Gerard Craughwell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

-----have the board sit and agree the advertisement for the position, advertise it and carry out the initial application process. We have discussed the application process at length in this Chamber with respect to how people would make it through the first hurdle. We have a situation there. Once applications come in they have to be assessed by somebody. Once that assessment is completed, a board must convene and review it. A board must then convene and carry out interviews. After the interviews have taken place, there must be some sort of feedback. We are talking about very senior legal positions here.That would be a very serious situation, as the Minister would agree. It might give rise to the fact that the advertisement was flawed and many other questions with respect to the selection process. The selection process would have to be more robust than it would be without this amendment. Every step would have to be assessed in advance for the likely impact of potential candidates. The potential candidates could be reassured that once the application is submitted, they would know precisely for what they applied. This is because the qualifications would have been set out properly in whatever advertisement was put forward and there could be no misunderstanding.

By having this amendment within the Bill, we would safeguard against the likelihood that people would apply incorrectly for a position for which they were not suitably qualified. Yesterday we spoke about qualifications for the Chief Justice, specifically the depth of knowledge and experience that would be required for that job. Somebody who recently qualified at the Bar could not apply for the position of Chief Justice as the advertisement would be very clear about the level of expertise, length of time in office and knowledge of the Irish language, for example. All of these would be set out very clearly in any advertisement. The likelihood that the commission would make a mistake in rejecting an application would be greatly diminished by virtue of the transparency brought by this amendment.

My colleagues, Senators McDowell and Boyhan, and I have always said the amendments we are putting forward are designed to support the Minister's Bill. We are not trying to do away with the general thesis from the Minister. Many people are saying that certain individuals in Dáil Éireann are pushing the Bill and forcing the Minister and everybody else down this road. I do not believe that but I believe it is the Minister's Bill; it will be his Bill forever as he has brought it before the Houses. I do not necessarily believe it is the Bill he wanted and although it came from the programme for Government, the Minister would have done this differently if he had time to do so. This amendment seeks to ensure any persons putting their names forward will be certain of what they are applying for and will have the necessary qualifications. If those people are not selected, they will know this.

There is another matter. We spoke about confidentiality. A barrister, for example, may be chosen for a position that a learned judge may have applied for as well but where the judge did not make the list. This would be serious and we would have to ensure the information in question would not get into the public domain, as it would have a fairly detrimental effect on the career of that learned judge. This is where we walk a bit of a tightrope. The individual who applied is entitled to know how he or she fared but the information is subject to confidentiality processes. Somebody was here the other day shouting about something in the newspaper and demanding the Minister's head on a plate because something had allegedly been leaked from the Minister's Department. All we need is a leak before we see all sorts of scenarios. Natural justice would require that an individual should know if he or she has made a list.

In the education area in recent times positions have been advertised but a suitable candidate for the position has not been found even over two, three or four occasions. Part of this is because of the onerous responsibility placed on people in senior positions and the public awareness, specifically arising from instant access to social media, etc. It might prevent people from applying for positions, and we are talking about high-profile positions in the Judiciary. If it is not possible to make a recommendation - as covered by section 42(b) - it would be very serious. Apart from anything else, having to re-advertise the position would give rise to serious media speculation as to what went wrong, with ensuing questions. Nevertheless, this is about the transparency all of us would like to see. I await the Minister's comments.