Given the facts outlined by the Taoiseach, one would expect him to have the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform attend to these issues rather than reheat old tax plans or create diversions.

I want to raise a different aspect of the criminal justice system with the Taoiseach. It is a sensitive matter and I regret any invasions of privacy caused by discussing the health of a retired distinguished public servant, Dr. John Harbison. However, fundamental questions arise with regard to public policy and the integrity of the expert forensic services supplied by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to the criminal justice system. The outcome of the Annabel's case was deeply distressing for all concerned and I know people on every side of the House feel the pain of the parents of Brian Murphy. I ask the Taoiseach whether any other explanation exists for the stark difference of opinion between two professionals, other than that Dr. Harbison is ill.

It is important to note this is not the responsibility of the DPP. In recent days, the Minister has stated on a number of occasions that the office of the DPP is separate and we know that. The fact is that the State pathology service is appointed, funded and administered by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and, therefore, it and the Minister are responsible for the service. Over the weekend, it was leaked that the former State pathologist is ill and will not be able to give evidence in future cases. Questions now arise about his past capacity to perform post mortems and his ability to give evidence in future. When did the Minister know about the health problems of the former State pathologist? Did he know this unavailability would impact on future cases or that the past as well as future competence of the former State pathologist might be at issue? When did the Minister put all the information he had into the possession of the DPP?

Will the Taoiseach arrange for the Minister to make a full statement before the House? Last night, the Minister sought to announce that he would reform the law to preserve the taking of depositions so statements could be put in evidence in the future. However, when challenged on a television programme last night, he immediately backtracked and admitted that it was nonsense that someone could submit such evidence without being subject to cross-examination. We need to hear from the Minister and, in the interim, the Taoiseach needs to reassure us as to whether it is expected that convictions will be open to challenge as a result of the information which has come to light.

I do not have the facts to answer the detailed questions asked about the timing and the Minister's knowledge. I hope Deputy Rabbitte is not asking me to supply this information and, while I will bring his questions to the attention of the Minister, the best way to obtain a full statement would be to put down a question to the Minister.

Ministers have no role in the investigation or prosecution of cases. The role of the Garda is to investigate alleged offences and to gather whatever evidence they can and that goes to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The question of whether an individual should be prosecuted for a criminal offence is the responsibility of the DPP. The Minister said he will hold talks with the DPP to see whether ways exist through which evidence for use in trials can be preserved in advance. Obviously, that is what he intends to do.

On the issue of resources for the State pathology service, the Department is in regular dialogue with the State pathologist regarding resource needs. The Department has dealt with those needs by making additional resources available over a long period of time.

I do not have information on what cases could be affected by Dr. Harbison's illness nor do I know whether that information is available within the Department.

I did not expect details from the Taoiseach but it is immensely disquieting that he is unable to offer any reassurances on a matter of such major importance to the criminal prosecution system. The Taoiseach manifestly dodged the questions and he should not try to pretend to the House that he would not be given a detailed note from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to deal with a question as serious as this, which anybody could have anticipated. Given the Taoiseach comes here with detailed briefs on matters far less important than this, I am very disturbed. There is no point in the Taoiseach rambling on about Ministers having no role in investigations or prosecutions. We all know the rules about the separation of offices. The issue arising from the unfortunate Annabel's case pertains not only to that case but also to the capacity of the then State pathologist to conduct post mortems around and about that time and to give evidence in those trials. I cannot accept this is not regarded as a matter of the gravest urgency by the Government, the Attorney General's office and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform or that the Taoiseach would not have been briefed. Can we expect more cases in which convictions are opened to challenge as a result of what has happened?

I have a statement which was attributed to Dr. Harbison upon his retirement or, at least, consequent to the announcement made by the Department of his retirement after almost 30 years of faithful service. He was a distinguished public servant and gave great service to the State. In March 2003, the public press attributed to him the following statement: "The Government decided from January 1st I was not to examine any more new bodies but I am still working and I am still the State pathologist".

The facts now give rise to profound questions about the integrity of our criminal prosecution system and the duty of the Government to maintain that integrity. I want to know when the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform knew about the infirmity I referred to and when he put the DPP in possession of all that he knew. Does he have any idea how many post mortems or trials may have to be reviewed as a result of this case? Was he told at the time that the past as well as future competence of the former State pathologist may be opened to question? These are profound questions and I expected the Taoiseach to have a detailed note to reassure public opinion on an issue as grave as this.

Deputy Rabbitte asked a number of questions, among the main two being when the Government became aware of Dr. Harbison's illness, but I do not know when that came to light. I do not know whether the cases he had dealt with were considered to be perfect when he retired. The State always had one State pathologist and this Government appointed a second State pathologist, who was involved in most cases over the years. The second question the Deputy asked, which is not within my domain or that of the Minister, is whether other cases could be challenged or might have insufficient evidence for the DPP to take a case due to Dr. Harbison's illness. I do not know the answer to that and it is not a matter for the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. It is a matter for the DPP. Whether the DPP proceeds with a case or a case is challenged——

It is not. It is a matter for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

The DPP is independent in the performance of his functions.

We know that.

The DPP makes decisions based on Garda findings and viewed against the background of common or statute law. The function of the DPP has been separate since the 1974 Act. It is not a judgment——

That is not the issue.

Deputy Rabbitte should let me answer his question.

Why does he not answer it?

He asked if cases could be challenged or could fall based on the judgment of Dr. Harbison who was in ill health. He put the question clearly on two occasions. I cannot be briefed on that question, nor can it be known by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The only person who can answer that question, if it is possible to answer it as one cannot predict whether cases will be challenged, is the DPP. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has no role in investigating an alleged offence except to gather information on events and to submit a report to the DPP.

He is responsible for the provision of expert forensic evidence.

He has no other role. I ask the Deputy not to try to confuse what is clear in law. The Minister has no role whatsoever to influence that. If somebody challenges or appeals a case, or if the DPP decides not to proceed with a case, that is a matter entirely for the DPP.

When did the DPP know?

I do not know that. The Deputy would have to put down a question on that.

The Taoiseach knows nothing.