[ad_1]
Opposition parties and the TD Independent Group have rejected a proposal from the Minister of Justice to answer questions Tuesday week on issues related to the process of appointing Seamus Woulfe to the Supreme Court.
Minister Helen McEntee wrote to all parties and groups in the early afternoon proposing to answer questions on Tuesday, December 1 at 9:47 p.m. According to the proposed format, DTs should send their questions before Wednesday, November 25.
Sinn Féin Justice spokesman Martin Kenny said this format “is not enough” and noted that the questions will be asked the night that the Level 5 Covid-19 restrictions will be lifted.
“The minister must acknowledge this situation, she must enter, read her statement, answer questions from the opposition and clearly put this issue to bed,” he said. “As they continue to do this, the question we all ask ourselves is: What are they hiding? What is the situation here?”
Labor Party whip Duncan Smith has accused the government of “sleight of hand” and is calling for an “open question and answer session with all opposition spokesmen”.
He said the oral parliamentary question format implies a set rotation, meaning that only a small number of parties will have priority, while the rest will enter a lottery system.
“It is totally inappropriate and it is something that we cannot agree on and will not accept,” he said.
The Social Democrats have also rejected the format proposed by Minister McEntee.
His co-leader, Catherine Murphy, has written to Ceann Comhairle, Seán Ó Fearghaíl, saying that the situation is “very unsatisfactory”.
He expressed concern that questions on the issue could be dropped because similar questions he submitted on the issue in July were not accepted by the Ceann Comhairle.
He said that the Ministerial Questions format allows for a wide variety of questions throughout the justice portfolio.
“Aside from the five priority questions that are controlled by those to whom they are assigned, the rest of the oral questions reached may not include questions about the judicial appointment process,” said Ms. Murphy.
The Group of Rural Independents has also written to Ceamm Comhairle saying that anything other than a full two-hour debate in which the Minister responds to the questions raised would be “an affront to our democracy.”
He said: “The suggestion that the questions should be submitted before the debate is completely absurd.
“Instead, to address the issue, which has undermined the institutions of our state, comprehensively, requires a full-scale question and answer session on all issues related to the appointment.”
Earlier, Fianna Fáil Senator Lisa Chambers told RTÉ Radio’s Today with Claire Byrne program that she was “shocked” with the proposed format and would rather see a question and answer format.
He said there are genuine questions that need to be answered: “Ultimately, ministers are accountable to the Dáil and ultimately to the people. I don’t know why that particular format is being adopted,” he said. “It somewhat reduces the ability to ask questions.”
Minister confirms that she recommended a name to the cabinet
Meanwhile, Minister McEntee has confirmed that she recommended a name, that of former Attorney General Seamus Wolfe, to the Cabinet for appointment to the post of Supreme Court Justice.
Speaking on RTÉ Six One News, her job as Justice Minister was to expose who she considered to be the appropriate option to recommend as the best candidate for appointment.
Minister McEntee said there is an inference that because she had only been appointed minister three weeks earlier, she was not able to make a decision on her own.
The Minister said that in six cases she had made six recommendations to the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, Minister Eamon Ryan and the Attorney General on two appointments to the District Court and appointments to the Supreme Court, the Superior Court, the Court of Appeals and the Circuit Court.
He said that in some cases he had recommended a name and in others he had recommended more than one name.
Minister McEntee said she had taken several weeks to look at the recommendations that had come through the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board and stakeholders that passed through the Aootorney General office.
[ad_2]