Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Third, did the then Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality discuss the vacancy on the Court of Appeal with the former Attorney General prior to the Government meeting on 23 May?

Fourth, did the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board tell the then Minister for Justice and Equality that it wanted a judge of the High Court to fill the position on the Court of Appeal? We know that the Government was aware, prior to the meeting on 23 May when other judges were nominated, that the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board was not recommending anyone. Presumably, it must have been known by the Tánaiste that the reason they were not recommending anyone was because they wanted a High Court judge nominated.

Fifth, who decided that only one name would be brought to Government and why did the Government not get to consider the other applicants who it is known put in applications to be considered for this position?

Sixth, who was aware before last Tuesday's Cabinet that this was happening? We know the Taoiseach was aware. He told us today that he was aware the evening before. We know that the former Taoiseach was aware. We know the Tánaiste was aware and we know the former Attorney General was aware. We need to know who else was aware, and when and where they discussed these issues prior to the Cabinet meeting on Tuesday last.

Seventh, why, at Cabinet, did no one say, "This is unusual". There are members of the Cabinet who have been members of Government for six years. This is the first time that any lawyer was appointed to court as a judge without having gone through the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board process. Did nobody ask why this application and nomination did not go through the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board process?

9 o’clock

Also, why was there no formal memorandum for Government in respect of this nomination?

Eighth, why did someone in Government not ask the former Attorney General to leave the room? As I said previously, fair procedures require that a person should not remain in the room while the candidacy of that person is being discussed. Even if there was only one person before Cabinet, there is the possibility, even with this Cabinet, that someone might raise a question or an objection in respect of the candidacy.

That brings me to my ninth and final point, and I say this appropriately. Two unusual decisions were made at this Cabinet meeting. First, we had the unusual decision to nominate a person to judicial office who had not gone through the appointments board; and, second, we had the unusual decision that it was going to be announced that one Garda station was re-opening. I want to know if those decisions were related. There may not be hard evidence, but there is considerable circumstantial evidence suggesting that they were.

This is a sorry saga, but it is one caused by the Government, and responsibility for it lies with the Government. The Government circumvented the law. If the Government had applied the law the way it has been applied for the past 22 years, we would not be here this evening. I know the Government wishes to emphasise the importance of the Judiciary and how this House respects it. This House does respect the Judiciary, but it brings it into disrepute if Government does not apply the correct laws in place for the nomination and appointment of judges.

The Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Charles Flanagan, said that he hopes we will be able to engage in respect of the new process involving the judicial appointments commission Bill that he intends to bring forward next week. I put it to the Minister that I have lost trust in the Government's ability to have any responsibility for judicial appointments in future.

See this speech in context