We will take Leaders' Questions under Standing Order 29. I ask Members to have regard to the time allowed for Leaders' Questions.

I am sure the Taoiseach will agree that accountability should be central to everything we do in this House. The Taoiseach and the Tánaiste should be prepared to come to the House to answer in detail for their actions relating to the appointment of the former Attorney General to the Court of Appeal. It is an appointment which has been without precedent since 1995 and the 1995 Act, despite their disingenuous attempts to portray it otherwise. Section 18 of that Act was simply not adhered to and the law was circumvented. There is no question about that. The Taoiseach indicated yesterday, a week on from the controversy, that, the night before, he was aware of the possibility of an appointment being made on the basis that everyone knew there was a vacancy. Everybody knew there was a vacancy since March of last year. The Taoiseach is reserving the right to do it all over again by using the Constitution as his defence, because any new Act can be trumped by the Constitution and Article 1 in the future.

Today, we learned that Ministers were critical about the appointment at yesterday's Cabinet meeting. Behind closed doors, they said it should not have been dealt with in the manner it was dealt with at Deputy Enda Kenny's last Cabinet meeting. I do not know whether the Minister, Deputy Shane Ross, got his review at yesterday's meeting. There was an acknowledgement at Cabinet, apparently, that it was badly handled. Why was it done so secretly and in such a covert manner? Why did Deputy Enda Kenny engineer this appointment in this way? Why did the Tánaiste collaborate with him in doing so with the Taoiseach's acquiescence?

As I asked on Wednesday last and, indeed, asked the Taoiseach on Sunday evening last, did anybody consider the Fennelly report and its findings in relation to this appointment and to the Attorney General at the time?

The Dáil should have an opportunity to debate this and to ask questions. Yesterday on the Order of Business, I thought we had got an agreement that would happen. The Government side fought tenaciously to resist questions. I am glad to hear that there is some change in that direction but it needs to be a comprehensive question and answer session, involving the Taoiseach and, indeed, the Tánaiste.

The Taoiseach invoked the separation of powers yesterday and that was bogus. In 1994, there was an open session here in relation to the appointment of Mr. Harry Whelehan to the High Court with full questions and answers taken by the then Taoiseach. That was a bogus invocation of that.

I do not know why the Taoiseach is so reluctant to come to the House to answer detailed questions in relation to it. Does he agree with his Ministers' assessment that this was badly handled? Does the Taoiseach accept that he essentially ignored all the Opposition's concerns about this appointment and that he rammed it through on Sunday evening to avoid accountability to the House? Did anyone raise the Fennelly report when this appointment was going through the Cabinet?

I am absolutely in favour of accountability before this House. I am here to answer any question Deputy Micheál Martin wants to ask me in relation to that appointment or any other matter today, as I was yesterday and as I will be on Tuesday and Wednesday next. I understand that discussions are under way at the Business Committee and among the Whips about a debate later on today involving other Ministers and a more comprehensive discussion and I have no difficulty with that provided the terms can be agreed.

As I stated yesterday, I knew there was a vacancy. It was a matter of public record. In fact, it was advertised. I knew that it was a possibility the evening before that this appointment could be made. I did not know it was going to happen and did not have any sight of the memo until the Cabinet meeting itself.

Ultimately, what happened here was that a suitable person was appointed by a lawful process. No matter how much Deputy Micheál Martin tries to make this into an issue different from that, what happened here was that a suitable person who was appropriately qualified was appointed to a vacancy lawfully using a correct process.

Hear, hear.

What concerns me, though, is that yesterday Deputy Micheál Martin cast aspersions on the suitability and qualifications of Máire Whelan, who is now a judge of the Court of Appeal. I want Deputy Micheál Martin to be mindful of the separation of powers that exists between Parliament and the Judiciary and I also want him to be mindful of the allegation that he made against my Government in undermining the Judiciary. I want to give Deputy Micheál Martin an opportunity in this House today to correct and clarify the remarks he made about the suitability and qualifications of Ms Justice Whelan.

Take the opportunity to withdraw it.

The Taoiseach has not answered the question. The Government fought tenaciously against accountability yesterday and did not facilitate a questions and answers session yesterday in the House.

They had two hours last night. You refused.

Withdraw the remark.

I put it to the Taoiseach that yesterday in the House he stated that this was the first he has learned about questions about the suitability. It was not the first he had learned about it because I told him on Sunday evening last in a phone call. I made it clear about the Fennelly commission and concerns I had about it. I made it clear to the Taoiseach, as I did last week in the House. I referenced Fennelly in my speech.

I do not like and, as I said to the Taoiseach on Sunday night, do not want to get involved in personal issues but one cannot separate suitability from an appointment. The point is that I did not invite this yesterday; the Taoiseach did. It is the Taoiseach who brought in the personalities and he named names. None of those persons-----

Withdraw your remarks.

None of those persons who the Taoiseach named-----

The Taoiseach praised them.

-----had any negative tribunal findings hanging over them.

The Taoiseach praised them. He did not criticise them.

The bottom line is-----

I thank Deputy Micheál Martin. The time is up.

The bottom line is that the former Attorney General, at the Fennelly commission, had to apologise for having given a contrary impression in her evidence to the commission and regrets that her at times "trenchant language" had undoubtedly left the commission with what she calls an "erroneous impression" that she had used such language at the meetings and in particular that she had used language alluding to criminal activity at the meeting with the Taoiseach and Mr. Fraser on 23 March 2014. If one reads Fennelly-----

Deputy Micheál undermined the Judiciary.

This is not being personal at all and I have no axe to grind with the individual-----

Deputy Micheál Martin did yesterday. Withdraw the remark of yesterday.

All right. I thank Deputy Martin.

I am making the point-----

Withdraw what you said yesterday.

Withdraw what you said yesterday.

With the greatest of respect, a bit more transparency from the Tánaiste would not go amiss in respect of all of this.

Deputy Martin is undermining the Judiciary.

The Government has undermined the Judiciary by its actions.

I am simply making the point that there are substantive issues here arising out of Fennelly.

Thank you, Deputy.

The Taoiseach cannot try to escape from that or try to cast aspersions on references I made that were made genuinely. The Taoiseach invited the comparisons, not I.

Thank you, Deputy. The time is up.

The Taoiseach did so to circumvent the issue that goes to the heart of this.

Deputy Martin made the comparisons yesterday and in doing so undermined the Judiciary. He should withdraw his remarks.

The Taoiseach tried to create the impression that there were precedents with these individuals, but there were not. There was no precedent with those individuals.

Deputy, please.

It was disingenuous. That is what the Taoiseach was at and he should not have done it. The Taoiseach should be much more straight about it. He should come clean, say this was badly handled and that it circumvented the law. That would end all of this. A bit of straight-talking and honesty from the Taoiseach in respect of the issue is needed.

Deputy, please.

A Cheann Comhairle, on a point of order-----

There is no point of order, thank you.

You have allowed two minutes for the reply of this Deputy.

Resume your seat please, Deputy. There is no point of order on Leaders’ Questions.

It is very unfair to the rest of us, given his disgraceful comments yesterday. I do not know what he is talking about.

If Deputy Broughan had listened, he might know.

Resume your seat, please. The Taoiseach to reply.

Deputy Martin had two hours of his party's time to discuss this if he had wanted to, and he chose not to.

That is not true.

I understand there are now discussions under way involving the Whips about us using our time to allow the Opposition to discuss this matter further, including a question and answer session. I am sure we can come to agreement on that. It is always the case that I am in the Dáil twice a week. Deputy Martin can ask any question he likes of me and I will do my very best to answer it.

What Deputy Martin said earlier is correct. Deputy Martin did say to me in his telephone call to me on Sunday night that he was questioning the qualifications, capabilities and competence of Máire Whelan. Deputy Martin also said he would not go there publically.

That is not true.

Deputy Martin did go there publically and doing so, in my view, was a mistake. It was wrong. Perhaps Deputy Martin did not mean to go there.

The Taoiseach invited the comparisons.

Perhaps he said something in the heat of argument.

The Taoiseach has disregarded the rule of law.

We have all been responsible for that in our time. However, in doing so, Deputy Martin cast aspersions on someone who is now a judge of the Court of Appeal.

Why did the Taoiseach not reappoint her as Attorney General?

Deputy Martin said that she was lesser than other people.

The Taoiseach created the problem. Why did the Taoiseach sack her as Attorney General?

Deputies, please.

The Taoiseach did not sack her as Attorney General.

Deputies, please behave with a little decorum. The Taoiseach has been asked a question. He is attempting to respond.

Deputy Martin specifically cast aspersions on the competence, capability and suitability of a Court of Appeal justice, Ms Justice Máire Whelan, in this House yesterday. Deputy Martin said that she was a lesser person or of lesser character or less capable than other people he mentioned.

I did not say that.

I am referring to the specific people he mentioned.

Mindful of the separation of powers that exist between this House and the Judiciary and mindful of the need for people in important positions, such as Deputy Martin and I, not to undermine the Judiciary, I would like to give Deputy Martin one more chance to withdraw the remarks he made about Ms Justice Whelan.

The Taoiseach undermined the Judiciary by his actions. He undermined the Judiciary by making the appointment.

Can we have order, please?