The Government has been at pains to reject the idea that its Covid-19 strategy has been informed by the interests of short-term private profit. It is now 100% patently clear that is what is informing, or at least partially informing, the approach of the Government. Yesterday the Taoiseach told the Dáil that "we took a more conservative approach on the household visits, and then traded that off with visits to hotels and restaurants". In other words, the Government rejected the NPHET advice to prioritise what is esse…

What actions do the Taoiseach and his Government intend to take to pressurise the British Government to reverse its scandalous decision not to hold a public inquiry into the murder of Pat Finucane? Even David Cameron, in 2012, admitted to "shocking levels of collusion" and said it seemed that Mr. Finucane was suggested to the murderers as a target to kill by the police. The British Supreme Court has found that there was a failure to investigate this killing properly, but the British Government is determined to avoi…

The Taoiseach accused me of giving a warped interpretation of what he said, so I will repeat what he said, which is very plain: "we took a more conservative approach on the household visits, and then traded that off with visits to hotels and restaurants". The Government chose not to follow NPHET's recommendations on household visits so that it could open up hotels and restaurants. It is very clear, it is not warped. The Taoiseach says that he did that not because of profit but because of mental well-being. I think …

So the pubs could be opened.

Well the pubs are being opened. That was the choice-----

It is not agreed. On the Order Paper for today is a very important motion which is fundamentally about accountability. It is a motion to begin the process of removing Seamus Woulfe from his position as a Supreme Court judge on the grounds of stated misbehaviour. The motion, which people can read, sets out the stated misbehaviour which, in a nutshell, comprises his attendance at the Oireachtas golf society dinner and his response to the crisis and scandal around that. In doing so, he undermined the public health adv…

Not agreed.

Not agreed. I will restate the essential point that the Standing Order very clearly does not envisage a situation where an Article 35 motion could be put, would simply sit on the Order Paper and would then lapse after a period. It is clear that it envisages a situation where there are two options at that first stage. Either the motion is rejected and that is the end of the process or a motion to adjourn the debate is passed and then, within five days, a select committee has to be appointed. Deputy Mac Lochlainn's p…

And also put our-----

I would like to make two points. The Taoiseach implies there is a problem with us disagreeing with the Ceann Comhairle's interpretation. There is no problem whatsoever. Any Deputy has a right to disagree with the Ceann Comhairle's interpretation, state the grounds for this and ask for the House to overturn it. If the House did so, it would not be a vote of no confidence in the Ceann Comhairle. There is nothing illegitimate about doing that. Regarding the use of our time, if there is an offer to use five minutes of …

That is the point.

I am not the one who is making it up as he goes along. The words of Standing Order 77(2) are extremely clear. I encourage people to read them.

The Minister stated that there is one inescapable fact; people are living longer. In 1971, we had an average life expectancy of 71. That figure has now reached 81. It is great news that people are living longer. People should be able to enjoy a longer retirement as a result. I want to introduce the Minister to another inescapable fact which she chose not to mention. Productivity tripled between 1971 and now. Workers today produce 300% of the wealth they produced in 1971, while their real wages have only increased b…

I find it quite outrageous, to be honest, that after two weeks of ducking and diving by the Government, in trying to shield the Minister from questioning, we have received a statement that goes on for ten minutes and manages to avoid the central issue about which questions have been raised. The central issue is, if the Minister's story is accurate, on what basis did she decide that Séamus Woulfe would be the name she would recommend to the Cabinet? On what basis did she decide it would be him rather than the other …

I want a "Yes" or "No" answer to this question. When the Minister spoke to the Taoiseach about this matter, did she mention the fact that there were other expressions of interest besides Séamus Woulfe?

When the Minister's party leader, Deputy Varadkar, told her he thought Séamus Woulfe would make a good judge, did that weigh heavily on her mind when it came to recommending him?

When Deputy Varadkar expressed the opinion that Séamus Woulfe would make a good judge, was he in possession of the other names?

In making her mind up and going from the memorandum of 6 July to bringing one name to Cabinet, having whittled down the names herself, did the Minister speak to anybody else about moving from four names to one? Did she speak to anybody else in coming to that decision?

The Minister did not speak to a single person about this. She made the decision 100% by herself that she would recommend Séamus Woulfe, as opposed to the others whose expressions of interest she had received.

In the same process where she talked to the Taoiseach, when she returned to talk to the Tánaiste, having previously had a conversation in which he expressed the viewpoint that Séamus Woulfe would make a good judge, did the Minister then inform him that there were other expressions of interest?