When she brought the name of Séamus Woulfe to Cabinet, did the Minister inform the Cabinet, not necessarily of the other names but of the existence of other expressions of interest?

When the Minister was in this process all by herself, not talking to a single other person and presumably looking into her soul and working out that Séamus Woulfe's name would emerge, on what basis did she make that decision? On what criteria does one make that decision? I am not at all asking for the qualities of Séamus Woulfe relative to the other expressions of interest, but what kind of things did the Minister take into account when saying that he would be right person for the job?

I thank Deputy Cairns and the Social Democrats for bringing this motion forward. Since I was elected, my colleagues and I have been among a small number of Deputies who every year have opposed the handing over of public funds to the greyhound racing industry. It is great to see this motion and the debate we are having. The bottom line is that there is enormous cruelty involved in the greyhound racing industry. That is an unavoidable point. That does not mean there are not greyhound racers who love their dogs and tr…

There is a video on Twitter of the Taoiseach versus the Taoiseach, with him superimposed as leader of the Opposition in 2017, demanding accountability and dismissing the nonsense arguments he is making about separation of powers, the Constitution and that we cannot possibly discuss this contrasted with the kind of answers he gave last week which repeated those arguments. What is happening is an abuse by the Government of the majority it has. It is an abuse to hide behind the idea of separation of powers and that we…

To make another brief point in passing, the time allocated for the debate on Covid is completely inadequate. The result is that smaller parties have six and half minutes of speaking time on what is a crucial debate.

What is happening here is the Government has decided to draw a line in the sand in terms of Ministers and taoisigh being forced to come in here, answer questions and be responded to in a free-flowing format. That format has presented problems for the Government. It has clearly created situations of embarrassment and pressure for the Government and for particular Ministers. The Government has decided this is the issue in respect of which to draw a line in the sand and establish a norm whereby Ministers are no longer…

I thank the Ceann Comhairle. In the past few minutes the Minister for Justice has said there is no issue with her answering questions. She said she offered to change priority questions and every party said "No", and she said the suggestion is that priority questions cannot be used to hold Ministers to account. It is, again, an insult when very single Opposition party and grouping is saying we want accountability in the form of the Minister coming in to answer questions, with ten or 15 minutes per party, back and fo…

That is what the people are looking for. There is a problem with the Minister answering questions. She is refusing to do it and she is being facilitated by the Taoiseach. That is a disgrace.

For two weeks now, with the amount of public attention given to this and the amount of time given to this in the House, one could reasonably ask why the Taoiseach does not just agree. If she has nothing to hide, why does the Minister not just come in here and answer questions? The only conclusion one can draw, as Deputy Shortall pointed out, is that there is something to hide, and that there is a problem with the answers we would get in that context. The very generous offer to come in and do oral parliamentary ques…

In terms of the appointment of Máire Whelan, why did he insist-----

No, the Taoiseach had a specific session. He did not just do it through regular oral parliamentary questions. He insisted on a specific-----

That is the point but he was arguing for questions.

If the Taoiseach wants, he can go and read the transcript from three years ago. Deputy McDonald very deliberately used some of his own words from three years ago last week to suggest that he could be on this side of the House issuing exactly the same speech in question. He knew at that point in time that what he is offering now was not acceptable because it does not amount to accountability.

No.

I want to raise the issue of the broadcasting charge, which was alluded to in the past couple of weeks by RTÉ's television controller, Mr. Andrew Lynch, at the Oireachtas committee. Why is the Government insisting on pushing ahead with plans for a new stealth tax on every household with this talk of a broadcasting charge? Did the Taoiseach not learn any lessons from his experience of the water charges? For years, he has been pushing for a broadcasting charge. Last year, he went so far as to say that if we were Taoi…

In response to me, I believe the Taoiseach told me that campaigns did not achieve much. I do not take any personal offence at that.

That is no problem. It sums up the Taoiseach's political philosophy. It flies in the face of history. This Parliament would not exist and we would be a part of the British Empire had there not been a campaign, one with a significant military element. We would not have the right to vote, to join trade unions or to have a minimum wage. Every substantial improvement in living standards and democratic rights for ordinary people has come from campaigns. History demonstrates that. The same applies to climate action. The …

That is not-----

Not at all.

If the Government does what is necessary, we will agree with it.