Yesterday I raised questions with the Taoiseach about the integrity of the criminal prosecution system following the collapse of the case against Mr. Dermot Laide in the Circuit Criminal Court and the responsibility of Government to maintain the integrity of that system. The Taoiseach pleaded he was inadequately briefed and could not deal with my questions. However a spokesperson for the Government last night reassured the public that it believed no other cases would collapse like the Dermot Laide case because of the infirmity of the former eminent State pathologist, Dr. John Harbison. While that assurance is welcome, I would like to get it on the record of this House rather than a fleeting statement on the RTE news.

Now that I am sure the Taoiseach has been briefed, has a note and has spoken to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, as he told me he would, I would like to ask my questions again. Yesterday's attempt to muddy the waters about the roles of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform did not help. The State pathology service is directly contracted to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Minister, not the DPP, is responsible.

Does the Taoiseach now say issues about Dr. Harbison's availability to give evidence, and the reliability of that evidence, have not arisen in any case in the criminal courts before the Dermot Laide case? I ask the Taoiseach to be precise and to tell the House the answer to the questions I raised yesterday. When did the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform become aware that Dr. Harbison's infirmity may have this kind of impact? When did he put the DPP in possession of all the information? Given the onerous disclosure duties on the DPP in criminal trials, it is important to know when the DPP was put in possession of this information.

I have not been reassured by the fact that we have not heard from the Minister for 24 hours. I challenge any Member of the House to give me an instance when that has happened since he became Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The Government dealt with this important question. While we are accustomed to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform speaking on behalf of the Government on any issue, we are not accustomed to the Government speaking on behalf of the Minister. Here is the man who told us on "Questions and Answers" on Monday night and in The Irish Times yesterday that he was dismissive of the idea of two State pathologists. He said it could not be entertained. This morning we heard on “Morning Ireland” that the Scottish system is to be applied here and we will have two State pathologists. I want to know why the Minister has been silent for 24 hours and what he told the Taoiseach about when he came into possession of this knowledge that has serious implications for the integrity of the criminal prosecution system.

He is sulking.

I will deal with the two points on which Deputy Rabbitte questioned me yesterday. I was fully briefed on the first point. The second question he asked was when the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform knew about this matter. I stated yesterday that I did not know and that it was a matter for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. A spokesperson for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform put the reply to that question into the public domain immediately afterwards. I understand there is a Dáil question in that regard or that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform stated he would in some way deal with the matter in the House today. I understand he is well prepared to do that.

I was briefed on the first issue yesterday and my position, which I will restate, is exactly the same today. The Deputy asks whether I can give an assurance on the record of the House that no case might arise in the future, that no case is pending or that no case might come through the Court of Appeal where this evidence would be required. I cannot give such an assurance because it is not my responsibility.

The Taoiseach said it last night.

A decision in regard to proceeding with a trial or a retrial is exclusively a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions.

That is correct.

Legislation has been passed by this House to make that the case. The DPP is an independent officer who makes his own independent and objective assessment of the circumstances applying in each case. It is not the function of this House or any entity to seek to influence the decision of the DPP. I am not going to get into that. I never have and will not do so.

Hear, hear.

What implications, if any, arise from Dr. Harbison's condition are a matter for assessment by the DPP on a case by case basis. For me to suggest that the DPP could be definite that he would not be prepared for some case that might arise in one or two year's time in the Court of Appeal is not possible — I could not do that. I will not make such a stupid guess on a matter like that.

Whether any trial or retrial is to proceed is solely a matter for the DPP and his decision will be made on the basis of the evidence available to him. It is totally unwise to speculate on the effect, if any, that Dr. Harbison's condition might have on the DPP's decision in any particular case, the evidence that will be available to him when he makes that decision and what issues will be in contest in any trial.

I also point out that the sub judice rule applies in cases pending before our courts. I was careful in answering on this matter yesterday. My position is the same today. Somebody else might make an assessment of what might happen in the Court of Appeal in one or two year’s time with regard to a case or a murder that happened five or six years ago — I will not go down that road.

The Taoiseach's spokesperson stated last night: "Government officials believe no further cases will be affected—"

On a point of order, no spokesperson on my behalf made any statement last night. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform made the statement.

I see.

It was made in a public arena.

The Taoiseach is disassociating himself from the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

What about collective responsibility?

It is not quite as centralised a system as the Deputy's.

Allow Deputy Rabbitte to speak without interruption.

Brian, you are surely levering him out now.

How is it going, Deputy? The Deputy always comes to his defence.

You are leaving McDowell in the——

The Deputy is the first Labour Party man to propose it. Well done to him.

You are disowning him.

The Deputy always comes to his defence.

Deputies Penrose and Cowen should allow Deputy Rabbitte to continue.

I hope the Deputy stands as firmly behind Deputy Parlon as he stands behind Deputy McDowell. He is on watery ground.

We know that the Deputy will be on his own at the back in any case.

I take it we will hear from the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform after that act of disowning.

Why is the Minister not in the House?

The fact of the matter is that the Taoiseach and the Government do not now take responsibility collectively for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The statement which I just read clearly sought last night to give the impression, which is repeated in the newspapers today, that no further cases will arise. That is now being disowned by the Taoiseach.

The Taoiseach goes back into "muddying the waters" mode as between the role of the DPP and the role of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I have made clear the responsibility for the State pathology services is the responsibility of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The Taoiseach again today evaded the critical questions. I asked him whether any issues arise in respect of the evidence of Dr. Harbison or the reliability of that evidence in any case prior to the Laide case. He did not answer that question.

It is not something that he cannot know. Has any such case arisen? I am aware that one has. In the Kiely case, a situation arose where a person was convicted for murder and rape. In a retrial, that conviction was changed to manslaughter and rape. The presiding judge, Mr. Justice Barry White, stated that the fact that former State pathologist Professor John Harbison became ill and was not available to give evidence was perhaps to the defendant's benefit.

The Deputy's time is concluded.

He stated that the pathology evidence given by Dr. Marie Cassidy, based on photographs, was less forceful. It led to a change of conviction in that case also.

This is a very important issue. The Taoiseach is the leader of the Government. I am merely seeking that he would reassure the House and through it the public with regard to the integrity of the criminal prosecution system. He ought to have a detailed note on this matter. I am amazed that he is disowning the statement from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I am amazed that the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform made a statement which the Minister did not front. I am amazed that the Minister sought to create a distraction by stating that reform of the deposition system was necessary and that he intended to introduce law to make that change but he then resiled from that position on the same programme when challenged about it. I am amazed that there was a statement yesterday morning from the Minister that to have two State pathologists could not be contemplated for a variety of reasons best known to an eminent criminal lawyer who uses his position to cow people from asking questions, yet, this morning, we can have two State pathologists.

The Deputy's time is concluded.

It is not good enough for the Taoiseach to come to the House and disown the Minister, Deputy McDowell, and his officials. What are the answers to the questions I raised yesterday? I do not believe the Taoiseach was not briefed. I believe he could easily have anticipated one of the more obvious and important questions that would be raised in the House. The fact that he feigns lack of briefing does not persuade me.

Deputy Rabbitte raises two issues. First, he asks whether we can give an assurance on the integrity of the criminal justice system. Of course we can — it is an independent system. The issue of prosecution of offences, which the Deputy tried to gloss over, is a matter solely for the DPP.

That is not the issue I am raising.

The Deputy tried to go a little away but then he stopped.

No, I did not.

We are talking about the pathology service. The Taoiseach is avoiding the issue.

A decision on proceeding with a trial or a retrial, which is the core of the Deputy's point, is exclusively a matter for the DPP. Therefore, I cannot understand how anybody other than the DPP can give that answer.

On the Deputy's next question, the Minister last night clarified whether there were any known cases — Deputy Rabbitte also asked that question today. There was no confusion. The Minister clarified it. I stated in the House that I did not have the detail——

What did he clarify?

——and neither should I have the detail of previous cases. The Minister answered on that through his spokesperson——

He did nothing of the kind.

——which was quite in order.

In his third question, Deputy Rabbitte asked me to put on record when the Minister knew the position with regard to Professor Harbison. The Minister clarified that point last night. I will restate the position. He said that in January 2003 gardaí had suggested to a senior official in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform that Professor Harbison should not take on new cases, given that he was getting on and that the murder cases were generally taking a considerable time to reach trial. Professor Harbison was then aged approximately 68. He subsequently retired and performed no new autopsies after that time. Until recently, he dealt with his work giving evidence in pre-2003 cases. That is the answer to the Deputy's question. There is no confusion regarding any of those issues.

To answer the question that the Deputy was asking yesterday and today, it has nothing to do with briefing. He asks whether I can give him an assurance that there is no case, either under way or that ultimately might go to the Court of Appeal, the judgment of which evidence from Professor Harbison or some other fact could alter. I cannot do so, since it would be totally improper. It will be decided case by case on the day. The very point that Deputy Rabbitte makes is that for the integrity of the criminal justice system and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the only person who can make that judgment is the DPP.