Is the proposal for dealing with Thursday's business agreed to?

It is not agreed. In the Taoiseach's previous contribution, he started-----

Can we have order for Deputy Kelly, please?

In his previous contribution, the Taoiseach cited once again what is, as far as I am concerned, a complete misunderstanding of the separation of powers. Spurious arguments are being used to prevent a debate in this House. All Members agree and understand that the appointment of judges is a function of the Government. The Government is accountable to the Legislature for its performance of its functions. It is the very separation of powers that warrants time to be put aside so that Members can ask questions of the Minister, Deputy McEntee, regarding the process. It does not matter.

We do not even have to mention a name. It could be Justice X. This is about the process. The Ceann Comhairle, without putting words in his mouth, ruled earlier that it is okay to have such questions, because we will only talk about the process. We can glean from all this that the only reason the Taoiseach is forcing all his Government colleagues to vote in the way they are voting is that, politically, he is afraid for the Minister and the Government to be questioned on this process. That is damn well not acceptable.

The Taoiseach does himself no credit as Head of Government to resist the legitimate and reasonable ask from the Opposition that the Minister for Justice make a statement and take questions on this matter. I remind the Taoiseach that when he was in opposition, he had plenty to say when a former Attorney General was elevated to the Bench of the Appeal Court. At that time, some of his commentary was most unedifying. The Taoiseach said earlier that he never recalled such a request from the Opposition for the Minister for Justice to appear before the House. Bear in mind that never before has a Taoiseach said publicly that he did not know of other expressions of interest for such a position. We can only surmise, because we are not part of the collaboration, conversation and process by which four applicants became one name brought forward to the Cabinet. We have not only a right but a duty-----

The powers are separated.

-----to examine this matter and to examine exactly what happened. The only person who can assist us in that regard is the Minister of Justice.

In 2017, there was a contribution in the House and the question then from the now Taoiseach was about the lack of judicial experience. I would have though it was self-evident that this particular aspect would have been fully interrogated when it came to the appointment of a Supreme Court judge. The fact that the Taoiseach was not made aware that there were other judges who had applied beggars belief. The fact that this process is so deficient is undermining both the House and the Judiciary. I cannot see any other way of Members doing their jobs and holding the Government to account than properly debating this.

There is a feeling among the public that the selection of judges can be a political quid pro quo. People are selected and given positions by the Taoiseach of the day having regard to the negotiation his party has with other political parties and not necessarily on the basis of judicial experience and so forth. As a result of this crisis, it would be very useful for Members and the public to hear the words of the Minister for Justice. It is important that the Taoiseach gives an opportunity to that Minister to put on the record exactly what the process was and whether it lived up to what it should have been.

Every Member has made his or her position patently obvious. Does the Taoiseach wish to respond?

Yes, I do. I must reiterate some key points. Regarding the previous appointment mentioned by Deputy McDonald, that was not through the JAAB process. That said, I never sought the presence of the Minister of Justice to go through a selection process, in terms of giving weight to one person's qualities as opposed to another's.

There was a debate in the Dáil.

Deputy Catherine Murphy has raised that point.

I was reminding the Taoiseach of the point he made.

The appointment I referred to never went through the JAAB. The then Government, in its wisdom, made a decision without going through the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board. It was entitled to do that within the law and the Constitution. That was the context then. The context here is that once I was informed that Mr. Justice Woulfe had gone through the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board-----

While the Taoiseach was in opposition.

-----as a suitable candidate for the position on the Supreme Court, I was happy to accept that. Why? It is because the board is chaired by the Chief Justice and includes the presidents of the other four courts, in addition to representatives of the Law Society of Ireland and the Bar Council of Ireland.

What was the Taoiseach's problem with the others?

In response to Deputy Kelly, I do not want to be embroiling myself in selection processes or appointments, quite frankly.

The Taoiseach is avoiding the question.

I am quite happy that the JAAB would recommend someone as suitable. That is good enough for me.

There were other candidates.

The Taoiseach, without interruption, please.

That is why the judicial appointments commission needs to be established.

So no judges should apply.

The Deputy tries to lecture everybody on the separation of powers, but he thinks it is fitting for me to seek correspondence from the Chief Justice-----

There is no issue.

-----before any impeachment process happens.

Ask.

That is wrong.

Ask.

The Deputy is wrong. It would represent a fundamental breach of the separation of powers.

No, it would not.

Yes, it would. The only basis for that correspondence to go public is if it was needed for the assembly of evidence in this House, if the House was deciding to follow an impeachment process. That is a matter for the House to decide, if it so wishes. The Government has made its position clear. The Government has a responsibility under the Constitution, and that is why I made my statement earlier. I made it on behalf of the Government. The Government must vindicate the legitimacy of both this Oireachtas and the Supreme Court. That emanates from the McCurtain situation at that time, which was brought before the House. That is the reason I made my statement earlier. It is up to other political parties to do what they wish to do about these matters in the fullness of time.