A Thaoisigh nua, power is a privilege that should and must be exercised in a manner that is open, accountable and compliant with the democratic process, including the relevant legislation behind a given decision. That democratic process gave us the Dáil we have today, with no overall majority for either of the bigger parties and with the strong message from the electorate that they did not want more of the same empty promises, empty rhetoric and exercise of power for power's sake. Unfortunately, that is exactly what the Taoiseach nua has given us and the people: a decision to appoint a new judge to the Court of Appeal, to appoint the Attorney General and in circumstances surrounded by secrecy and a deliberate ignoring of the legal framework set up in 1995 because of a previous debacle to govern that appointment.

From what we know of the process, one name alone was brought to the Cabinet by the former Minister for Justice and Equality, and that name was unanimously accepted by the Taoiseach's colleagues both in Fine Gael and the so-called "Independent" Alliance, and all done in the presence of the applicant judge herself. Not only was there no objection from any member of the Cabinet to this procedure; what is appalling and alarming is the Taoiseach's contemptuous disregard for issues raised by the Opposition and by the people since then. He has been disingenuous, and when I say he, I mean he and his colleagues, with the information he has given us. The former Minister for Justice and Equality confirmed that the JAAB had nobody to recommend, no suitable candidate.

While that may be true, there was an utter failure to place that statement in context and state the JAAB did not advise on the appointment of judges to higher office. As well as that, there was a deliberate ignoring of section 18 of the legislation which had specifically been brought forward to avoid a debacle such as this. It allows for the Attorney General to go forward but he or she must make this known. There has been a deliberate ignoring of a conflict of interest on the part of the former Attorney General and a deliberate lack of information on the interest of three candidates in the High Court positions.

Under the Constitution the Taoiseach has the power to appoint judges. However, when it shows such contemptuous disregard for existing legislation and where the minimum requirement of the former Attorney General stepping outside the room was ignored, it is a cause for alarm. The Taoiseach has failed to give replies and obfuscated, evaded and confused by referring to qualifications, which were never an issue. The process he adopted was faulty. I ask him, on mature reflection, to acknowledge that it was faulty.

The appointment was appropriate. I am glad that the Deputy agrees that qualifications are not an issue in this case and that the former Attorney General is uniquely qualified for this important role. It is a controversy about the process followed. The process was lawful and is provided for under Article 13 of the Constitution. We have separate, independent legal advice, not legal advice from the former Attorney General, which states the appointment was lawful and that correct procedure was followed. The procedure is as follows: barristers apply to the JAAB which makes a recommendation. Other judges apply to the Attorney General and the information is then passed to the Minister for Justice and Equality who considers all expressions of interest and makes a recommendation. As is the case for all appointments, including judicial appointments and appointments to chair and sit on State boards, the Minister comes to the Cabinet with a recommendation. The Cabinet is not given a shortlist for any such position. We do not sit around the Cabinet table discussing the merits and demerits of six or seven people and why someone is the lesser candidate for any job. The normal procedure is that a Minister comes to the Cabinet table with a nomination - one nominee if there is one post, two nominees if there are two posts and so on. That procedure was followed. I acknowledge, however, that it is not the best way to appoint judges and it is something I want to change. That is why I have given a commitment in the House that we will fast-track the judicial appointments Bill.

The Taoiseach fast-tracked the appointment yesterday.

The Bill will outlaw canvassing by anyone, including politicians, for people to be appointed as judges. It will require all judges to go through the JAAB. Currently, none of them does if they are seeking higher judicial office. It will also ensure the new board will have a lay majority and a lay chairman because if there is to be less political involvement in the appointment of judges, we do not want to have too much judicial or legal professional involvement. We want a majority of the board to be lay people, with a lay chairman. I have given a commitment to fast-track the Bill through the Houses and hope I will have the support of all parties in the House in doing so because we can resolve this matter once and for all by putting through this important legislation. I hope I will have the support of the House and the Seanad in so doing. We will, therefore, not have a situation where we will once again have a controversy about a judicial appointment in this way.

I fully understand the cynicism of the public. Once again, the Taoiseach has refused to answer the question. He has obfuscated and talked about new legislation. The absence of legislation was not a problem in this case; there is legislation in place. The kernel of the issue is that the Taoiseach failed to comply with it and to give an explanation as to why he had not complied with it and why section 18 of the 1995 Act, as amended, had not been acted on. It is a simple question: why was that provision not complied with? It is not a question of new legislation and it is despairing to think we need another debacle to force the Government to push ahead with new legislation. Will the Taoiseach acknowledge to the Chamber that he regrets what happened and that the procedure followed was not appropriate? Will he give an explanation as to why section 18 of the 1995 Act was not complied with?

Finally, it is significant that when the Taoiseach made his first speech to the Dáil after being elected, he chose not to elaborate on any of this but he did make a significant point that he agreed with the token Opposition and the leader of Fianna Fáil that he would come to some agreement with him to silence the true voices of opposition in this Dáil.

First, I believe I did answer the Deputy's question and I can only answer it again. It is the prerogative of the Government and the authority of the Government to appoint judges.

That is not what I asked.

To change that would require not just legislation but also a referendum to take away the power of the Government to appoint judges, as provided for in our Constitution, in Bunreacht na hÉireann, at Article 13.

He could appoint his brother.

That is the power of the Government and to change that would require a referendum.

That is a terrible defence, a weak defence.

Allow the Taoiseach to respond, please.

This appointment was entirely lawful, as I have said previously.

As regards section 18 of the 1995 Act, this relates of course to a meeting of the JAAB that occurred back in May. I cannot speak for Ms Justice Whelan, but it does stand to reason, to me, that perhaps back in May she was not interested in this position because she was still Attorney General.

Deputy Varadkar was not interested in being Taoiseach back then.

How was Ms Justice Whelan, or Máire Whelan as she was at that time, to know when the former Taoiseach, Deputy Kenny, would step down, who would replace him and whether that person would want her to continue as Attorney General?

The Taoiseach was the one pushing him out.

It is entirely reasonable for me to accept that, back in May, the Attorney General wished to continue as Attorney General.