Last week in my speech on Deputy Varadkar's election as Taoiseach, I raised the question of the appointment of the former Attorney General, Ms Máire Whelan, as a judge to the Court of Appeal. I said then that if the Taoiseach wished to do more than just talk about changing politics, he had an opportunity to do so in the context of this squalid appointment. I asked that the Taoiseach address the controversy and explain to the Dáil what and when he knew about it because this appointment was the first in nearly a quarter of a century that a former Attorney General was appointed in such a manner.

It was without precedent since the enactment of the 1995 Act. In fact, it circumvented that Act and as the editorial in the Irish Independent today stated, "Whatever about the letter of the law ... the spirit of the law certainly wasn't adhered to." The former Attorney General attended the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board, JAAB, meeting in May and knew from that meeting that the essential criterion was that the person to fill that vacancy should be a High Court judge with experience in such high level judicial matters. The former Attorney General never indicated to JAAB that she had an interest in the vacancy; she should have. There was no documentation in advance of the Cabinet meeting and no notice to Ministers that such a controversial appointment was to be made. It was slipped in at the last minute of the last meeting of the outgoing Cabinet. Incredibly, the former Attorney General failed to absent herself from the meeting when her appointment was proposed by the outgoing and incoming Tánaiste, who was central to all this. The meeting, apparently, burst into applause.

This was an insider appointment and it stinks to high heaven. The controversies in which the former Attorney General was involved, particularly that relating to the damning findings made in the Fennelly report, were ignored in the consideration of the applicant's suitability.

No one was told by the Tánaiste that three High Court judges had applied. Who were they? Were their applications considered seriously? No, they were not. To add insult to injury, the Taoiseach decided on Sunday evening, with indecent haste, to instruct the President to appoint the following morning to pre-empt accountability to the Cabinet. Two Ministers had indicated that they wanted a review, namely, the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Shane Ross, and the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment, Deputy Denis Naughten. The Taoiseach also did it to pre-empt accountability to this House. In so doing he arrogantly dismissed the concerns of his Cabinet colleagues and arrogantly ignored the imperative on him in terms of accountability to the House in this appointment. Prior to making it, the Taoiseach also failed to respect those who had facilitated his election as Taoiseach.

I have some specific questions for the Taoiseach which I will put quickly.

The Deputy is out of time.

When was the Taoiseach told specifically that this appointment was to be made? Did the Tánaiste alert him, as incoming Taoiseach, that she was bringing forward this appointment? He said yesterday that he had regrets. Why did he not stand up and resist the appointment at the time it was put to him and in the manner it was so put? Would he do it all over again?

First, I refute absolutely any suggestion that I instructed the President to do anything of the sort. I understand there was a story in one of the newspapers this morning that is not true and is without foundation. The arrangements made for the appointment of Ms Justice Whelan were made by officials in accordance with the long-standing procedures to confirm three judges, one being Ms Justice Whelan and the others being two judges of the High Court. There was no question of any pressure being placed on the President to make the appointment on a specific date. My only involvement was to indicate availability in my diary to attend the ceremony. As Deputies will know, over the years it has been commonplace for judges to be confirmed by the President, sometimes within days and usually within a week or two.

Ms Justice Whelan is uniquely qualified for the role she now holds. She is a barrister with decades of experience. She was Attorney General for six years across two Governments. She was across some of the most complex cases ever dealt with by any lawyer, including the unwinding of the FEMPI Acts, the legislation required to provide for marriage equality and to deal with the X case, as well as the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill. I do not think there is any controversy about her qualifications for the job she now holds.

There is controversy about the process followed. As I have said, the process is lawful and provided for in the Constitution, specifically Article 13. There are precedents for it and I will go through some of them, if Deputy Micheál Martin so wishes. Correct procedure was followed and all expressions of interest were forwarded to the Minister for Justice and Equality who considered all of them, as well as the possibility of an expression of interest from the Attorney General. The Minister determined that the Attorney General was the stand-out candidate for the post and, therefore, made a nomination of one person to the Cabinet. That is standard practice: if there is one vacancy, there is one nominee and if there are two, there are two. It has never been the case that the Cabinet considers shortlists or lists of six or 12 people who are deemed to be less suitable or unsuitable. It was all done in line with normal procedures.

In terms of precedent, I draw the attention of Deputy Micheál Martin to some other cases that are not the same but bear similarities. For example, Frank Clarke was appointed to the High Court without going through the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board. As barristers, Adrian Hardiman and Donal O'Donnell were appointed directly to the Supreme Court, but they did not have the experience of being Attorney General. They were actually appointed directly to a higher court than the Court of Appeal. Of course, John Murray was appointed to the European Court of Justice, moving from Attorney General to a high position in the European Court of Justice and, to the best of the information we have available, no application process was followed. I do not criticise these appointments. They were all good appointments. The people concerned are all very well qualified, but the appointments all had one thing in common: Deputy Micheál Martin was around the Cabinet table when they were made.

The Taoiseach told us about it as if he did not have much to do with it.

Let us be clear. None of the three people was ever in the position of Attorney General. With the greatest of respect to the outgoing Attorney General, Máire Whelan-----

What about John Murray?

I am not talking about him. Máire Whelan is no Frank Clarke, no Adrian Hardiman and no Donal O’Donnell.

Excuse me-----

That is chauvinist.

It is desperate.

Come on.

The Taoiseach strains credibility by putting her in the same league as the individuals he has named. I did not want to raise that but it is factually the position.

Can we have order, please?

A Cheann Comhairle-----

I also put to the Taoiseach, and may I say to Deputy Doherty she is not Leader.

What Deputy Martin has just said about a lady of eminence is outrageous. She is not even here to defend herself. It is not fair.

You will get your turn.

Deputy Martin should withdraw the remark.

It is an outrageous comment.

The Minister, Deputy Doherty must allow Deputy Martin have his say.

It is an important point. Suitability to office is important. It is very important to make the point. I am not going to take a cosy consensus or some insider consensus from people who want to ordain it otherwise.

Hear, hear.

I do not wish to do that. The precedent here is to remind the Taoiseach that Máire Whelan was Attorney General. Since the 1995 Act, no Attorney General was appointed in such a manner as she was appointed. Would the Taoiseach please accept that truth? He should stop trying to play fast and loose with the rules. People who play fast and loose with the rules get sent off the pitch sooner rather than later.

Oh, God, look who is talking.

Easy, now.

That is the bottom line. I put it to the Taoiseach that this did not adhere to the 1995 Act in terms of how the appointment was made. The Attorney General should have alerted the JAAB to her interest in the vacancy.

Deputy, you are way over time. Please conclude.

I asked the Taoiseach a specific question. When was he told that this appointment was going to be made? He is the incoming Taoiseach. He is about to appoint Deputy Frances Fitzgerald as the incoming Tánaiste. She is also the outgoing Tánaiste. Could he give us a simple answer? When was he told about this?

First, I had understood up until now that Deputy Martin's difficulty was with the process, not the qualifications of the candidate.

Hear, hear. Now you play the woman. It is a disgrace.

Deputy Martin has let himself down.

It is not a good thing for this House that it is now discussing whether an individual who is now a judge is competent to hold that office. I would argue that she is equally competent to somebody like John Murray, who was appointed directly from being Attorney General to the European Court of Justice-----

Discussing a person. It is a new low.

Answer the question.

It would be different if you had followed proper procedure but you have not.

They skipped the procedure.

Face your own past.

It is an own goal.

Like other line Cabinet Ministers, I saw the memo on the morning of the Cabinet meeting but I was aware the evening before that it might be a possibility, given that there was a vacancy in the Court of Appeal. I did not have any role in putting the memo before the Government.

That it might be a possibility?

Could the Taoiseach be a bit more transparent?

The evening before.