The Government promised the judicial conduct and ethics Bill some years ago, and it still has not seen the light of day. Is the Bill imminent? In the climate of current events, will the Taoiseach inform the House of the contents of the letter from Judge Brian Curtin?

I am reluctant to intervene. However, before the Deputy continues, as I indicated on 27 April in regard to the issue surrounding the Circuit Court judge, since this House may ultimately have to adjudicate on the matter, to ensure the interests of the House and natural justice are best protected, Members should refrain from making references which could prejudice the decision of the House in the discharge of its obligation if called upon to do so at a later stage.

Anything I say, or have said, does not rule out the possibility that a defence will be advanced by the judge that may be deemed a good defence ultimately.

What are the contents of the letter received by Government and what is the Government's response to the letter? The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is on the record as saying that impeachment is a live option. Is that still the disposition of the Government? By what procedure might the Oireachtas have this question examined? I understand that, whereas we have the powers, we do not have the procedures. Given the judgment in the Abbeylara case, how would it be possible to deal with this matter? If the Government is going down that road, I presume it is not proposed to have the 226 Members of the Oireachtas hear the evidence. How can a joint committee be established given that the decision on Abbeylara was that where the findings may adversely reflect on the reputation of a citizen that is not permissible?

Will the Taoiseach outline to the House the procedures the Government has in mind? Are there any precedents in this matter? Does the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform have any intention to refurbish the legislation on inquiry by committees of the House? Since the Abbeylara judgment, the Minister who in a previous incarnation was well disposed towards inquiry by parliamentary committee in appropriate circumstances has not made any attempt to address the implications of the Abbeylara judgment since then. I would like to know the response of the Cabinet if it considered this matter this morning and what procedures the Taoiseach intends to adopt from here.

The heads of the judicial conduct Bill are currently being drafted. The House will consider a motion in the context of Article 35.4 of the Constitution.

Because of the nature of this process it is of fundamental importance that those Members who may be called to vote on a resolution for removal must keep an open mind on the issues that are brought before them. Each Member must make an independent assessment of all matters including such information that may be relied upon by Judge Curtin. As the House is aware from my statement of three weeks ago, a letter was sent by the Secretary to the Government to Judge Curtin. That letter presented an opportunity to the judge to explain and address the apparent circumstances of access to and downloading of child pornography from a website. The purpose of forwarding that letter was to enable Judge Curtin to provide explanations and comment upon these apparent circumstances which were not connected with any exercise of judicial functions in order that the Government would then be in a position to make a fair and objective assessment on whether grounds existed for bringing a resolution for his removal under Article 35.4 of the Constitution.

In that initial letter, Judge Curtin was given a period of seven days to reply. He sought a two week extension to reply through a solicitor and the Government acceded to that request. The secretary to the Government received a response from Judge Curtin's solicitors. They asserted that it would not be constitutionally appropriate for him to answer questions asked by or on behalf of the Government or to give an explanation to the Government in circumstances where it is clearly contemplating a process to remove him from office. In fairness to Judge Curtin, his solicitors stated that should the Oireachtas, the body that disposes of resolutions under Article 35.4, make requirements of the judge he will respond appropriately. Judge Curtin has not availed of the opportunity to provide an explanation and commentary to the Government as requested of him on the matters covered in the Government's first letter to him. The letter that granted him a two week extension of time made it clear that such an extension was to enable him to provide a comprehensive response to the Government. The Government had already determined that if a satisfactory response was not received from Judge Curtin, the matter would be referred to in the Oireachtas. The correspondence with Judge Curtin and his solicitor will be available to the Members of this House and the Seanad in due course. I have made it clear that there will be no sweetheart deals. Compensation for loss of office does not apply to the removal of a judge for stated misbehaviour.

The solemn process provided for in Article 35.4 of the Constitution is of fundamental constitutional importance. Neither the timing of nor the procedures inherent in that process will be dictated by any consideration other than fair procedures. There will be no place in this process for partisan party political interests. I have no doubt that the procedures required to ensure due process will be followed. That is an obligation on this House and on the Seanad and is one that will be pursued in an orderly manner.

I wish to reply to Deputy Rabbitte on the deliberations of the Cabinet this morning. A detailed motion will now be drafted for consideration by this House and the Seanad. It is envisaged that the motion will, among other things, invite the House to resolve to establish a joint committee to investigate, in the light of Article 35.4 of the Constitution matters of public concern regarding the conduct of Judge Curtin. Second, it will require that all steps required be taken to confer powers of compellability provided for by the Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Compellability, Privileges and Immunities of Witnesses) Act 1997. Third, it will establish that the role of the joint committee will be to receive and record such evidence by way of video, transcripts and exhibits, and transmit it to the Houses of the Oireachtas by way of report for their consideration; that the joint committee will accord all fair procedures and constitutional rights and due process to Judge Curtin; that the report of the joint committee will record the evidence adduced to the committee hearing but will not make findings of fact or make recommendations. Fourth, it will recommend taking measures to ensure due process for Judge Curtin. They will be the steps taken about which Deputy Rabbitte asked. There will also be a consultation with Opposition parties on a proposed motion and any other procedural steps arising from its content. I anticipate that the motion will be placed before the House not later than next Tuesday if we can come to an understanding on that.

Do I understand from what the Taoiseach has said that a special joint committee of both Houses will be put in place, but its only purpose will be to receive and record evidence and that it will not make any finding or draw any conclusion and that that report will then be referred to the Houses to take whatever action they consider appropriate? How does the Taoiseach propose to invoke the compellability Act since it expressly exempts judges? Has the Taoiseach received the report from the Director of Public Prosecutions and from the Garda Commissioner? Will those reports be put in evidence to the committee? When the Taoiseach stresses the necessity to observe due process, does that mean that in re Haughey would apply to the actual work of the committee and therefore all parties appearing before the committee would have a right to appear with a battery of lawyers? If that process is held in public, given that reputation may be at stake, it would be likely to go on for a long time. Will the Taoiseach comment on this?

Article 35.4 is the relevant Article quoted by the Taoiseach and refers to stated misbehaviour. Are there any precedents for the route we may now embark upon? Can the Taoiseach give assurances to the House that the Opposition parties will be given information on the steps it must take? As I understand it, the constitutional power rests with the Oireachtas as distinct from the Government. Will the Attorney General's advice be available to the spokespersons on justice in terms of the procedure to be followed from here? Will the motion be introduced by the Government? Is it only on foot of that motion that the all-party joint committee can be established? Do I understand from the Taoiseach that will be done as early as next week?

The Deputy has asked a number of questions. Given the constitutional power of the Oireachtas, the Government will make available all information and advice given to us. Over the past three to four weeks the Attorney General has done a substantial amount of work on this and, obviously, as it moves into the area of the constitutional position of the House, we would make our information available and the advice of the Attorney General to meetings or whatever. I assume it would be a Government motion. Others could join in that but, in the preparation of it and to fulfil Article 35.4, the advice we have received is that we should consult on that, and we would do that forthwith.

There have been precedents for this on two different occasions in the 19th century. The committee would be structured as the Deputy said. It would be a joint committee to investigate, in the light of Article 35.4, the terms of the motion and certain matters of public concern regarding Judge Curtin's conduct. It would draw evidence, as the Deputy said, and then report. It would not draw a conclusion. The conclusion would be a matter for the House. The committee would report on the evidence.

On the issue of the compellability of the judge, he is not compellable if he wishes not to be, but witnesses to produce the evidence are compellable. The reports to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Garda Commissioner and the other relevant letters would be made available to the committee along with any other information we have.

On the question of whether lawyers would be available to the committee under the Haughey procedures, the answer to that is yes. The committee would be in camera. That is what distinguishes it from the other cases to which the Deputy referred. Our advice is not the same as that on Abbeylara but, in so far as there are any similarities, they can be dealt with on that basis.

We would hope to move as quickly as possible on the consultation. I accept there are legal issues. We spent four weeks——

Would all the work be necessarily in Cabinet?

I am advised that is generally the case because it is a gathering of information. There is also a time factor in regard to the point the Deputy made about the delay, but the advice I have received is that it would be in camera. I believe that answers most of the Deputy’s questions.