Government being exposed for engaging in what can only be described as grubby activity for grubby purposes by leaking a confidential document to a rival union while the Government was engaged in ongoing negotiations with a licensed union. The Taoiseach stated that the Tánaiste described it as an error of judgment. It was an error of judgment, but it was also wrong. Does the Taoiseach accept that the actions of the Tánaiste last year were wrong? Will he ask the Tánaiste to admit that publicly? There were many weasel words yesterday. The Tánaiste's actions were either wrong or right. Does the Taoiseach accept they were wrong? Will he ask the Tánaiste to admit that?

The Taoiseach is engaging in weasel words himself by talking about the essentials of the agreement. Very minor elements of the deal were included in the press release, which comprised a five-page document. The document that was leaked was a 108-page document. There was an awful lot more there that was in negotiation and subsequently agreed.

What added insult to injury was the fact that the Tánaiste ludicrously dressed this all up as him somehow having a legitimate objective and, laughably, claimed that he was honouring Government commitments. This insults people's intelligence. I think most people saw this episode for what it actually was. It was patently untrue for the Tánaiste to make that claim. He engaged in a deliberate distortion of the truth.

Very regrettably, during the last couple of days this distortion was then repeated by a succession of Fine Gael Ministers - although the Taoiseach must accept they are his Ministers as well - going on the airwaves and trotting out cynically crafted spin lines. I heard the Taoiseach repeating some of those, which is beneath him. It has been very damaging to public trust in politics. I ask the Taoiseach to take steps to restore that trust and get the Tánaiste to admit what this actually was; it was wrong. Will the Taoiseach undertake an immediate review of the code of conduct for officeholders? Those members of the Government are required to honour the existing code. However, it seems it is okay with the Taoiseach for members of his Government to personally interpret that code as it was okay, it seems, for the Tánaiste to personally interpret that message that this was a confidential document and not for circulation.

No, that is not a correct interpretation of where I stand regarding the code of conduct. As far as I am concerned, there is an obligation on all members of the current Government to adhere to that code in the spirit and in the principle of that code. I hold strongly by that. I have made it very clear that I regard that what the Tánaiste did in the last Government was not best practice. It was inappropriate and it was wrong. It was the wrong way to do things. I have said that. I think the Tánaiste has accepted that and he has apologised for an error of judgment on that.

The agreement was a €210 million agreement. The Deputy knows there is a separate issue on this in terms of the approach of the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission to all of this. The Competition and Consumer Protection Commission has very negative views of collective agreements with independent contractors and has taken actions over these types of agreements in the health service for quite some time. That has not been highlighted in the context of this. Be that as it may, in my view the essentials were out very early in terms of this. Of the €210 million, about €120 million was for the reversal of financial emergency measures in the public interest, FEMPI, cuts and about €80 million for the chronic disease management.

I have the statement from the IMO. As the Deputy knows, there is significant detail in that document, which is dated 5 or 6 April. It goes right down to maternity leave, contribution to locum costs and so on. There was considerable detail at that stage. As to the necessity to send it on to the NAGP, in my view it should have been published earlier in its entirety. I think most people in this House called for the early publication of that agreement with GPs, because it involves very significant public money and involves investment in our health services. Into the future, it seems to me that collective agreements of this sort with independent contractors will be more difficult because of the application of competition law and the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission.

I am very clear on this and have been. I think it was important that the Tánaiste addressed the issue in the House and took questions on it at some length. He acknowledged that he would not do this again and that it was an error of judgment on his part, but he did it from his perspective for the best of reasons and motivation.

An error of judgment is not the same as saying that something was wrong, and the Taoiseach's deputy also knows that; he made that point. The Taoiseach is also engaging in this distortion. That agreement was not signed off by the IMO until 16 April and was not published by the Department for another month. The code of conduct applying to a Taoiseach specifies that officeholders should respect confidences entrusted to them in the course of their official duties. Patently it is clear that the Tánaiste, when he was Taoiseach, did not do that. I am asking the Taoiseach to address this problem. It seems that the Tánaiste is of the view that that code is open to personal interpretation, which should not be the case.

The Taoiseach has a responsibility to restore some element of trust in Government negotiations. In the coming months and years, unions, employers and social partners will be asked to engage with the Government in negotiations. Can they trust the Government in those negotiations? It seems that from the actions of the Tánaiste last year they cannot do that because he interprets things to suit himself. The Taoiseach needs to take action now to restore trust. A starting point is to review the code of conduct and also to request the Tánaiste to admit this was wrong.

I will say three things. First, the Tánaiste in his speech yesterday said it was an error of judgment. He said he would not do this again; he has made that clear. Second, the IMO was very clear when it published this in a press release, which stated, "Following months of negotiations, the IMO announces details of €210 million investment secured from Government for General Practice."

I know that.

Sorry, the Deputy said the opposite.

The Taoiseach is twisting-----

I am not twisting anything. This happened. This cannot be twisted because it happened. It was published.

I did not interrupt the Deputy and I would really appreciate if she gave me an opportunity to answer the question. On the issue of trust-----

Will the Taoiseach be straight with us?

I ask Deputy Shortall to resume her seat. She should let the Taoiseach answer without interruption.

On the issue of trust, I have met the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU, and IBEC. I am spanning the social-----

I will not say. I will not respond.

I have met ICTU and IBEC. I have expanded the social dialogue unit within my Department.

In many ways I am engaging and developing and building trust with the social partners and will build a stronger trust with the social partners. That is in my DNA.

That will happen as Taoiseach. I will ensure, along with my Government colleagues, that we work collectively with the social partners to take the country through the greatest challenge it has with the global pandemic, to keep our economy and the edifice of our economy intact, to protect people's livelihoods, and to work in health, education and housing. These are the essentials for the people who are watching this. Those are the issues they care about most. Those are the issues they want this Oireachtas and the Government to focus on. As Taoiseach, I will do that, and I will not be distracted. I cannot be held accountable for what the previous Government did. At the general election that Government was held accountable. At the next general election this Government will be held accountable in terms of its programme for Government and its agenda.