The debate has the unseemly presence of Lord Woolf in it. It is unseemly for him to “defend” his “reforms”. The subject is too important to be tainted by an effort to defend a personal investment.
The real purpose is to assert wordlessly, the finality of rational adjudication from the judge. That is, it is intended to define rationality by reference to the wig; rationality emanates from the wig. Without it, there is doubt and possibly confusion.
I have never known of a solicitor to wear such a wig or to have been required to wear one. The same was not true of barristers. The Rules of the Superior Courts did require a barrister to wear such a wig. In other words, the Oireachtas had to intervene to prevent the Rules committee from persisting in that reuirement.