Deputy Mary Lou McDonald - speech from 18 Nov 2020

Graemeagat, Cian Cáirle, Taoiseach, Yesterday your Government voted to block the Dáil from putting questions to Justice Minister Helen McEntee regarding the appointment of Attorney General Seamus Wolfe to the Supreme Court. Your claim that this would impinge on the separation of powers is utter nonsense, and you know this well Taoiseach. In the Dáil in 2017, you said that any attempt to use the separation of powers as an excuse to avoid accountability in relation to a judicial appointment was bogus. And in fact, on that occasion, you know that a debate was had and questions were put. So your Government is clearly circling the wagons. This morning, Green Party Minister Catherine Martin was wheeled out to make this same bogus argument on radio. You all know that the Minister is accountable to the Dáil and is duty-bound to take questions. Your Government came into office on June 27th. Seamus Wolfe stood down as Attorney General on that date. The proposal to appoint Seamus Wolfe to the Supreme Court came to Government on the 16th of July, just three weeks later. In addition to Mr Wolfe, three sitting judges had also expressed an interest in this position. So the Minister didn't have just one name to consider. She had four names. And the Minister needs to explain very clearly how she whittled down that list of four names to one. By what criteria was that selection made? Who did she confer with, collaborate with or inform? Why did the Minister fail to inform you and Government colleagues of expressions of interest from these judges in advance of the decision to appoint Seamus Wolfe? It beggars' belief, Taoiseach, that no Member of Government asked if there were other applications. The Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, the leader of the Green Party all left out of the loop in a Supreme Court appointment. Not one of the three men charged with leading Government asked questions about this important matter. If this is true, it is remarkable. In the endgame of Government formation talks between yourselves and Fine Gael, you announced that the position of Attorney General would be rotated in line with that of Taoiseach. So the Attorney General position was central to your horse trading. Seamus Wolfe, outgoing Attorney General, long-term member of Fine Gael, was appointed to the Supreme Court. The Taoiseach, in 2017, you described the appointment of former Attorney General, Myra Whelan, to the Court of Appeal as an insider appointment. You said at that time that it stinks to the high heavens. In that case, you were incredulous. You were angry, in fact, that other applicants for that position at that time had not been treated fairly. And it is therefore very, very strange that you didn't ask if there were other applicants in this case and on this occasion. When calling for a debate and a questions and answer session in 2017, you said then that the Government reaching for the separation of powers was bogus. And you criticised the Government then for resisting taking questions. Well, Taoiseach, you were right then, but you are very, very wrong now. Blocking Dadal from putting questions to the Justice Minister stinks to the highest heavens, Taoiseach. And it begs the question if this was the type of insider appointment that you railed against three years ago. So, I'm asking you now and again, for the sake of clarity, for transparency, to ensure that this Oireachtas can do our job and discharge our responsibilities. That you ensure that Minister McEntee comes before Dadal to make a statement on these matters and to take questions. Thank you very much, Deputy Taoiseach. First of all, I have taken questions on this issue as Taoiseach. I took them yesterday and I'm taking them now, right now. You're asking questions about this and I'm going to take the questions. And I thought your question was very interesting. And I want to say one thing at the outset, your assertion that there was horse trading involved in the context of the appointment of Paul Gallagher as Attorney General and some connection to the appointment of Justice Wolfe to the Supreme Court is a non-truth and a false assertion. And you should withdraw it because it impugns the integrity and the ability of the present Attorney General who has had nothing to do with that. It is historic precedent that Attorney General is appointed by the Taoiseach of the day. It has always been the position. And there's always an important relationship between Taoiseach and Attorney General in any cabinet. And also, I think it was interesting in your reply that you wanted to ask Minister McEntee, who did she collaborate with? On what criteria did she judge? That's the very reason why, in my opinion, that Minister McEntee shouldn't actually have to say to people, compare judges with a person who was deemed suitable by the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board. I don't believe politicians should be embroiled in terms of negotiations about who should be a judge or who should not be a judge. I don't actually think that's the function of politicians. And when I learned that the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board, chaired by the Chief Justice, Frank Clark, and by the Presidents of the other four courts, in addition to representatives of the Law Society and the Bar Council, when I learned that they deemed Justice Wolfe suitable to be a Supreme Court judge, that was good enough for me. I have no interest in embroiling myself any further. However, the Minister of the Day, the notifications may be sent in, representations may be made by judges to the effect that they would like to be considered for particular positions. The Minister for Justice of the Day brings one name to Cabinet. As far as I was concerned, the fact that the JAB or the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board was satisfied that Justice Wolfe was a suitable candidate for the Supreme Court, as far as I was concerned, that satisfied me. And I wasn't going to second-guess it. And that's the point. In relation to the Morrow Ealing case, I don't want to again embody Judiciary, because the said person is no member of the Judiciary. JAB was not used in that occasion. But be that as it may, JAB was involved here in deeming Justice Wolfe as a suitable candidate. But I think what you're tantamount to saying here this morning is that in future, judges, that the Minister for Justice should come in and say, well, I picked this person, or I recommended this person to Cabinet against the other person on the following criteria. I actually don't agree with that. I don't think Doyle-Earton is the place to decide on that, actually. I do think that, currently, the Judicial Advisory Appointments Board, but I think in the future, the commission that we intended to establish is the key way to do this. And the government is committed to a Judicial Appointments Commission. That was before the last doil. Our view is that the chairperson of that should be the Chief Justice. And that would represent the right balance in our view. And we have said that. And so, that's my position on that. And we will be introducing that legislation, establishing that commission. And also, we'll engage with members of the House on that, because I think that is an important reform in terms of the selection and appointment of judges. And I think we'll take it further out of the realm of the political debate. Deputy MacDonald. The Taoiseach's response is incoherent gibberish. And he knows it. The Taoiseach has changed his tune from whence he sat on the opposition benches and correctly challenged the government of the day to give an account of itself and the Justice Minister to give an account of the process by which a selection for judicial appointment was made. And the standards then, Count Corlea, are the standards now. And the responsibility of the Oireachtas to hold the government to account remains and remains paramount. You reach for the jab process, even though you know that that was one of two channels through which names came forth. So, please, don't rehearse that nonsense again. That there was horse trading around the position of Attorney General is not only truthful, it's a verifiable truth. It played out in the media, Taoiseach, between yourselves, Fine Gael, and, let it be said, the Green Party. But I hear that you don't wish to be further embroiled in these questions. Thank you, Deputy. The straightforward and the correct and proper thing, Count Corlea, to happen is that the Minister for Justice presents herself and gives an account of those three weeks between the 27th of June and the 16th of July and sets out for the satisfaction of this Oireachtas, the process by which four names became one, four applicants became Seamus Woolf. That is what this Oireachtas demands and deserves. Sinn Féin has a habit of keep on repeating the above and then asserting that it's the truth. It's an untruth, Deputy, what you've just said. It's not verifiably true that there was horse trading involving the position of Attorney General. Not verifiably true. And stop misleading the House in that regard. And deliberately, in my view, creating a story that has no foundation in fact. And I do think you should withdraw it. Because I know, OK, I know that there was absolutely no relationship between the appointment of the Attorney General Paul Gallagher and the appointment of Justice Woolf. None. None.