Michael McDowell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

When sections 34 and 36 are combined, the commission, which for most judicial appointments is supposed to look at suitability on grounds of character, temperament, competence, probity and suitability on grounds of health, is not to do this for the three most senior appointments in the land. I cannot understand how that could possibly make sense. I do not understand why we have this multiplicity of chapters and apply bits and bobs of chapters here and there. We will have the same problem at section 37(1) when we get to it. It disapplies Chapters 1 and 2 of Part 7 to the senior appointments. Curiously, if one looks at section 37 - I know I am straying - the same problem arises. Bad drafting and bad amending have brought us the point where section 37 will have the effect that section 39 will not apply to people applying for the post of Chief Justice, President of the High Court or President of the Court of Appeal but will apply to everything else. Surely this must emphasise that the Bill is a dog's dinner. It does not make sense. We are being asked to pass things that are incoherent and which cannot be defended as a matter of common sense. We are being told by the Minister that he wants to get on with this and get through Committee Stage. How can he stand over sections 34 and 37 as they affect sections 36, 38 and 39? It is a complete shambles. It says that all of these things do not apply to the most senior positions in the land. That simply does not make sense and I would like some explanation as to how the Minister reconciles these provisions. I would like it to be taken for granted that somebody who is about to be appointed Chief Justice is suitable on grounds of character, temperament and health and that when the person was a barrister or solicitor he or she behaved with probity and competence. Maybe that is expecting too much of senior positions.