NIALL COLLINS AND the controversy over council land being sold to his wife dominated the political landscape this week. 

But perhaps the bigger issue in Leinster House was the departure from the precedent of having ministers embroiled in controversy coming before the Dáil to answer questions. 

It is not rare for controversies or scandals to surround politicians.

Generally, they are handled like this: something big hits the headlines, statements are made, the opposition calls for clarity and eventually, the minister in question is prepped within an inch of their life and walks into the Dáil chamber to face the music. 

This has been the case for Justice Minister Helen McEntee in relation to judicial appointments, Taoiseach Leo Varadkar (when he was Tánaiste) over the GP contract debacle and also Public Expenditure Minister Paschal Donohoe more recently regarding his election posters.

No politician likes to be put on the spot and be faced down by the opposition’s questions, but it is the most straightforward way of getting it all out on the table and moving on. 

But despite their regularlity, Dáil question-and-answer sessions were likened to a “kangaroo court” this week. It was Taoiseach Leo Varadkar who made that particular comparison. 

And then there was Micheál Martin’s intervention. Both signal a significant shift in political strategy. 

As RTÉ correspondent Micheál Lehane put it on the recent Your Politics podcast, the government’s stance has always been that you get a minister through a political controversy by them going into the chamber and answering questions.

“If they survive that, if they survive those punches, they have survived that controversy,” Lehane explains, but adds that Micheál Martin argues it should be different if the scandal was orchestrated purposefully as he argues is the case here. 

Martin strongly criticised the The Ditch website under Dáil privilege on Thursday, which originally published the information about the land sale.

The Tánaiste questioned whether it was an independent platform, as well as its financing. He also claimed the publication, which is a member of the Press Council of Ireland, had orchestrated an attack on a member of the House.

He urged the Dáil not to slavishly follow, what he believes, is The Ditch’s agenda. 

The context of these words is, of course, that without The Ditch’s reporting, Robert Troy and Damien English would still be ministers. And in fact, the NUJ has hit out at the Tánaiste’s intervention. 

So what do those in Leinster House think of such a departure in accountability? 

Social Democrats leader Holly Cairns was one of the first to raise concerns, asking the Tánaiste if accountability and transparency is slipping.

In Leaders’ Questions on Thursday, ahead of the Dáil statement by Collins, Cairns honed in on the differential treatment being shown, particularly within Fianna Fáil. 

“When the Tánaiste sacked Deputy Cowen as Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine he said it was because Deputy [Barry] Cowen was not prepared to make any further statement or answer questions on the issue in this House.

“The Tánaiste clearly thought it was appropriate for Deputy Cowen to take questions on the matter in this Chamber,” she said, questioning why the case of Niall Collins should be any different.

In July 2020, Fianna Fáil TD Barry Cowen was sacked from his role as Minister for Agriculture following the controversy surrounding his drink-driving ban in 2016. 

Cowen disputed the accuracy of a Garda report, which alleged he performed – or attempted to perform – a U-turn after approaching a Garda checkpoint where he tested over the drink-driving limit.

In 2022, a Garda Siochana Ombudsman Commission report found Cowen did not seek to avoid a Garda checkpoint in 2016. 

However, at the time, members of the House called on Cowen to answer questions in the Dáil about the allegation. 

Cowen had apologised for the drink-driving ban incident but took the decision not to partake in a Dáil Q&A until investigations by the Data Protection Commission and GSOC had concluded.

Martin has long defended his decision to remove Cowen from Cabinet, explaining that his logic centred on the minister’s failure to make himself available to the Dáil.

In fact, in his statement after the removal of Cowen, Martin said that on seeing the initial Garda report, there were additional issues which required further explanation and clarification. 

“This decision has created a situation where legitimate doubts and additional questions are being raised, and Government colleagues are expected to address these. This is simply untenable,” Martin explained.

“It is my view that Minister Cowen had an obligation to come before the House. It is also my view that this issue is damaging to the ongoing work of Government,” he said. 

One could argue that Collins having to make a second Dáil statement is also a  distraction. Are both men not obligated to answer questions and why should one be sacked for refusing to do so, while the other is defended? 

Two ministers. Two similar situations. One big contradiction.  

“On the button” is how one Fianna Fáil TD described Cairns contribution in the Dáil to The Journal, adding they 100% agreed with her sentiment in terms of differing treatment being shown. 

When Cowen said he wanted to wait until the matter was adjudicated by GSOC, he was sacked, they added. 

So why has Martin changed his stance? Why are they now so scared of Q&A sessions?

One TD said the government “set the bar too high for everybody and they can’t climb it”. They argued that there is now a realisation from those within government that the attitude of the opposition is to “create a smell and its enough”. 

There is a belief among some government deputies that the aim of Q&A sessions is not to provide clarity and answers, but to add more confusion, leading to death by a thousand cuts.

Social Democrats leader Holly Cairns TD. Oireachtas.ie Oireachtas.ie

When Cairns stood up in the Dáil this week, she spoke clearly: “The Taoiseach previously agreed to take questions on a controversy he was embroiled in and so did the Minister without Portfolio, Deputy McEntee. The Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, Deputy Donohoe, has recently done the same.

“However, now when the Minister of State, Deputy Collins, is due to address the Dáil about a controversy for the second time in two months, the Taoiseach tells us facilitating questions from the Opposition would be akin to ‘a kangaroo court’,” she said. 

The government narrative is “there is nothing to see here”, she said.

But if the matter is so straightforward, why refuse the opposition the opportunity to question the Minister of State? 

She added: “It’s the job of opposition to hold Ministers and Ministers of State to account. The opposition has a really important role to play in our democracy by doing so.

Why is there one rule for the Minister of State, Deputy Collins, and another for other members of the Tánaiste’s Government and his party?

“Does the Tánaiste agree with the Taoiseach that question and answer sessions turn the Dáil into a kangaroo court?”

The definition of a kangaroo court is an unofficial court held by a group of people in order to try someone, especially without good evidence, as guilty of a crime or misdemeanour.

Judge and jury

Inconsistencies and double standards do no service to the public – particularly at a time when trust in politicians seems to be at an all-time low. 

Honesty is what the public demand from their public representatives – both from government and politicians when it comes to dealing with issues of the past. 

Dáil Q&As have served the public well in the past in terms of getting to the bottom of a story – such sessions are there to serve the public, to ensure all is out in the open before moving on. 

If close-ended statements are the go-to for this government going forward, they shouldn’t be surprised if people deliver a similar short and sharp verdict in the next poll.