Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I will come back to that in a minute if the Deputy could stop interrupting: he had ten minutes and I have three. Section 18 is in relation to the Attorney General and what should happen. There are three parts to that, two dealing specifically with the Attorney General. The board can recommend her and if she wishes to be considered, she must step outside the door.

First, why did the Government ignore that legislation particularly with a Taoiseach that is so given to history, as has been pointed out and who has employed an historian? The age of reason, where we learn, is usually considered to be 21 years. It is 21 years, just going into the 22nd year. This legislation was brought in specifically because of a debacle in which an Attorney General was involved. We fast forward 21 years later, and in that period the Government has learned nothing. It has ignored that legislation. Could the Government please clarify why that was ignored? In the Minister's history lesson on two pages, which I enjoyed, he went forward from 1922 to the present day and on into the future in relation to legislation which is nothing to do with this debacle. The Minister gave us key dates, going from Mr. Justice Garrett Sheehan's retirement on 23 March to the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board confirming that there was no suitable candidate, but he is not giving the whole story in relation to that confirmation. They could not nominate or recommend a sitting judge. It is very important he clarifies that. Then he goes forward to 13 June when he nominated one name. He has not explained what he did in between with the other three interested parties.

More particularly, he has not explained why the Government did not even invoke the best part of that Act. If the Government was going to do what it could anyway, why did it not invoke the best part of the Act and ask the Attorney General to step outside the door? The Minister has not confirmed how the Government dealt with the potential conflict of interest in respect of this matter. Indeed, was there one? Quite clearly, the existing and sitting Attorney General and three more parties had expressed interest in the position, so how has the former Minister for Justice and Equality, who had the responsibility to bring forward one name, resolved this? These are very practical matters and have nothing to do with the qualifications of the judge who has been elevated. This is about process, and if the Government ignores this, it does so at its peril. I will finish by quoting one of Fine Gael's former leaders. Fine Gael members held a commemoration recently in his honour or his memory. He said to a local gathering of Fine Gael members: "The party which fails to heed the people's voice will do so at its peril."

See this speech in context