Mr. John Barrett, an established civil servant at assistant secretary general grade and an executive director of An Garda Síochána, was purportedly abruptly dismissed on 18 September 2024. The Government has been formally notified of the legal contention that the dismissal as unlawful on five separate occasions, namely, on 5 July 2024, 18 November 2024, 20 January 2025, 28 July 2025 and, again, earlier this week. The central legal issue is rather straightforward. Section 5(1) of the Civil Service Regulation Act 1956 provides that the dismissal of an established civil servant requires the will and the pleasure of Government.

Yet, Mr. Barrett received a letter signed off by an official of a lower grade, purporting to convey a ministerial direction. I ask the Tánaiste directly if his Government took a decision to authorise the dismissal of Mr. John Barrett. Was a memorandum brought to the Cabinet? If so, on what date did the Government exercise the statutory authorisation? If not, how was the dismissal lawfully effected in compliance with section 51? Beyond the statutory questions I have put to the Tánaiste, he has also been put on notice on five separate occasions of the fact of serious allegations regarding the process leading to the purported dismissal, including that the dismissal compliance was attributed to a senior garda whose office has now officially denied making it, and that Mr. Barrett was not furnished-----

Deputy O'Flynn, this is-----

-----with the complaint upon reply. Protected disclosures were made-----

Sorry, Deputy O'Flynn, this will be a matter for the legal process.

------of alleged wrongdoing. I will get to that. If the Leas-Cheann Comhairle will bear with me, he will understand where I am coming from. The parallel process was initiated without transparency and there has been a prolonged non-compliance with High Court discovery obligations. I am not asking the Tánaiste to determine the truth on the floor of this House, which rectifies the matter for the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, but there are other people there. I am asking the Tánaiste if he will accept that as a former Taoiseach, as Tánaiste and as a senior member of the Government, he has a duty to ensure-----

Deputy O'Flynn-----

-----that the dismissal of an established civil servant is compliant with statutory constitutional fair procedure.

Deputy O'Flynn, that is out of order.

This is about the Constitution. This is what it is about-----

It is out of order.

-----and it is about the statutory procedure. That is what it is about. Will the Tánaiste's Government confirm that-----

It is out of order in terms of the legal aspect of that case.

The Tánaiste has now had this before him for 19 months. Has the Government authorised the dismissal and will he confirm it? If not, who in the Government, or who else, has purported to exercise the power that is reserved for the Cabinet? This is not merely an unemployment dispute. It goes to the heart of collective responsibility and Cabinet responsibility under Article 28 of the Constitution and the statutory framework of the Government Civil Service. I put it to the Tánaiste again-----

You need not, Deputy O'Flynn.

Did the Government authorise the dismissal of Mr. John Barrett?

The Deputy has asked a number of questions of the Tánaiste, parts of which I believe are out of order. I ask the Tánaiste to reflect on that. If he can answer any of the other parts that might be relevant to him, the Government or the office, I ask him to do so.

This is where I perhaps need the guidance of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle or the Oireachtas. In my time in this House, I have never known that we would discuss the employment circumstances of any individual civil servant on the floor of Dáil Éireann. Frankly, without getting into the individual, I do not have any such information available to me today. It is a starting point anyway, but on whether it would be appropriate to discuss any individual person, I always thought that the rules of the House are that you should not be naming people. I am quite confused as to where to go in relation to this. To be helpful to the Deputy, I suggest that we get the transcript of what the Deputy has asked. Truthfully, I do not have information available to me in my files today or in my recall. I am happy to suggest that we get a transcript of what the Deputy has asked and perhaps the Ceann Comhairle's office could adjudicate on any appropriate areas where the Government could assist the Deputy in providing information. If that is appropriate, I am happy to do that.

The Tánaiste has had this information for 19 months.

No.

He was notified on 5 July 2024, on 18-----

Deputy O'Flynn-----

I am talking now. On 28 January 2025-----

Deputy O'Flynn, you are out of order.

On 18 November-----

You are out of order.

What is out of order is the Tánaiste not answering a question-----

No, the Tánaiste-----

-----on a constitutional and statutory obligation of the Cabinet and who made the decision.

The Tánaiste-----

Will he answer the question? Did the Cabinet make the decision or was the decision made by a lesser official, which is in conflict with both-----

The Tánaiste has suggested that he will come back to the Deputy.

-----the Constitution and the statutory responsibility of this Cabinet? I am asking for the simple truth.

Sorry, just one second, Deputy O'Flynn.

This comes under Standing Orders.

The Tánaiste has explained things. I have tried to explain things to you, Deputy O'Flynn.

I have explained section 1 of the 1956 Act three times now.

Respect the Standing Orders.

I am going to have to rule the question out of order. If Deputy O'Flynn accepts what the Tánaiste has said, he will check to determine what can be said to the House and will reply directly to the Deputy or the House, whatever is deemed legally correct to do. We will move on from there.

The Deputy has made a number of comments on the record of the House. Let us have the transcript of that and I will certainly seek guidance from the Oireachtas as to what parts of the question, if any, the Government should provide any information on to be helpful to the House.

Thank you. We will move on.