Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

There has been no suggestion that anything unconstitutional has been done by the Government. Let us not go off on a wild goose chase in that regard. What has been said, and what is absolutely apparent is that the Government deliberately and wilfully circumvented the law. To be precise, I am referring to the Court and Court Officers Act 1995. Deputy O'Callaghan has set out the content of that legislation. The members of Cabinet know that is what happened.

The Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Flanagan, told us in his very long-winded way to mind our own business - at least, that is how it sounded to my ear. He said that the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board reported on 16 May last that it was not in a position to recommend a person for appointment to the vacancy in the Court of Appeal. That is fine. The Minister then went on to say that at its meeting of 13 June 2017 the Government nominated the then Attorney General for appointment to the position in question. That is fine. The only difficulty is that the controversy resides in what happened in the space in between.

To whom did the former Attorney General express her interest in this position? Did she come forward? Alternatively, did someone, for example, a member of Government, approach her and suggest that this might be the right position for her? Were there other applicants for the post? We do not need their names and certainly we do not need to have debate on the merits, relative merits or de-merits of any candidate or their qualifications. That is not our business in this Chamber. However, we ought to be told whether there were other applicants. If there were, to whom did they express an interest? What precisely was the procedure and process employed to decide and evaluate the quality of their candidacy?

We need an answer to how it is that there could be any pretence of any kind of fair procedure when the successful applicant sits at the table, albeit as the only name coming forward, when the decision to appoint is made. That is simply off the wall. Anyone with experience in the local residence association, GAA club or tiddlywinks association knows that simply does not happen. How is it that in this case the successful applicant was present? We should remember this for the people we serve and the people the Cabinet serve, including those who are looking on. What would they figure had they applied for a job and been unsuccessful, but the successful applicant sat on the panel when the decision was made? They would rightfully be asking questions about fair procedure.

There is no attempt to question the constitutional prerogatives of the Government. All of us understand that those are necessary prerogatives for our system to work. Let us take that off the table. The Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Flanagan, spoke convincingly about the sole discretion of Government to make such appointments. He said of Cabinet confidentially that it is not à la carteor at the discretion of individual Ministers. He said that it is an absolute constitutional imperative and requirement. The Minister is absolutely right on all of those counts.

Riddle me this then because today we discover that the Taoiseach, Deputy Varadkar, had a conversation by telephone with Deputy Micheál Martin. This came to light on the floor of the House earlier. In that conversation, it seems that Deputy Micheál Martin said to An Taoiseach that the individual in question was unsuitable and so on and so forth. I believe that is a serious matter and raises serious questions not only for the Government, but for Deputy Micheál Martin to answer. Was the leader of Fianna Fáil attempting to influence Government in respect of a judicial appointment? Is that lawful? Does that respect the prerogatives of Cabinet? Was it appropriate for An Taoiseach, Deputy Varadkar, of a Sunday to have a discussion by telephone with the leader of Fianna Fáil, who is not a member of Cabinet, on the matter of an appointment to the Bench, a matter in which Cabinet enjoys sole discretion?

See this speech in context