Gerard Craughwell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I applaud the Minister for his patience because if ever a Bill has had a difficult passage, it is this one. To return to the issue of confidentiality, I am not satisfied that confidentiality is covered under the current wording. I am not sure there is anything in it that would deter an individual from the engaging in the old "dúirt bean liom go ndúirt bean léi" type of thing. We could have friendly chats in corridors or two people out having a drink and one telling the other that Murphy was put forward and that he should have heard what the committee had to say about him. The next thing we know some up and coming senior counsel's career has been destroyed. I am not satisfied in that regard.

I agree with my colleague, Senator Norris, about the deletion of the line, "unless he or she is duly authorised by the Commission to so do". That little bit of flexibility needs to be provided.

The most important point I can make on this particular section is that I believe it makes the Bill unconstitutional. Senator McDowell has made this point on a number of occasions. The Attorney General, the adviser to the Government, will sit on this committee. The Government will be presented with three candidates as a result of the deliberations and the Attorney General may find himself or herself totally opposed to the appointment of any of the three. The Government may find itself opposed to the appointment of any of the three and may ask the Attorney General whether another person may have been better suited to the position. Is the Attorney General, who has a constitutional role as adviser to the Government, to say he or she is awful sorry, that he or she knows of somebody but cannot open his or her mouth because he or she is bound by the legislation? I am extremely concerned. If I were a member of the Bar and had my eyes on the Bench, the first thing I would do following the passage of the Bill would be to challenge it under the Constitution because it could destroy my career prospects. That is without even referring to the role of consultants in the matter.

While I fully understand the Minister's view of how this Bill will work, with all due respect, he will establish an independent committee and once that independence is in place, it will be up to that committee to decide whether to appoint a group of consultants, whoever those consultants may be. I have some difficulty with appointing judges using consultants from the accountancy profession or some other profession. Who will draw up the shortlist in the scenario presented by Senator McDowell where there are 120 applicants? Will some 25 year old graduate who has just finished a business and law degree in one of our esteemed universities sit down, check boxes and decide which 15 applicants should go forward for interview? I am very concerned about this matter. Once this committee is in place, the Minister cannot tell it how to do its business. He cannot preclude it from using consultants or tell its members he expects them not to use consultants. At the end of the day, it can use as many consultants as it wishes. I am concerned about the constitutionality of these provisions.

I appreciate the Minister's patience and that he is being run around the same issues time and again. Surely that must ring alarm bells for him at this stage. I will leave it at that for the moment.