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

Is it a belief on either side of Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil that this confidence and supply agreement somehow confers authority on the leader of Fianna Fáil to have a say on who might be appointed to the Bench?

There is no doubt that the appointment of the outgoing Attorney General smacks of a political appointment. I think it stinks to the highest heavens of the scent of cronyism. However, it looks to me as though Deputy Micheál Martin's only concern is that it was not his political appointment. That is deeply troubling too. We want an explanation from the Government as to why it was that An Taoiseach was having conversations with the leader of Fianna Fáil on the matter of appointment to the Bench. We want to know from Deputy Micheál Martin, who was all consumed and concerned about adherence to the law and to the Constitution, as to how and why he imagines that he has a special prerogative to lean on Government in any way to influence such an appointment. Those questions need to be answered.

In what we might refer to as the real world people know, notwithstanding the quality of the Judiciary, so extolled by the Minister, dating back to 1922 and the quality of so many people who have served on the Bench, that there have been political games played with appointments. It is an open secret. In fact, it is a recognised problem because there is a proposal to reform and overhaul the system.

It is well known that Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil would use these appointments as political baubles for those who adhere to their particular world view. That is what happened and well we know it. The other news is that in the real world, people are not prepared to tolerate that any more. They almost grimace at the irony of the fact that it would be Fianna Fáil presenting itself as a champion of accountability and probity on these of all matters.

That said, it should not take from the very serious situation in which we find ourselves now. We need answers to the question as to why the Government circumvented the law - not the Constitution but the 1995 Act. That is what it did.

See this speech in context