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-----
Sentiment score: 0.00
-----with the complaint upon reply. Protected disclosures were made-----
Sentiment score: 0.07
------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-----
Sentiment score: 0.09
-----that the dismissal of an established civil servant is compliant with statutory constitutional fair procedure.
Sentiment score: 0.32
This is about the Constitution. This is what it is about-----
Sentiment score: 0.00
-----and it is about the statutory procedure. That is what it is about. Will the Tánaiste's Government confirm that-----
Sentiment score: 0.00
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-----
Sentiment score: -0.01
Did the Government authorise the dismissal of Mr. John Barrett?
Sentiment score: 0.00
The Tánaiste has had this information for 19 months.
Sentiment score: 0.00
He was notified on 5 July 2024, on 18-----
Sentiment score: 0.00
I am talking now. On 28 January 2025-----
Sentiment score: 0.00
On 18 November-----
Sentiment score: 0.00
What is out of order is the Tánaiste not answering a question-----
Sentiment score: 0.00
-----on a constitutional and statutory obligation of the Cabinet and who made the decision.
Sentiment score: 0.00
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-----
Sentiment score: -0.16
-----the Constitution and the statutory responsibility of this Cabinet? I am asking for the simple truth.
Sentiment score: 0.16
I have explained section 1 of the 1956 Act three times now.
Sentiment score: 0.00