Paul Murphy: Challenges SIPPO Ruling on Taoiseach's GP Contract Leak
Paul Murphy challenged SIPPO's 3-2 decision not to further investigate his complaint that the Tánaiste, then Taoiseach, leaked a GP contract to a political supporter. He argued the Commission accepted a defence that the disclosure was done pursuant to the functions of the Office of the Taoiseach, creating a troubling precedent that shields breaches of ethics legislation.
SIPPO decision and reasoning
The deputy highlighted SIPPO's concluding paragraph 6-4, noting the Commission said it carefully considered legal advice and all the evidence, including the Respondent's acceptance that he had disclosed the agreement. SIPPO concluded it had no remit to consider the lawfulness of the action or the extent of the powers of the Office of the Taoiseach and therefore found evidence sufficient to sustain a complaint would not be available.
Allegation of a leak and the 'Taoiseach' defence
Paul Murphy recounted that the Respondent admitted disclosing the GP contract but relied on carrying out the functions of the Office of the Taoiseach and furthering government policy. He said SIPPO effectively accepted what he called the "Nixon defence or the Trump defence" - admitting the breach but asserting it was justified by the office held.
Concerns about precedent for future oversight
Murphy warned that the SIPPO finding allows any future Taoiseach to claim the same defence - that an alleged breach was done "as Taoiseach" - and thereby block investigations into ethics breaches. He said this creates a very troublesome precedent for oversight of the Office of the Taoiseach and enforcement of ethics legislation.
Response from another deputy defending SIPPO's independence
Deputy Mick Barry responded in the Dáil, stressing that SIPPO is independent of the Oireachtas and should be allowed to act independently. He reminded the chamber that an earlier investigation reached the DPP and resulted in a decision that there was no case to proceed, and cautioned against reinterrogating independent bodies when their decisions do not suit a particular perspective.
Implications for parliamentary scrutiny and ethics enforcement
The exchange focused on SIPPO's role in investigating alleged leaks of a GP contract and the limits the Commission says it has in judging actions taken under the functions of the Office of the Taoiseach. The debate raised questions about the balance between independent oversight, the remit of ethics bodies, and parliamentary scrutiny of potential breaches by senior office-holders.
We publish thousands of recordings to make Irish politics transparent and resistant to manipulation. Spotted an error? Report it — together we are building a reliable archive of Irish politics.
Taoiseach, I presume you are aware that SIPPO decided on a 3-2 majority that it would not further investigate my complaint about the Tanaiste, then Taoiseach's leaking of the GP contract to his political supporter, Mathieu O'Toole. I want to focus here on the reasoning set out by SIPPO. In the concluding paragraph 6-4, it says the Commission carefully considered its legal advice and all the evidence before it, including the acceptance by the Respondent that he did disclose the agreement, but that it was done pursuant to the functions of the Office of the Taoiseach and in furtherance of the policy goals of the Government. In such circumstances, where the Commission is of the view that it has no role and or remit to consider either the lawfulness of the action or the extent of the powers of the Office of Taoiseach, it is the opinion of the Commission that evidence sufficient to sustain a complaint is not and will not be available, even in circumstances where the disclosure of the agreement is not in dispute. Effectively, the Tanaiste, then Taoiseach, used the Nixon defence or the Trump defence. I did it, I leaked the contract, I broke the ethics legislation, I breached the codes of conduct, but I did it as Taoiseach. I did it in pursuance of the policy of the Government and therefore it is okay. SIPPO has accepted that. It says, okay, he said that defence, it doesn't go into whether it's true or not. They don't make a judgement about whether he did it in pursuance of the policy goals of the Government or not. Once he raises that defence, that's it, we can't look into it any further. Does the Taoiseach agree that there is a problem there and it creates a very troublesome precedent for the future, whereby the next Taoiseach, who just happens to be the person who was complained about here, or a future Taoiseach again, will be able to blatantly breach ethics legislation and stop any investigation by simply saying, I did it as Taoiseach. Deputy Mick Barry. Deputy Murphy raised the issue of the SIPPO decision. SIPPO have decided it's a body that's independent of the Oireachtas. I worry at times that if the decision doesn't go a person's way, that somehow it has to be reinterrogated and it has to be wrong, because it doesn't agree with your position. I mean, there has to be, and I know every decision can be subject to subjective analysis, as it has been in this case. You have a perspective on it, but I think whether one likes it or one doesn't like it, from your perspective, the decision has been taken by an independent body that's independent of the Oireachtas. And we should respect that decision. There already has been an investigation which went the whole way to the DPP. And you know the decision of that, there was no case to proceed with. And in my view, SIPPO should be allowed to continue to act independently of the Oireachtas in respect of all its duties. And in terms of decisions, and there is a danger of indirect pressures being put on SIPPO to get the right result. No, from your perspective, by raising it in the manner that you've raised it, you've raised the spectre of, we don't like that result, surely it's wrong, it should be changed. And that would be a concern of mine. No, I'm just saying, I would make that point. We have to, we create independent bodies, and there comes a stage when they make decisions, they adjudicate, and we just have to get on with it.
Thank you for downloading 🙏
If you publish this material on social media, we would be very grateful if you tagged VideoParliament. It helps us reach more people and keep building a transparent archive of Irish politics.
