Again, I say it was wrong of the Taoiseach not to consult with the leaders of the Opposition in regard to what he has just announced to the House in the context of the Guerin investigation. It would have been useful if the Taoiseach had shared some of the main headlines and content of that report because we had no indication the report had reached his desk or that it would have such dramatic repercussions and implications. It now seems the report will not be published until Friday-----

Friday morning.

-----and the Taoiseach has indicated that a commission of investigation will be established following the recommendations of the report. Does the Taoiseach then intend to have a full debate on the report in the House next week? He indicated that time would be made available for a comprehensive debate on it. Will the Taoiseach confirm whether that is the order in which the Government intends to deal with this? Will he indicate why he did not consult with leaders of the Opposition, given the gravity of what has unfolded and given the fact that prior to this there was a degree of engagement between us on the issues - albeit in a bona fide way - in the context of the establishment of the Guerin commission? These questions concern the timeframe. I appreciate that the Taoiseach may say there are legal reasons he cannot deal with the Guerin report today and therefore we cannot debate it today. I presume that is why he suggested there are items for redaction and so on. Is that the position?

Yes. As I said, the report came to me, as Taoiseach, yesterday evening and I considered it. I said previously when we raised this matter that when the report arrived it would be received and announced to the House and not held. I am quite sure that, as usually happens, when people find that a report has been presented to a Minister, to the Government, or, as in this case, to the Taoiseach, there will always be questions about why it is not being published or dealt with.

I want to put an end to that. The report has to be redacted in part because of the personnel who are named and the surrounding issues which were pointed out by the senior counsel. That work is ongoing today and tomorrow and, as I said, the report will be published on Friday morning.

The Government will look at the setting out of terms of reference for the commission of investigation, as recommended by Mr. Guerin, to see how they should be structured, what it is the commission of investigation should look at and whether it should include GSOC and the analysis that took place by the different authorities - the Department of Justice and Equality, the Garda Síochána and so on. The terms of reference will obviously have to be debated here. The report is 300 pages long and needs to be considered carefully. It may not be appropriate, given its scale, for it to be debated next week, but that is a matter for agreement between the Whips. When Members read it, they will see for themselves the scale of what is involved. As I said, I would have been happy to have the report published immediately on receipt, but there is a clear recommendation that it be redacted for very particular reasons which I am sure Deputy Micheál Martin understands. That work is ongoing and the report will be published on Friday morning.

I agree that the Taoiseach has been remiss in that he majored on a new way of doing business and so on. I have just read the Minister's resignation letter. The Taoiseach should have consulted or, at least, informed the Opposition of these matters. The Minister, in his letter, says he has not read the full report and has reservations and concerns about it, in particular its conclusions. He says he is anxious to avoid any controversy that might arise for the Government or difficulties which may be created for Fine Gael or the Labour Party in the lead-in to the European and local government elections. This echoes to some degree what I said a moment or two ago, but we will put it to one side. Does the Taoiseach have concerns about the report? He made a point when he was speaking earlier of saying several times that the Minister had not been interviewed by Mr. Guerin. The Taoiseach has read the report; none of us has. Does he accept the report or does he, too, have reservations and concerns? Does he have concerns, as the Minister does, about its conclusions? Why did he not tell us that the Minister had resigned in order to avoid any controversy that might arise for the Government or difficulties this issue might create for Fine Gael or the Labour Party? Why did he not circulate the letter of resignation to Members?

We are not debating the letter. This is the Order of Business.

Excuse me, a Cheann Comhairle, let me make my point.

Excuse me, Deputy. I am in the Chair and telling the Deputy that this is the Order of Business. I have given him leeway for the past two or three minutes, but I now remind him that this is the Order of Business. We have already had Leaders' Questions.

On the Order of Business, I am asking the Taoiseach why he did not distribute the Minister's letter of resignation to the Dáil and why he did not tell us one of the reasons given for that resignation? The Minister said he wanted to avoid any controversy that might arise for the Government and create difficulties for Fine Gael or the Labour Party in the lead-in to the European and local government elections.

There is a particular reason for this and it is constitutional. It is the House that appoints Ministers and the House which should hear of resignations. I am sure that if I went over to the Deputy out the back and said Minister X or Y was resigning, he would be away to tweet and put claims on it.

The Taoiseach could have circulated the letter.

The reason is constitutional - it is this House that appoints and confirms Ministers. It is this House and its Members that should hear about ministerial resignations. I am actually intrigued by the Deputy's comments. This is a case in which I, representing the Government, come in and inform the House, as is my responsibility, of a ministerial resignation and the Deputy is giving out about it and saying he should have been told in advance.

There is no constitutional barrier to the letter being circulated to Members.

We are not having a debate. I ask the Deputy to resume his seat.

There is no constitutional barrier to it.