David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank "Minister McDowell" for his reply. I am most grateful to him. This is, however, a sub-point and it does not matter.

In response to Senator McDowell, the Minister referred to section 40(3), which states that nothing in subsection (2) shall be construed as limiting the advice the Government may give to the President regarding the appointment by the President of a person to be a judge under Article 35 of the Constitution . I presume that refers, specifically and directly, only to subsection (2) but at the same time there is a very clear implication as a matter of policy that limiting the advice the Government may give to the President is a bad thing to do and should not be contemplated. The Government has included subsection (3) in order to ensure that the advice it can give the President is not limited. It can be taken as a general principle that the Government believes the advice it can give should not be limited. Then, however, it goes on to clearly limit it. It will limit the knowledge the Government has and the knock-on effect of this will be to automatically limit the advice it gives to the President. It is violating the principle enunciated in section 40(3) that limiting advice is a bad idea and should be stopped. That is why subsection (3) is there. This incoherent Bill flies in the face of its own principles and effectively says "What about it?" I do not understand this and I shall certainly vote against it.