Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)

It is believed around the House that the Taoiseach gave a somewhat different presentation to his parliamentary party. He will understand why we on this side of the House are anxious that if we are taken into his confidence in terms of what material is in his possession in this regard and if we play our full part responsibly in a situation that we have not confronted before, we do not find ourselves subsequently taking a very different route, which is the purpose of my questioning.

It has been suggested in newspaper coverage that the evidence secured on a spent warrant that would not be admissible in a court of law would be admissible as evidence before a committee of the Oireachtas. Is that the view of the Taoiseach? Is it a correct interpretation of what he said that the letter he received from the solicitor acting on behalf of Judge Curtin refers to the fact that he is regrettably suffering from a psychological disorder? I understand that is what the Taoiseach has said. I raise that in the context of Article 35.4 where removal is on the basis of either stated misbehaviour or incapacity. The Taoiseach may have heard a senior lecturer and professor of law in Trinity College and others argue that "incapacity" may have a wider meaning than the physical incapacity suggested by the Attorney General and others. The word in Irish is "míthreorach", which I am advised means perhaps more a mental rather than a physical incapacity. Given the current circumstances, would it be possible to proceed on that basis?

See this speech in context