I join the Taoiseach and Deputies Martin and Adams in expressing sympathy to the family of Savita on the tragedy that happened at Galway University Hospital.

Last year the Government courageously decided to hold a referendum on judicial pay and conditions, which was passed by the electorate with a large majority. That was a good start to reforms, which, I suggest, are now necessary in a much more radical vein. Yesterday in the High Court, a judge recused himself from a case because he held shares in CRH, the company over which he was making an adjudication. After he had admitted in open court in 2010 that he held the shares, the discovery was made by the plaintiffs that his advisers - in his words - had bought more shares at a time when the case was proceeding under him. I am not making any accusations against him. He states that this was done by his advisers without his knowledge. It raises serious questions about the regulation of the Judiciary and its self-regulation. How can it happen that a judge is allocated a case involving a company in which he holds shares and from which he stands to benefit or lose depending on the verdict? That is the reality. This is a multi-million euro case. It could run into tens of millions of euro. There could also be, unknown to us, other cases involving such matters as the banks and NAMA whose judges are involved in commercial activities which are not declared and about which the plaintiffs and the defendants know nothing. In light of this, would the Taoiseach consider providing that the members of the Judiciary be required by law to make a declaration of their interests for public view so that plaintiffs and defendants can see what they hold and the president of the court can allocate cases accordingly?

We must be careful here that we are not straying into areas covered by the separation of powers. Members should be conscious of it.

I know that Deputy Ross is raising this case as a matter of public interest and that he does not impugn the integrity of any person. He has been clear on that.

The referendum in respect of pay for members of the Judiciary came about because of the constitutional Article that stipulated that the remuneration of judges could not be reduced and because of the circumstances that applied nationally when there was a request for voluntary reductions of salaries. The fact that agreement to this request was not forthcoming to a great extent was the reason the referendum took place.

I will consult with the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, about this matter. There is certainly a need for the public to view the Judiciary as being entirely independent, as it always has, but this is a small country and members of the Judiciary have obviously been involved in business in different areas over the years. This is a matter on which we need to reflect without infringing in any way upon the separation of powers between the Executive and the Judiciary. We must ensure that the high level of confidence in the Judiciary over the years is maintained. It is an issue that I will certainly discuss with the Minister for Justice and Equality.

I thank the Taoiseach for promising discussions. Of course, as the Taoiseach will understand, I am looking for more than discussions, because this is a serious matter. It is quite obvious that the opaque way in which judges conduct their business is not open to any public scrutiny.

Judicial reform is important. The Taoiseach will be aware that I am alleging no misconduct in this case. The fact that the judge must remove himself from the case constitutes a waste of public money because, presumably, the case must be held again.

Is there any way we could remove the appointment and removal of judges from the political arena? The Taoiseach will be aware that this is an area crying out for reform. We have been waiting at least ten years for a judicial council Bill, which has not appeared because the judges have resisted it so much. The Taoiseach will be aware that there has never been a case in the history of the State in which a judge has been removed by a vote of the Oireachtas. There have been one or two that have come close, but it has not happened.

Deputy Shatter, as Minister for Justice and Equality, has brought about more far-reaching and fundamental changes to the legal profession than have taken place over the last 200 years.

He has shattered all the records.

He is already committed to bringing in the courts Bill to reform the way the courts are run. It is an opportunity to make the system fit for purpose for the 21st century.

Come off it now.

It is for Time magazine.

This is a complex matter that arose in the House by way of a special committee on the impeachment of a judge a number of years ago. Deputy Ross, who was a Member of the Seanad at the time, will recall the endless decisions that had to be made in that case, although it did not reach a conclusion, as he is aware.

As part of the reform of the legal system, including the courts, the Minister for Justice and Equality is best placed to go beyond mere discussions and see what can actually be done here. Deputy Ross raises a valid point. I know the Deputy does not want to impugn anybody's integrity, but in terms of maintaining the confidence of the people, it is an issue we can certainly look at.