Supreme Court appointment process
Deputy Doherty and the Tánaiste dispute how Mr Justice Séamus Woulfe’s appointment was handled, including Cabinet involvement, the JAAB process, and what the party leaders knew. The Tánaiste defends the appointment as suitable, says only one name comes to Cabinet, and states he knew the existence but not the details of other candidate lists.
I have a number of questions for the Tánaiste concerning the appointment of the former Attorney General, Mr. Justice Séamus Woulfe, to the Supreme Court. The Government has so far adopted an approach of refusing to answer questions about any of this but this is a really important matter. It is not trivial. It is a job that carries with it a salary in excess of €220,000, which is paid by taxpayers. Those taxpayers have a right to know how Mr. Justice Woulfe was appointed and who really made the decisions. Refusing to answer the question simply will not cut it.
The Minister for Justice needs to come before the Dáil. Three years ago, when the Tánaiste was Taoiseach, the former Minister for Justice and Equality came to the Dáil and answered questions. There is no reason that it should not happen now. The Green Party leader said this morning that he had no objection to this. A Government Deputy said on the radio earlier that the Minister, Deputy McEntee, should come before the Dáil to answer questions. The entire Opposition is united in its demand for the Minister for Justice to come here to do that. She needs to do so without delay.
The Tánaiste also has serious questions to answer because in the vast majority of time that this issue was being dealt with by the Government, he was Taoiseach. Perhaps the Tánaiste will enlighten us about his role. We know that the only name to emerge from the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board, JAAB, process was that out of the outgoing Attorney General, Mr. Justice Séamus Woulfe. I am sure the Tánaiste will acknowledge that Mr. Justice Woulfe is a long-time member of Fine Gael, a close political ally and a friend. There were three other applications from existing judges. They were presumably well qualified and experienced. These would have in fact crossed the desk of the former Attorney General, Mr. Justice Woulfe. Did the Tánaiste discuss these with him? Did he discuss them as Taoiseach with the former Minister for Justice and Equality or as Tánaiste with the current Minister for Justice? He knew that Mr. Justice Woulfe emerged from the JAAB process because he told the Fianna Fáil leader and the Green Party leader, Deputy Eamon Ryan, that this was the case. The Taoiseach said as much yesterday. When did the Tánaiste tell them that it was the case? Why did he not tell them about the other three judges who were interested in the role? Was he the one who took the decision to nominate the former Attorney General to the Cabinet for this position?
Let us call a spade a spade. People believe it was the Tánaiste, as leader of Fine Gael, who reduced the number from four to one and brought that name before the Cabinet. It is for that reason that he is avoiding the Minister for Justice coming in here, being held accountable and being asked questions about the process. Is that not the case?
Comment on this
I believe the appointment of Mr. Justice Séamus Woulfe to the Supreme Court was a suitable appointment. He is now a serving member of the Supreme Court and I hope that nobody is questioning his suitability to be a Supreme Court Justice, recognising the separation of powers and the need to uphold the Judiciary. He had years of experience as a barrister and a senior counsel. He was an excellent Attorney General. He was competent, efficient and approachable, notwithstanding his recent issues. He is certainly not the first Attorney General to be appointed to a superior court, nor will he be the last. That is not just my opinion. That was the opinion of the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board, to which he applied. That board, chaired by the Chief Justice and including the presidents of the other courts, lay people, representatives of the Bar Council and the Law Society, all determined and agreed that Séamus Woulfe was a suitable person to appoint to the Supreme Court. Just as the Taoiseach said, that was enough for him, and it was certainly enough for me.
Under the Constitution, as I think everyone is aware, judges are nominated by the Government and appointed by the President. That is a power and a responsibility that cannot be delegated to any other body. In a democracy, it is right that judges are appointed by the democratically elected Government. I would not like to see a situation where judges are appointed by other judges, by themselves, or by an unelected committee of some sort. One needs to have a good process, a good advisory body to vet appointments and make sure they are appropriate and a system where people can apply to fill a vacancy. We need further reform in this area and the Government plans to do that. Ultimately the Government makes the decision on who will or will not be a judge, under the Constitution, and that cannot be delegated. It should not be changed, in my view, in a democracy.
As is the case with any senior public appointment that comes to the Cabinet, only one name is ever brought to the Cabinet. There have been one or two exceptions, such as the recent issue with the European Commissioner, where a man and a woman were asked for, but almost always, if not always, just one name is brought to the Cabinet. That applies to Secretaries General of Government Departments, chairs of State boards, to judges and to the Governor of the Central Bank. It would not be appropriate for 20 people sitting around the Cabinet table to pore over a shortlist of names, discussing the merits and demerits of each candidate. It would not be fair to them and it would probably discourage good people from applying. That is why I would counsel against having that kind of debate in this Chamber, with us discussing the merits and demerits of different candidates. Even if they are not named, that would be the wrong route to go down and would undermine the Judiciary, which we do not want to happen.
On debate happening in the Chamber, Sinn Féin has Private Members' time next week. It is open to Sinn Féin to use that Private Members' time next week if it wishes to. The Minister, Deputy McEntee, answered questions on this matter in a committee the other day. Sinn Féin is free to use its time to discuss this but I would counsel against a situation which its party leader was walking into during the week, where we would start to talk about different candidates and their merits and demerits. That would be a mistake. Listening to the comments of the Deputy's party leader this week, that was the road she was looking for us to go down. That would be wrong. It would undermine the Judiciary. It would not be an appropriate role for us, recognising the separation of powers.
Comment on this
The Tánaiste talks about the separation of powers. He was Taoiseach. He facilitated the then Minister for Justice and Equality coming here three years ago to answer questions on the process, not in Private Members' time. That is what the Opposition and the leader of my party are looking for. We asked the Tánaiste specific questions, but he did not answer one of them. When did he tell the leaders of Fianna Fáil and the Green Party that Mr. Justice Woulfe had come through the JAAB process? Did he know of the other three applications that came from the judges, since there was a secondary process? If so, who told him? If he knew, why did he not tell any other Cabinet colleagues? Did he discuss this issue with the former Minister for Justice and Equality or the current Minister for Justice? Will he accept that while one name may be recommended to the Cabinet, in the past it has been common that the list of other applicants was also presented to the Cabinet?
Will the Tánaiste stop obfuscating and trying to shy away from accountability? He stood in this Chamber two weeks ago and said there would not be a problem with giving the documents relating to the controversy over documents he leaked. Three weeks on, we do not have a shred of paper despite the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Minister for Health saying that all of those documents would be made available. What is the problem? Is it not the case that the Tánaiste does not want the Minister for Justice to answer direct questions from Members of the Opposition because there is an issue regarding the process that Deputy Varadkar, as Taoiseach, was overseeing, rather than the merits of the candidate?
Comment on this
In almost ten years serving in the Cabinet, as others will be able to attest to, I have never seen a shortlist of names brought to the Cabinet for discussion about a judicial appointment or even the appointment of a chair of a State board. That is not the practice. One name is brought to the Cabinet, and that is the case for good reasons. I think this specific vacancy arose in the Supreme Court in February. It arose in the spring. At the time, I was the Taoiseach of what people described as a caretaker Government. We decided not to fill that vacancy. We thought it was appropriate to wait until a new Government was formed to fill that vacancy.
Comment on this
We could have filled the vacancy but chose not to.
I am pretty sure it was the week before the new Government was formed that the party leaders discussed whether Séamas Woulfe would be reappointed as Attorney General or whether there would be a new Attorney General. We decided collectively that there would be a new Attorney General and that Séamus Woulfe would not be reappointed as Attorney General and at that point, for transparency and information, I informed the other leaders that there was a vacancy, that Séamus Woulfe had been recommended by the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board, JAAB, as suitable for that vacancy, and that was the end of the conversation.
Comment on this
Does the Tánaiste know if the other three judges-----
Comment on this
I will be happy to answer that question. As a person who was Taoiseach for three years and has been in government for a considerable length of time, like everyone in government or anyone who has ever been a justice spokesperson, I know the process. There is the list from the JAAB. There is a list of people who have expressed an interest in being promoted, and there is a third list of people who are eligible for promotion. I knew those lists existed. I did not know how many people were on them or the individual names.