It was none of those things. This was an agreement that had been concluded. It had been published in substance, or at least the salient details had, including all the financial and commercially sensitive information. This agreement had been launched by the HSE and welcomed publicly by me and by the Minister for Health. It had gone to the Cabinet. The Cabinet memo very clearly says that engagement had concluded. The head of the NAGP requested it. I gave it to him because he was the president of the NAGP, not because…

I have. The first occasion was when I heard the story was breaking, to find out what it was about. The second occasion was when I was preparing my statement, to check the date on which I sent him the document. On the third occasion he contacted me, wanting to know if the NAGP should issue a statement. I said that was up to him and I did not want to direct or advise him.

I spoke to him once about my statement, to see if I could check the date on which I sent him the document. I still have not been able to find the exact date. As I have said, it was some time between 11 April and 16 April.

I am not sure that is a question. I was not chatting. I wanted to make sure I pieced together everything in my recollection so that I could share all of these facts with the House. One of the things published in Village was a WhatsApp message from me to him looking for his home address. I did not have that WhatsApp message any more and I wanted to check the exact date on which I sent the document. I knew that was one of the questions I would be asked. It was being put about on Twitter by one of the Deputies here th…

The answer to the Deputy's question is "Yes". He is over-egging it. That is clearly a big part of this story. Someone who is known to me, who is a friend but not a close friend, made out to various people that he was closer to me than he was and that he had special access. That is a big part of what this is about. I am not trying to make out that I am some sort of victim. That is simply the fact.

Yes, my personal assistant, PA, to whom I gave the document for postage.

I am not sure how often my PA reads documents that I post. When I was trying to put the timeline together, she did recall it. I doubt she read it.

Either my PA or my private secretary handles any phone calls or post for me in the normal course. As I said, I gave this document to Dr. Ó Tuathail on a confidential basis as president of the NAGP. As I said earlier, all the salient details had already been published. The engagement with the IMO had concluded. The fact that a hard copy of a document is marked "CONFIDENTIAL" does not mean it remains confidential forever. There comes a point where it ceases to be confidential and becomes widely known.

I did not say that.

Not to my knowledge, but a situation like this had never arisen before in my experience. If this had been a traditional pay agreement, we would have published the agreement that night or within a day or two. If it had been a dispute settlement, the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, or the Labour Court would have released the document that evening. If it had been a commercial contract, I would not have had it because of the rules around commercial contracts.

The Deputy asked about anyone who worked for me. Hundreds of people have worked for me in the last ten years. I cannot answer on their behalf. I can answer on mine. The answer on my behalf is "No".

To the best of my knowledge, the answer is "No".

On a point of clarification, if the Deputy asks me a question about my actions, I can give him a definitive answer, but if he asks me a question about another Minister, Deputy or somebody who worked for me, I cannot give a definitive answer. I can only answer to the best of my knowledge. I am not trying to be evasive. I am not hiding anything. I am just trying to give the Deputy, as best I can, a factual answer.

Again, I cannot answer questions on behalf of other people. I think it is evident from all of this affair that Dr. Ó Tuathail, for his own reasons, made out to be closer to me than he was. On this occasion, I shared that document with him in confidence for two reasons. First, the agreement had been done and announced and it had been approved by the Cabinet and I wanted to ensure it would get maximum support from the GP community and was trying to avoid a repeat of what we had in 2015. That was my motivation. We had…

The organisation was very effective in 2015 when it came to undermining support for and acceptance of the contract relating to children under six. I provided the document for two reasons: first, because there was a Government commitment to inform, consult and engage it on these talks; and, second, because I wanted to mollify or reduce any opposition to the agreement. I wished to demonstrate to Dr. Ó Tuathail that it was a good agreement and the NAGP should not try to oppose it.

I was wrong in the way I went about it. I should have done it differently. I should have brought Dr. Ó Tuathail in and given a full briefing, even if it was line by line or page by page. That is the way it should have been done. I did not do it that way because I knew him and, almost as a shortcut, I did it in the way I did it. I should not have done it that way. I should have set aside an hour or two to do it in a more formal and proper way. I absolutely accept that was an error of judgment. It was a mistake on my…

Thank you.

As I explained, if I was doing this again, I would do it through official channels. I would perhaps bring Dr. Ó Tuathail in and do a page by page or line by line briefing. What I wanted to do was to share the document with him on a confidential basis to get his opinion on it and see whether he thought it was a good deal. I believed that in sharing it with him, he would come to the conclusion that it was a good agreement and that the NAGP should not campaign or agitate against it or try to undermine it, as it did ba…

The document was not made public. It was not circulated among the NAGP membership or shared widely. It is a document I gave to a person in confidence for the reasons I explained, namely, to try to demonstrate that what had been announced was exactly what was in the document and that there was no reason to oppose it. That was the basis on which I gave it to him. It was not published or put into the public domain. What was happening at the same time, as an IMO council member confirmed recently, was that there were me…

As I think I explained, it is important to note the memo brought by the Minister for Health to the Cabinet on 9 February said very clearly that engagement with the IMO had concluded many days previously. The IMO in its own statement said-----