The Dáil had to suspend a debate on the controversial Judicial Appointments Bill after confusion arose over whether it could still deliver a lay majority with 13 members instead of the Government's proposed 17.
The confusion arose when a Government amendment to increase the size to 17 was defeated.
Labour's Sean Sherlock and Green party leader Eamon Ryan said the figures for the lay majority do not add up if the size of the commission reverts to 13.
The bill has been at the centre of a long-running dispute between Fianna Fáil and the Government over its proposal to have a lay majority and a lay chairperson on the new commission.
Minister for Justice Charlie Flanagan said the lay majority depended on other amendments yet to be voted on.
However, Ceann Comhairle Seán Ó Fearghaíl said there "seemed to be unacceptable level of confusion in relation to what's happening" and suspended the house until the morning to clarify the situation.
Earlier in the debate, an agreement between the Government and Sinn Féin over the bill in exchange for sentencing guidelines was described as a sign of a new "political romance".
Independent TD Michael Healy Rae asked if the agreement between the two parties over the bill was the sign of a new coalition.
"There's been overtures between Sinn Féin and Fine Gael and there seems to be warm interactions going on at the moment, both in public and behind closed doors. Support that has been reached in recent hours and days with regard to this bill seem to reflect very much on that romance going on at the moment," Mr Healy Rae said.
Labour TD Sean Sherlock called on Fine Gael and Sinn Féin to publish the details of any agreement.
"I think it's a little bit grubby that we are trying to make law here and on the very issue of judicial appointments, that has become the subject of a political deal between Sinn Féin and the government," he said.
A political 'romance' or a 'grubby' deal? Opposition TDs @ClareDalyTD @wallacemick @seansherlocktd & @MHealyRae criticise 'overtures and warm interactions' between @sinnfeinireland & @FineGael on Judicial Appointments Bill... pic.twitter.com/TisRdEPvbL
— RTÉ Politics (@rtepolitics) May 22, 2018
Sinn Féin's Justice Spokesman Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire said his party had supported the legislation and they agreed with the principle of a lay majority.
He said Sinn Féin has "very keenly pursuing the issue of sentencing guidelines for several years now through private members' bill".
But @sinnfeinireland justice spokesperson @Donnchadhol stands firm and says his party have been calling for sentencing guidelines for years pic.twitter.com/jTIhhahlVw
— RTÉ Politics (@rtepolitics) May 22, 2018
Meanwhile, Fine Gael TD Sean Barrett said he did not know anything about a deal with Sinn Féin and also questioned the direction the legislation was going in.
"I just wonder where we are going all the time by taking away responsibility from this house in making decisions as to how key people ... can be appointed by some body ... what's wrong with elected members?
"I'm not showing any disrespect to my colleague the Minister for Justice but I think we need to be careful about where we are going with this," Mr Barrett said.
The bill has been the source of ongoing dispute between the Government and Fianna Fáil.
The party's justice spokesperson Jim O'Callaghan said he did not think there should be a commission of 17 people to advise the Government on the appointment on approximately eight to ten judges each year.
He said there should be no majority of any one group and he accused Sinn Féin of falling for "the Shane Ross language".
Minister Flanagan, questioned whether there was "some contagion from the Road Traffic Bill ... directed at my colleague the Minister for Transport, Minister Ross".
"I don't have instructions to apologise for Minister Ross and I don't have the authority to apologise to Minister Ross for any issues that may be between the deputies arising out of another piece of legislation."
