Le cúplá lá anuas, tá admhaithe ag an Tánaiste gur thug sé cáipéis rúnda dá chara ina raibh 130 leathanach agus achan cheann dóibh marcáilte mar rúnda agus nach raibh cead ann é a thabhairt d'aon duine. Tá a fhios againn, agus ag madraí an bhaile, anois go raibh an rud a rinne an Tánaiste contráilte ach tá níos mó eolais de dhíth orainn faoi seo. This week, the Tánaiste admitted to leaking a confidential document, marked "Not for circulation", to a friend of his. The Tánaiste admitted that he was wrong to do so. The Tánaiste's rationale for doing so was debunked here in the House on Tuesday night and there are a number of issues I want to return to because the Tánaiste has not provided clarity on all the matters surrounding this.

I have looked through both documents and I have found that there are at least 35 changes between the one that the Tánaiste provided to his friend, the president of the National Association of General Practitioners, NAGP, and the one that was subsequently published by the Department of Health. The reality is that discussions were still live and ongoing and that this part of the Tánaiste's argument simply does not stake up to scrutiny. Every one of the 130 pages of the agreement that the Tánaiste gave to his friend was marked "Confidential: Not for circulation". It had that stamp on every single page. Can the Tánaiste explain why there was another document attached to the one he provided to the president of the NAGP? I refer to a six-page document that is not marked "Confidential: Not for circulation". Each page of this document is marked "Working draft: Confidential".

It was widely reported last night that the Tánaiste told those present at a meeting of his parliamentary party that they should be careful with the friends they choose. That does not sound like the words of someone who is sorry for his actions. That sounds like the words of someone who is annoyed that he got caught. Is that not the reality? Instead of accepting responsibility for his actions, the Tánaiste threw Dr. Maitiú Ó Tuathail under the bus and then decided to reverse over him. I want to put on the record that Dr. Ó Tuathail is not to blame here. Dr. Ó Tuathail was within his rights, as president of the NAGP, to seek out this document, either from the then Minister for Health or from the then Taoiseach. He was acting in the interests of his members as he saw it and he was perfectly entitled to ask the Tánaiste for this document. The wrongdoing here is that the Tánaiste was not entitled to provide this document, or indeed the other document marked "Confidential", to the president of the NAGP, a friend of the Tánaiste. It was the Tánaiste who made that decision.

Will the Tánaiste answer me this? On Tuesday, he told this House that he spoke to Dr. Ó Tuathail in recent days to try and verify when the Tánaiste sent the document to him because, as the Tánaiste said to the House on Tuesday, "I did not have that WhatsApp message any more and I wanted to check the exact date on which I sent the document." Can the Tánaiste explain what he means by this? Has the Tánaiste deleted these messages? Has he deleted these communications from his phone? I am sure the Tánaiste will be aware that these contacts fall under the scope of the Freedom of Information Act if, as he claims, this document or these documents were provided to Dr. Ó Tuathail as part of an agreed strategy or in the Tánaiste's then capacity as Taoiseach. Did the Tánaiste delete official records of this exchange?

In my statement on Tuesday, I clearly and definitely accepted responsibility for this. I used the term "sole responsibility" and therefore I have not sought to blame anyone else. I have apologised for it, I have accounted for it and I have said that I accept responsibility for it. I have not been equivocal about that in any way.

I do not have a copy of the document that I sent to Dr. Ó Tuathail. I do not know how it is possible for the Deputy to make those comparisons because I do not have a copy of it. I am not sure how the Deputy can make that comparison with a document that we no longer have. Perhaps there was a version at some point in time that the Deputy is making the comparison from but it may not be the document that I sent to Dr. Ó Tuathail.

As I said in my statement on Tuesday, any changes that were made subsequently were minor. This was agreed on 3 April. As the Cabinet memorandum says on 9 April, engagement had concluded with the IMO, and it was publicly announced on 4 April and launched on 6 April. Any changes were so minor that they did not require a return to the Cabinet. They were of that nature. If they were of significance, they would have required a return to the Cabinet.

My contact with Dr. Ó Tuathail over the weekend related to the fact that Deputy Paul Murphy had claimed in a tweet that I shared the document on 2 April. I believed that to be untrue and I wanted to check with Dr. Ó Tuathail that it was not the case because the screen grab that was there said it was 17 April. That was closer to my recollection that I gave him the document in the days before that, and that was correct.

When I checked my WhatsApp messages, it was not there. I do not, as standard, keep all text messages. I have a personal email address. Anything on that which could constitute a public record I then forward to my official account but I do not, as standard, keep text messages.

Somebody requesting a confidential document is an official request to the Taoiseach. The Tánaiste was the Taoiseach at the time. It falls under the Freedom of Information Act and it is very clear. There has been a judgment in relation to this in the past. Therefore, it is an official record.

There was not just one communication the Tánaiste had with Dr. Ó Tuathail in relation to this document. The Tánaiste had at least one more communication that we know of. Are both records deleted from the Tánaiste's phone? Were there other records in relation to seeking this document and the Tánaiste providing this confidential not-for-disclosure document to his friend? Were those records also deleted from the Tánaiste's phone? It is important that we know this.

We have requested that the documents - the one that the Tánaiste received from the Minister, Deputy Harris, as he claimed, early in April and the one that the Tánaiste asked of the Secretary General of the Department of Health on 10 April - would be published with all communication. Will the Tánaiste makes sure that happens straightaway so that everybody can scrutinise those documents because it is hard to follow some of this? The Cabinet agreed this on 9 April, but on 10 April the Tánaiste looked to the Secretary General for another copy. At 2 p.m. on 10 April, the Tánaiste looked for Dr. Ó Tuathail's address. Can the Tánaiste also talk to us about whether there was a second document, one that was stamped not "Confidential: Not for circulation" but "Working draft: Confidential"?

I do not recall there being a second document. I only recall there being one document. As I have said, I do not, as standard, keep all of my text messages. I do not think most Members of this House do. Obviously, anything I consider to be a public record - for example, if somebody sends an email to my personal account, which happens from time to time - I forward to my official account, which is in line with the Department of the Taoiseach's policy on email.