Deputy Mattie McGrath challenged the minister over prolonged delays in filling a High Court vacancy and in activating the Judicial Complaints Board. He pressed for explanations about a seven-month gap after Justice Mary Finlay Egan's retirement, the handling of Seamus Wolfe's recommendation, and why the complaints board remains non-operational.
Timeline of the High Court vacancy
Deputy McGrath outlined a sequence of dates: the vacancy arose on 16 June, the Chief Justice wrote on 4 February, a letter to the JAB followed on 17 February, the minister replied on 18 February asking the JAB for a list, the Chief Justice noted a JAB meeting scheduled for the 9th on 25 February, the JAB met on the 9th and the list was received on the 11th. He said these steps were interrupted by a general election and an interim government.
Questions over appointment timing
He asked why there was a 14-week gap between the JAB sending Seamus Wolfe's name and the matter coming to the new Cabinet, noting that Mary Irvine was appointed to the Presidency of the High Court during the interim period while Mr Wolfe's appointment was held back. The minister responded that the interim government decided not to appoint anyone except to the Presidency and said a recommendation was brought to Cabinet within two or three weeks of the new government forming.
Judicial Complaints Board concerns
Deputy McGrath pressed why the Judicial Complaints Board, which he said has offices and staff and was passed by the House months earlier, is not available to the public. He asked who has been protected by the delay. The minister said nothing is being blocked from the government's side, that the Department has done what was required, and that the Judicial Council is setting the terms of reference and will act within its timeframe.
Public impact and parliamentary process
McGrath compared the delay unfavourably with other measures that were implemented immediately and described the situation as "fascical," emphasising public frustration that lay litigants cannot yet make complaints. The minister reiterated that legislation sometimes requires a period before enactment and that the Judicial Council's work on terms of reference is the current step before the complaints board becomes operational.
We publish thousands of recordings to make Irish politics transparent and resistant to manipulation. Spotted an error? Report it — together we are building a reliable archive of Irish politics.
Deputy Matty McGrath. Why was there a seven-month gap to fill retired Justice Mary Finlay Egan's position, followed by a frenzy of activity at the general election time, once Seamus Wolfe had applied for the position in January? I can't set out. 16 June last year, vacancy arose. 4 February, Chief Justice wrote to the Minister. 17 February, letter to JAB to try and fill that. 18 February, Minister responds to Chief Justice, letter of 4 February, indicating the issue to JAB to request a list. 25 February, Chief Justice replies to letter of 18, indicating JAB meeting scheduled for 9th. JAB met on the 9th. 11th, the list was received. In between that time then, there was a general election, there was an interim government. There was a very clear decision taken not to appoint anyone bar the President to the High Court for the reasons I've outlined. It was made aware to me that this was urgent. At the same time, I did take the time to look at all of the names. I did not appoint somebody immediately. There were two or three Cabinet meetings that happened before I eventually brought a name to Cabinet. Thank you. Deputy McGrath. Why was there a 14-week gap between when Minister Flanagan and Deputy Flanagan received the receipt of Seamus Wolfe's name from the JAB and it coming to the new Cabinet? In that same time, Ms Mary Irvine was appointed to the Presidency of the High Court during the Kaytaker Government interim period, but Mr Wolfe's appointment was kept back for the new Government. Ken Faw. Again, Deputy, I have outlined that a decision was taken by the interim Government not to appoint anybody except to the Presidency of the High Court because of the obligations upon the Presidency and I suppose the requirements for that. The decision was taken not to appoint anybody else. However, I was made aware on my first day that there was a vacancy, that this was something that was urgent. Even with that, though, I made sure that I took the time to give everybody due consideration before I made a recommendation. But this recommendation was made within about two or three weeks, I think, from Government being formed. Deputy McGrath. I wonder what would have had to do with the fact that Minister Ross and the former Ministers McGrath were in the Cabinet at the time as well. It led the people to judge that. I am asking you, Minister, now, as a new Minister, the judicial complaints board, and I believe the offices are rented and staffed, and it is everything about a doorman, and I said, when will that be in action, when Joe Soap or Joe Public can make a complaint to that board that was passed by this House and signed by the President of the Law seven, eight months ago? When can the public get access to that, or what is the delay, or who has been protected by not having this complaints board in place? Minister. In terms of judicial conduct and that process, everything that has been done or needed to be done by myself, the Department and the Government has been done. The terms of reference are now being set out by the Judicial Council. They have a certain period of time to do that. I am assured that they are working on that and will have that done as soon as possible, but I can assure the Deputy everything that needed to be done from our part has been done. The terms of reference are now being set out by the Judicial Council. Mr. McGrath. This is like a former presenter of Caley House, I think he was O'Hanron, I can't think of the name. Around the House, can't call her, mind the dresser. We have to mind things here, I know we have cans today, but this was passed and why isn't it in action? Why can't the public today, many of them feel aggrieved? David Connelly mentioned about they're not being able to access it, but some that have access to those places, especially lay litigants, can't get complaints to make and there's no complaints possible. Even though this House has implemented it, passed it, who's blocking it? Minister? I can confirm nobody is blocking it. There is a process, there is a timeframe, it is with the Judicial Council. They are setting out the terms of reference and I'm assured that they will come back as soon as possible. But from this House's point of view, everything that has been done or could be done at this stage has been. That's strange because we passed laws here about vulture funds and we passed laws here to remove the hearsay evidence and it has implemented immediately. Why do we have to wait for a year nearly to have this body set up and staffed and rented buildings and everything else? And a great cost to the taxpayer to deny the taxpayers the solace of making a complaint. I'm not saying how far it will go or where it will get, but it's fascical. We spent a lot of time here and I want to thank Minister Ross as well for all his work on that. And then it's set up and signed by the President into law, people would expect that it would be up and running. Why is it not up and running? Minister, to conclude. I can only refer to my previous comment. It is often the case where legislation is signed into law here and there is a period of time where that then has to be enacted. In this instance, it is with the Judicial Council. They are setting out the terms of reference and I have no doubt that when that is done, this process and this procedure can get up and running. Mambo feels super sorry for people. Wh pupils must consigam. It is a disappointing point of waiting for everyone to connect. Why can't they do so? I cannot pass away at all, whάν sounds. What are did there? What do we correct? What do we correct home say is so bright and transparent they will think we all do now? We are present in law that here. The judgment moment is not green. There are nothing people around here and there are no other people right now. And we are seeing a difference between laws? And we can see everything that we see and divisions between rules, so we have a lot of people being justhistory. So, we could see churches in at least two places.
Thank you for downloading 🙏
If you publish this material on social media, we would be very grateful if you tagged VideoParliament. It helps us reach more people and keep building a transparent archive of Irish politics.
