[ad_1]
At the start of this Dáil debate, the focus was on Helen McEntee. In the end, it was all about Leo Varadkar.
The Tánaiste is embroiled in this controversy, which, as one may forget, began when the newly appointed Supreme Court Justice of the Government, Séamus Woulfe, attended a controversial Oireachtas golf society event in August.
That caused another aide, Dara Calleary, to lose his job as agriculture minister, while Phil Hogan retired as an EU commissioner.
The focus then turned to Séamus Woulfe and how he was appointed by the newly formed government.
Today, the Justice Minister outlined a previously unknown informal exchange she had with the Tánaiste in which Leo Varadkar volunteered that he felt “Seamus Woulfe would make a good judge.”
That revelation was combined with the minister who declared that there were no “specific criteria” when it came to judicial selection, so she used her “own judgment”.
That was not necessarily new. It was certainly widely suspected, but the wording was harsh.
For the opposition, this means that this row will continue, rather than dissipate due to the following events:
- Leo Varadkar, as an outgoing Taoiseach, informed his future successor Micheál Martin that former Attorney General Seamus Woulfe had been vetted by the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board.
- Leo Varadkar, as Tánaiste, nominated Helen McEntee as Minister of Justice
- Leo Varadkar informally told the new Justice Minister that Mr Woulfe would make a “good judge”
- That advice from Leo Varadkar was taken into account, according to the Minister of Justice.
- And, using his own judgment, Mr. Woulfe was later recommended to the Cabinet.
It should be noted that the Minister of Justice maintained that the Government “acted appropriately at all times.”
Helen McEntee said that she had followed all the rules and, most importantly, made the decision herself. He did not try to defend the selection process, but rather expressed his determination to reform it.
The opposition parties simply do not believe the minister’s argument that she did not speak to anyone else.
There are still questions for Mrs. McEntee.
In particular, Brendan Howlin’s argument that previous coalitions engaged in “considerable scrutiny” and it was never the exclusive right of a justice minister to choose a judge.
However, that will be overshadowed by questions that arise about Tánaiste’s role in the judicial selection process.
All parties can agree on one thing: the format for the selection of judges needs a radical overhaul.
If that requires a constitutional referendum, so be it.
[ad_2]