The Attorney General's attack on the justice committee last Friday night was not one of his finer moments. It is wholly inappropriate of the Attorney General to make comments on the policy direction of the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017. That is not his role. His role is to advise Government on the legalities of the Bill only. It is not his place to speak publicly about his opinions on policy decisions in respect of how judges are appointed. He is not an elected member of Government but, rather, a legal adviser to same. If the Bill has ended up a "dog's dinner", it has more to do with the fact that the Bill presented by the Government was a mishmash between the original Private Members' Bill of the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Ross, and what Fine Gael could live with than with the efforts of the Opposition on the justice committee to correct the Bill.

The Government came up with a convoluted system to overcome the fact that the presidents of the District Court and the Circuit Court were being excluded from the commission in an effort to avoid it being too big. If the Attorney General had bothered to follow what went on at the justice committee, he would know that we had already established and argued that the Bill would need substantial change in order to make it fit for purpose. The justice committee has had to try to overcome the small detail that the original Bill was poorly drafted. Perhaps the Attorney General would prefer if we had no interest. It is interesting that the only specific point he chose to single out relates to his own role in the process. What does this tell us? Has he forgotten that the Law Society and the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, ICCL, recommended the Attorney General's removal from the commission? Does he know that his counterparts in England, Wales and Scotland do not sit on the commission? The reasoning behind our amendments on this issue are based on the fact that the Attorney General has his say and influence at Cabinet when it sits to choose one of the three candidates presented to it by the commission. What would be the point in having the Attorney General involved in both processes?

The truth is that the judicial appointments process needs reform. It would be a pity if this opportunity were lost because of various political interests. The overriding aim of the Bill should be to lessen political influence over the appointment of judges. The Government Bill that arrived at the justice committee may have lessened the influence of the legal world in choosing judges but it left political influence very much intact. We tried to address that fact at the committee. It may be that Fine Gael does not want the Bill to go through - I do not know - and perhaps the Attorney General's comments were carefully orchestrated to turn the tide of public and media opinion against the Bill in order that it would be shelved without replacement.

Does the Taoiseach think the Attorney General's comments on Friday night were fair? Were they in line with how an Attorney General should behave? Was the Taoiseach happy with the Attorney General's performance?

The Judiciary has, in the main, served us very well. It has acted impartially and in an unbiased way and has been very objective and professional in discharging its functions down the years.

Regarding the appointments system, as the Deputy knows, the Constitution provides that the Government appoints judges, and we do not propose to change this. However, the Government can take advice on who is appropriate for appointment to the Judiciary and we can have an application process. This exists already to a certain extent with the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board, JAAB, but it is the strong view across the Government - Fine Gael, Independents and the Independent Alliance - that the time has come for reform and modernisation of the system, which is now 23 years old. This is a Government proposal to reform the way in which we appoint judges.

We want it to be more modern, we want it to be merit-based, we want it to be open to applications and we also want to have more lay members involved in advising the Government on who should be appointed to the Judiciary. That is what the Bill is all about.

The Bill has the full support of the Government and all of its members, as I mentioned. We are concerned that some of the amendments which were put down and got through on Committee Stage create difficulties. We do not agree with the removal of the Presidents of the Circuit and District Courts and the Attorney General from the appointments board. We have some difficulties in regard to the constitutionality of requiring the Government to explain why it does not make a particular appointment.

The Bill is coming back on Report Stage. We all know how the Dáil works. A Bill is not perfected on Committee Stage. That is the whole point. It is supposed to come back on Report Stage in order that we can have another look at it. I appeal to people across parties to ensure that the Bill is no longer a political football. Our Judiciary and judicial system is too important to be kicked around. We should not allow it to be a political football.

In that regard, I am very much encouraged by the comments of the Chair of the justice committee, Deputy McGuinness, who spoke about us working on the Bill on Report Stage to refine it. I am also encouraged by the comments of Deputy O'Callaghan on the radio during the weekend. He seemed to indicate that further amendments were possible on Report Stage. I encourage all Members of the House to work together to get the Bill through Report Stage in April, through the Dáil and into the Seanad long before the summer recess.

I have no doubt it is difficult to be on top of every issue but Deputy Ó Caoláin is the Chair of the justice committee. The Government's Bill did not have the Presidents of the Circuit and District Courts on the commission; we have tried to put them on it.

The Taoiseach did not address any of the issues I raised in respect of the role of the Attorney General. His comments were so outrageous that one could be forgiven for thinking that he is either deliberately trying to scupper the Bill or is displaying a serious lack of judgment, which is very concerning given the position he holds. If that was not bad enough he went on to pontificate about what the Supreme Court might do regarding the Angela Kerins case. The Attorney General works on the Executive side. He has stepped over the line relating to the separation of powers and has created a constitutional issue. In legal terms, he has scandalised the court.

The Government is a named defendant in the case of Ireland and the Attorney General v. Kerins. The Attorney General is involved in the nomination of Supreme Court judges. Should he be second-guessing their decision-making in public before the decision is made? A previous Government nearly fell over the behaviour of an Attorney General. Does the Taoiseach not think he should look for a new one? He might need to look for one himself if he does not.

I stand corrected; I am getting my committees mixed up. It is indeed Deputy Ó Caoláin who is the Chair of the committee and not Deputy McGuinness. It is very difficult for me to comment or form a view on remarks which somebody made off the record and in private. That is virtually impossible to do. However, I spoke to the Attorney General yesterday and sought clarification on the matter.

He has made no public comment on the case in question. However, he made a comment at a private luncheon organised by the Association of European Journalists. It is important to say-----

It has been general practice for a long time for journalists to observe Chatham House rules and I am disappointed that Deputies are laughing at their inability to do so. That is another day's work. It is important to point out that the case has already been heard. The hearings are over. There is no jury. The judgment is reserved. Taking account of these facts and circumstances, I am satisfied with his clarification. The Supreme Court will, of course, make its judgment in due course based solely on the submissions made, including submissions made by the Attorney General, and the applicable law.