Gabhaim buíochas, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom ceisteanna a chur ar an Tánaiste i dtaobh an sceite eolais a rinne sé ón gconradh rúnda a bhí idir an IMO agus an Roinn Sláinte agus a thug sé dá chara. Mar gheall ar an eolas atá againn le cúpla lá anuas, tá a fhios againn anois go ndearna neamhaird ar an achainí a rinne an tAire Sláinte an t-am sin, an Teachta Simon Harris, chun cóip den chonradh seo a fháil. Ba é sin an tAire a bhí i gceannas na gcainteanna seo agus níor tugadh an conradh dó, ach ag an am céanna bhí an Tánaiste ag roinnt an chonartha lena chara san National Association of General Practitioners, NAGP. Tá níos mó ceisteanna le freagairt maidir lena chuid gníomhartha sa scannal seo.

In April 2019, the Tánaiste leaked a confidential document to a friend of his, the then head of the NAGP. This was the subject of controversy back in November 2020, when Village magazine broke the story. Last week I received correspondence following a request made under freedom of information. This was information that my party leader had requested for more than two months. It is little wonder that these documents were withheld from us for so long. They are damning, and the Tánaiste's defence of how he leaked the confidential document now lies in tatters.

It is a scandal that goes far deeper than what we once thought. The documents show that at the same time as the Tánaiste leaked this document, the line Minister responsible for the negotiations, Deputy Harris, was unable to obtain the contract from his officials. This is despite the Minister, Deputy Harris, telling the Dáil in November that he never requested a copy of the contract. He must explain his actions and he must correct the record of the Dáil.

Within the documents I received, there are repeated warnings from Department officials reiterating the confidentiality of the document and stating that it was still subject to negotiations with the IMO. On 25 April, a Department official noted: "Unilateral publication of the Agreement, in the absence of confirmation from the IMO that it is satisfied with the final text, would represent a serious breach of trust." By that stage, the Tánaiste had already leaked the document to his friend, the president of the NAGP. This action was counter to what was needed to get the deal across the line and would undermine the IMO. That is very clear. Publication of the contract by the NAGP, as its national council discussed, could have collapsed the negotiations and a contract worth €210 million.

However, the most shocking revelation is actually what is not contained in these documents. I must ask the Tánaiste again where he got the document which he gave to his friend in the NAGP. There are numerous emails from the then Minister, Deputy Harris, requesting the document from his adviser on 15 April, to demanding the document on 17 April, and there are emails from officials to his office and to him explaining why they were not giving him the document. However, there is no record of the Tánaiste seeking the document from the Department of Health or of the Department giving him the document. There is nothing: no emails, no notes, no cover notes and no messages. The Tánaiste already admitted in November to deleting his messages from Maitiú Ó Tuathail surrounding all of this, so there are no records there either.

The Tánaiste received a request for the document from Maitiú Ó Tuathail. He then got the document from the Department of Health, sent it to Maitiú Ó Tuathail, and there is no record of it anywhere. Is it not the case that the Tánaiste went to extreme lengths to cover his tracks in all of this? Why? It is because he knew the significance of all of this. The Office of An Taoiseach was used to pull a stroke for a friend.

I ask the Tánaiste to explain to the Dáil how he got this document. How did he get this document without a trace and with no records? Why did he tell the Dáil that there was nothing to see here, when his argument simply does not hold up? The contract was confidential. Negotiations were ongoing. Despite all of this, the Tánaiste leaked the document in full knowledge of the consequences. This was not part of a Government strategy, as he claimed. This was a stroke for a friend, plain and simple. Does the Tánaiste not agree?

I do not agree. These are the facts, and I am happy to restate them. It was not actually a contract; it was an agreement about a contract. I gave a copy of that agreement to Dr.Ó Tuathail, who was president of the NAGP at the time. I should not have done this. I accounted to the Dáil for it last November and I apologised for it. I acted on my own judgment and nobody is responsible for this, other than me - no officials, no advisers and not the Minister, Deputy Harris. I am sorry that I have brought them into this in any way.

The Deputy is trying to reheat an old political controversy today. He is largely going back over old ground. He could be talking about Covid, the battle against the virus and the pandemic. He could be asking about getting schools reopened. He could be asking about the economic crisis and the people who have lost their jobs and may lose their businesses. It says much about the Deputy's priorities as a person and those of his party that he is trying to go on this line of attack again, on an issue that was dealt with in November.

I made three public statements on the matter at the time and answered questions as best I could, based on my knowledge and recollection of events that happened two years ago. I can only answer for myself; I cannot answer for other people. It is up to the Deputy to either accept my explanations or reject them. It is his choice. However, the House heard about and voted on this last November.

For clarity, the document that I gave Dr. Ó Tuathail was the 3 April version. I got it from the Department of Health. I asked the Minister, Deputy Harris, for a version of it and he gave it to me. I did not retain that version. I then asked my special adviser, who looked after health issues, to get a copy of it again. She already had a copy. That is the copy that I gave Dr. Ó Tuathail. We released the document under a FOI request. The Deputy has that document. He knows the differences between that document and the final document, as published. Last November he went to the trouble of counting these differences. There was and is no dispute that there were differences, but they were minor ones. The words used by the health officials in the same emails mentioned by the Deputy where that "language and presentation has to be tied up"; "there may be minor additions"; "it has not fully been signed off"; and "we need to agree a date with the IMO for publication". Those are totally prudent things. There was nothing in those emails to suggest that the document was commercially sensitive or that it was secret. As I said in November, had the changes been substantive, they would have had to go back to Cabinet. It did not go back to Cabinet. All the salient details were out there in the public domain.

There was a public launch about it that the Minister, Deputy Harris, and I attended. The IMO issued a detailed statement with the financials, the costings and anything that was of a commercially sensitive nature. There was a Government memo, written by the Department of Health, and sent for information, which stated that engagement had concluded. It was the case that there were some tweaks thereafter. There were some minor additions and changes. This was all known back in November. However, the Government memo stated that engagement had been concluded. It was reasonable for me to believe that that was the case, given that that was in the Government memo produced by the Department of Health. The details were discussed at public meetings, which included hundreds of GPs. Fergal Bowers also posted a tweet, giving detailed information about the contract.

The document was not a Cabinet paper or Cabinet memo and, therefore, did not fall under Cabinet confidentiality in that sense. It was not classified as a budget secret or a secret. Some documents are, but this one was not.

The Tánaiste has now changed his story again. He told the Dáil that he asked his PA to request the document from the Department of Health. He now says that he asked his PA for it and she already had a copy, so he never got it from the Department of Health. Why is he changing his story? Is it because now we can prove that there is no record whatsoever of his getting the document from the Department, requesting it or receiving it?

The freedom of information request shows clearly that the Tánaiste's defence of his actions lies now in tatters. He suggested to this House that this was part of a Government strategy. It is very clear that it was not a Government strategy. It is very clear from the communications that were released two months later that this would have been detrimental to the discussions, a serious breach of trust and that this document was confidential. It is also clear that as the Tánaiste sat in his office and put this contract in the post to the rival organisation of the IMO, an organisation which wanted to publish it and undermine the IMO, at the same time, the Minister, Deputy Harris, was requesting access to the document and was being refused access. We can prove all of that.

Does the Tánaiste accept that he has now changed his story in regard to how he got the second version of the document? Can he explain why he is changing his story once again?

No, that is exactly what I said, or more or less what I said, back in November. Of course I got the document from the Department of Health. Where else would I have got it from? The only people who had it were the Department of Health and the IMO. I hardly got it from the IMO, so of course I got it from the Department of Health, through the Minister, Deputy Harris, and my special adviser. She has that record, she has that document and it was released already under FOI. It is the document from 3 April. I had no later version. Some people are suggesting I did; I did not.

Why are there no records of me requesting it? Because I requested it verbally. Lots of times, I talked to my Ministers, advisers and officials. It is not that everything is done by email or done by writing. I had a number of documents in my inbox today, some of which I requested, some of which I did not. For very few of them would there be a written request requesting a particular document. There are things I would ask for verbally and they can be handed over in person. Everything does not have a paper trail and that is the reality of any workplace.

As I explained back in November, my motivation was to demonstrate to the president of the NAGP that this was a deal that it should not oppose, to mollify its opposition and to get it over the line. In the end, it did not oppose it and the deal did get over the line, so the strategy was successful in that regard.

We are over time.

Just be to clear, on 17 April, the Minister for Health requested the current draft - so a later, more up-to-date draft, presumably - appreciating that there were ongoing tweaks.

The Tánaiste is over time.

There was a third draft and ongoing tweaks. He got it the day he requested it.

His office requested it on 15 April.

I am moving on to the next speaker.