I want to raise the question of the appointment of judges. We have an increasing number of judicial vacancies and it would appear the legislation which was the subject of some pre-publicity has not materialised. The court system is becoming increasingly overburdened due to the absence of judges and, most importantly, the outlook is very poor.

The role of the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport on legislation on the appointment of judges is causing grave concern, because more and more the line is being taken that somehow our present Judiciary is failing the country, is not of adequate quality, needs to be changed and is the product of cronyism. The Constitution gives to the Executive of the State the right to nominate people to be appointed as judges in our courts. This is an important function for the Government. Nobody in his or her right mind thinks this can be abdicated without a change to the Constitution. It is a function of the Government and the responsibility of the Government. The choice of people for appointment to the Judiciary is a governmental decision.

It is also sometimes stated appointments should not be political. If this means party political I agree completely, but if it means political in the other sense I disagree fundamentally. The persons put on the Supreme Court are chosen for their outlook, their ideology, and by reference to a number of issues which are political in another sense. It is to the Government of the day the function of making nominations falls.

In the United States of America we can see that a highly party-politicised appointments system to the Judiciary exists, but nobody thinks Ruth Ginsburg, for instance, was appointed to the US Supreme Court other than on the basis she was a legal liberal. It was the entitlement of the US President to make an appointment in this respect.

Not a bad idea though.

The simple fact is the composition of our Supreme Court is so important there is only one organ in our Constitution which is vested with the responsibility for it and that is the Government. Efforts to hem it in and prevent it from making appointments are, in my view, very misguided.

I notice the general secretary of the Law Society advocates drawing our Judiciary from a broader spectrum of society as an end in itself. I have a different perspective. I say what we need to do is have excellence in the Judiciary, but nobody in the current debate, especially the Minister, Deputy Ross, is talking about the need for excellence in our Judiciary.

Hear, hear.

They all talk about petty political criteria for putting people on the bench. The quality of judicial appointments has, unfortunately, declined in recent times due to a number of economic factors.

If we allow the quality of the Judiciary to decline, we will suffer economically and internationally in the long run as far as our reputation is concerned. I ask the Leader to arrange for the Tánaiste whom I know has plenty of other pressure points to come to the House to deal with the fundamental question of how we keep excellence in judicial appointments as the first criterion for appointment.