Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I wish to share time with Deputy Eamon Ryan.

When the Taoiseach commented yesterday that he would not have chosen a controversy such as this as a welcome into office, I could not help but be reminded of Albert Reynolds's statement of regret which led to the resignation of former judge, Harry Whelahan, from the High Court. Undoubtedly, there are strong historical parallels but in a way this appointment is even more controversial and tawdry than the one in 1994-95. That led to a change in the law and the introduction of new procedures in respect of the appointment to the bench of an Attorney General. Unfortunately, the lessons that were learned in 1995 have not been taken on board by the Government and those mistakes have been repeated to a large extent.

I was surprised that the Leas-Cheann Comhairle did not remind the Minister for Justice and Equality of the purpose of this session when he made his introductory remarks. These are statements on the procedures covering the judicial appointment, yet we heard precious little from the Minister about them. That is the controversy. We want to know what happened over recent weeks in respect of this controversial judicial appointment and he gave us precious little information about that. He referred to what he would do in the future but he did not provide the information required. I hope the Tánaiste and former Minister for Justice and Equality fills in the many gaps we are waiting to hear about when she contributes.

A number of key questions need to be responded to in the debate. We were told that three High Court judges applied for this position. I hope the Minister confirms that as a fact because nobody has done so. If that is the case, we do not know anything about what happened to those expressions of interest. Who received them? Were they sent to the then Attorney General? Did the Tánaiste see those applications when she was Minister for Justice and Equality? Who else in the Department saw them? What consideration was given to those applications? Were they rated or considered at all? Did the Tánaiste inform the Taoiseach of those applications? Did she inform her Cabinet colleagues about them? Where are they now? Did she just bin them or did she use a transparent process to consider them?

How did it come about that contact was made with Áras an Uachtaráin by somebody representing Government on Sunday morning, giving notice of a warrant of appointment requesting that the appointment of the new judge to the Court of Appeal be expedited? Who issued that instruction? The Taoiseach implied that it just happened that somebody in the Department of Justice and Equality or his Department did so. I cannot believe that a senior official from any Department would take it on himself or herself on a Sunday morning to make a move like this. How convenient it is that the appointment was expedited. How convenient it is that the Taoiseach and others in government were then in a position to plead the separation of powers when we tried to probe all the grubby circumstances surrounding this appointment.

It is legitimate for Members to raise concerns surrounding the handling of various issues relating to Garda whistleblowers. There are questions marks over several people associated with the Government and in government about how they have handled them. There is serious public concern about the role the former Attorney General played in that, in particular. There is also serious concern about the changing of the witness statement for the Fennelly commission and, most important, there is serious concern about the fact that Máire Whelan will be exempted from appearing before the Charleton inquiry and giving evidence. That is not accountability. This whole affair is shameful on the part of the Government.

See this speech in context