Yesterday, the Taoiseach's Government voted to block the Dáil from putting questions to the Minister for Justice, Deputy McEntee, regarding the appointment of the former Attorney General, Séamus Woulfe, to the Supreme Court. His claim that this would impinge on the separation of powers is utter nonsense, as he well knows. In the Dáil in 2017, the Taoiseach said that any attempt to use the separation of powers as an excuse to avoid accountability in respect of a judicial appointment was "bogus". He will know that, on that occasion, a debate was held and questions were put.

The Government is clearly circling the wagons. This morning, Green Party Minister, Deputy Catherine Martin, was wheeled out to make this same bogus argument on radio. The Government knows that the Minister is accountable to the Dáil and is duty-bound to take questions. The Government came into office on 27 June. Séamus Woulfe stood down as Attorney General on that date. The proposal to appoint him to the Supreme Court came to Government on 16 July, just three weeks later. In addition to Mr. Woulfe, three sitting judges had also expressed an interest in this position. The Minister did not have just one name to consider, but four. She needs to explain very clearly how she whittled down that list of four names to one. By what criteria was that selection made? With whom did she confer and collaborate? Who did she inform? Why did the Minister fail to inform the Taoiseach and Government colleagues of expressions of interest from these judges in advance of the decision to appoint Séamus Woulfe?

It beggars belief that no member of Government asked whether there were other applications. The Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the leader of the Green Party were all left out of the loop in a Supreme Court appointment. Not one of the three men charged with leading Government asked questions about this important matter. If this is true, it is remarkable. In the endgame of government formation talks between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, the Taoiseach announced that the position of Attorney General would be rotated in line with that of Taoiseach. The position was central to the horse trading. Séamus Woulfe, the outgoing Attorney General and a long-term member of Fine Gael, was appointed to the Supreme Court.

In 2017, the Taoiseach described the appointment of former Attorney General, Máire Whelan, to the Court of Appeal as "an insider appointment" and said that "it stinks to high heaven." In that case, he was incredulous and angry that other applicants for the position had not been treated fairly. It is, therefore, very strange that he did not ask if there were other applicants on this occasion. When calling for a debate and a session of questions and answers in 2017, the Taoiseach said that the Government's reaching for the separation of powers was "bogus" and he criticised the Government for resisting taking questions. He was right then but he is very wrong now. Blocking the Dáil from putting questions to the Minister for Justice stinks to the highest heavens. It raises the question of whether this was the type of insider appointment against which the Taoiseach railed three years ago.

For the sake of clarity, for transparency and to ensure this Oireachtas can do its job and discharge its responsibilities, I ask the Taoiseach to ensure the Minister, Deputy McEntee, comes before the Dáil to make a statement on these matters and to take questions.

First of all, I have taken questions on this issue as Taoiseach. I took them yesterday and I am taking questions right now. The Deputy is asking questions and I am going to take them. The Deputy's question was very interesting. At the outset, I must say that her assertion that there was horse trading involved in the appointment of Paul Gallagher as Attorney General and some connection to the appointment of Mr. Justice Woulfe to the Supreme Court is an untruth and a false assertion. She should withdraw it because it impugns the integrity and ability of the present Attorney General, who has had nothing to do with that. It is historical precedent that the Attorney General is appointed by the Taoiseach of the day. That has always been the position. There has always been an important relationship between the Taoiseach and the Attorney General in any Cabinet.

It was also interesting that, in the Deputy's question, she wanted to ask the Minister, Deputy McEntee, who she collaborated with and on what criteria did she judge. That is the very reason why in my opinion the Minister, Deputy McEntee, should not actually have to say or to compare judges with a person who was deemed suitable by the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board. I do not believe politicians should be embroiled in negotiations on who should or should not be a judge.

I do not think that is the function of politicians.

When I learned that the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board, JAAB, chaired by the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Frank Clarke, and by the presidents of the other four courts, in addition to representatives of the Law Society and the Bar Council, had deemed Mr. Justice Woulfe suitable to be a Supreme Court judge, that was good enough for me. I have no interest in embroiling myself any further. Notifications may be sent in and representations may be made by judges to the effect that they would like to be considered for particular positions. The Minister for Justice of the day brings one name to Cabinet. As far as I was concerned, the fact that the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board was satisfied that Mr. Justice Woulfe was a suitable candidate for the Supreme Court satisfied me and I was not going to second guess it. That is the point.

On the case of Ms Justice Máire Whelan - I do not want to embroil the Judiciary because the said person is a member of it - JAAB was not used on that occasion. Be that as it may, JAAB was involved in deeming Mr. Justice Woulfe as a suitable candidate. The Deputy is tantamount to saying that in future, the Minister for Justice should come to the Dáil and say which candidate he or she picked or recommended to Cabinet against the other candidate or candidates and on which criteria. I do not agree with that. Dáil Éireann is not the place to decide on that. The Judicial Appointments Advisory Board is the current body for that but in the future the commission that we intend to establish will be the way to do this, and the Government is committed to a judicial appointments commission. That was before the previous Dáil. Our view of that is that the chairperson of that should be the Chief Justice, and that would represent the right balance in our view and we have said that. That is my position on that and we will introduce the legislation to establish that commission. We will also engage with Members of the House on that because that is an important reform of the process for the selection and appointment of judges and it would take it further out of the realm of the political domain.

The Taoiseach's response is incoherent gibberish and he knows it. The Taoiseach has changed his tune from when he sat on the Opposition benches and correctly challenged the Government of the day to give an account of itself and challenged the then Minister for Justice and Equality to give an account of the process by which a selection for a judicial appointment was made. The standards then are the standards now. The responsibility of the Oireachtas to hold the Government to account remains paramount. The Taoiseach reaches for the JAAB process, even though he knows that was one of two channels through which names came forward. Please do not rehearse that nonsense again. That there was horse-trading around the position of Attorney General is not only truthful, it is a verifiable truth. It played out in the media between Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and, let it be said, the Green Party.

I hear that the Taoiseach does not want to be further embroiled in these questions so the straightforward, correct and proper thing to happen is that the Minister for Justice presents herself and gives an account of those three weeks between 27 June and 16 July and sets out, for the satisfaction of this Oireachtas, the process by which four names became one and four applicants became Seamus Woulfe. That is what this Oireachtas demands and deserves.

Sinn Féin has a habit of continually repeating a claim and then asserting that it is the truth. What the Deputy has just said is an untruth. It is not verifiably true that there was horse-trading involving the position of Attorney General. Stop misleading the House in that regard and deliberately creating a story that has no foundation in fact. The Deputy should withdraw that claim because I know that there was absolutely no relationship between the appointment of the Attorney General, Paul Gallagher, and the appointment of Mr. Justice Woulfe - none.