Far be it for me to interpret for you. The next question is from the leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Brendan Howlin.

In recent times we have heard the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Ross, declare that reform of judicial appointments is his top priority, far above anything in the transport Department, we presume. In focusing on his top priority, he has launched the most aggressive attack that I can recall made by a Minister on the Judiciary. Yesterday, the Irish Independent published a column written by Jennifer Carroll MacNeill, an expert in the judicial selection process and, as Deputies will know, a former adviser to two Fine Gael Ministers.

She did us some service by documenting some of the statements made on the Judiciary by the Minister, Deputy Ross, in recent times. The Minister has said that the Judiciary has had a charmed life since the foundation of the State. He has said that those in the Judiciary might forget their constitutional oath.

He said that judges have a blank cheque to declare nothing. He also referred to the Judiciary as a protected citadel. When Members of this House raise any questions about the behaviour of the Minister, Deputy Ross, regarding these matters, he normally attacks them as being apologists or legal insiders. No more than the Taoiseach, I do not have a legal background. I have never studied or practised law so I hope Deputy Ross will not consider me a legal insider. However, I hope the Taoiseach will share my concern at his recent statements.

I do not disagree with Deputy Ross on everything he said. The idea of a register of judicial interests is a worthwhile proposal. Politicians declare their interests on an annual basis and I do not see why judges could not have such a register. As I said, the same rule should apply, but I do not think Fine Gael agrees with that. I also agree with Deputy Ross that there is no reason, in principle, that an inquiry into judicial conduct should not have a lay majority. After all, judges are finally accountable to this House, which is the ultimate panel of the laypersons. However, the notion, which Deputy Ross is determined to drive home and which, apparently, is to be resisted by Fine Gael - perhaps not - that only a lay majority should appoint judges is in my view bizarre. Would Deputy Ross seriously be willing to undergo surgery by a surgeon appointed by a panel of stockbrokers or journalists? Doctors, engineers, architects and academics are all appointed by panels comprising a majority of experts in their relevant fields. Any clear-headed analysis will conclude that being a judge requires expertise and we need experts to assess the expertise of the candidates proffered.

I have two questions. First, will the Taoiseach publicly dissociate himself from the comments made by one of his Ministers which clearly cross the appropriate line between the Executive and the Judiciary? More importantly, will he confirm to the House - while acknowledging the value of a lay minority in the selection of judges - that a majority of those involved in selecting judges should have expertise in the law and practical experience of how the judicial system works?

I have always had the utmost respect for members of the Judiciary.

What about the Taoiseach's Cabinet?

I do not accept that members of the Judiciary would forget their judicial oath in respect of decisions they make. In that context, I dissociate myself from the remark made by the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Ross. The vast majority of cases are dealt with-----

Deputy Moran might get a step up. He might be moving again.

This is Leaders' Questions.

-----in the best fashion by the courts. Some are appealed and some overturned. I am quite sure that members of the Judiciary are very cognisant of the fact that in superior courts up to the Supreme Court and even the European Court cases have been overturned. It is perfectly obvious that decisions of the District Court, the Circuit Court, the High Court and the Court of Appeal - even the Supreme Court only this week - have been overturned. The judges in these courts make decisions which they are perfectly within their rights to make and they do so completely independently of anything to do with politics. I do not have much association with members of the Judiciary. I expect them to do their job fully and in the best interests of the law of the country they serve.

The appointment of judges by the Government is a matter dealt with under the Constitution. The question is what kind of council one would establish to assess the applications, the criteria, the qualifications, the expertise and the kind of personality and character of potential appointees. The matter has not been finalised yet. However, the position is clear - the Constitution gives the Government authority in respect of recommendations. As to whether there will be a judicial council, that is a matter for decision.

I welcome the Taoiseach's reply and the fact that he is distancing himself from Deputy Ross's remarks. An independent Judiciary is an absolute bulwark of our democracy. In the neighbouring jurisdiction, we have seen political comment encroaching upon independent judicial decisions and how damaging that is to democracy.

I welcome the Taoiseach's statement.

With regard to the appointments system, constitutionally the final decision is made by the Government. I remember many years ago, when the current system was decided upon politically, it was determined that we clearly needed an expert panel to make recommendations to the Government. Does the Taoiseach finally agree that the expert panel which makes the recommendations to the Government of those who are fit to serve in the Judiciary should be made up, in the majority and certainly not in an exclusive sense, of practising judges who understand the complexity of the Judiciary?

All judgments, as members of the Judiciary would tell us, are 90% common sense and 10% law. They have to make judgments and decisions in the interests of defendants, the law and the country. There is always a balance as to how this should be got right. Ultimately, the Government makes appointments on the recommendation of some group or council. The balance to be got right is having people with expertise from both sectors, the legal profession and general life, who can say on the basis of applications, experience, qualifications, etc., that certain people are recommended for consideration to be appointed by the Government. I know the Minister, Deputy Ross's best interests lie in having these processes absolutely transparent and accountable. There is always a risk if only members of the profession are appointed or they are in a big majority; all professions must be open to all people qualified on the basis of merit. That is where the discussion on how to do it is at present. At the end of the day, the Constitution is not changing. It is a matter for the Government.