Gerard Craughwell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister and appreciate what he said. I am mindful, however, that ever since we first started to work through this Bill I have been toying with the conflict between the constitutional roles of the Government and the Attorney General. The Bill does not necessarily usurp those roles but it seeks to control them. For example, we have been down the road of the scenario where a Government gets three names. It does not necessarily have to appoint any of the three people named. It can appoint whomever it wants. I am greatly bothered by the confidentiality issue relating to the Attorney General. I am only in this House for four years but I have been observing politics most of my life. Time and again, Governments refer to the advice given by the Attorney General as having led to a particular series of events or decisions made.

As a former president of a trade union, I find myself slightly conflicted. On one hand, I want there to be clear, open and transparent processes and procedures so there can be no questions and no doubts as to how a commission arrived at a decision. I support the procedures being put in place by the Minister, albeit we are battling our way through it, and I admire his constant work with us on this. Then there is the other side of me, however - the practical citizen side. From that perspective, I am thinking of a situation where we find ourselves in a sort of a stopgap position. The process has been gone through once and is now being done a second time. There are perhaps people who were close but not close enough, or there is somebody down in the Law Library or the High Court who could fill a Supreme Court position or a position on the Court of Appeal.

The Attorney General knows that. He or she also knows that the commission has done its work and it was just unfortunate that a person, who might be seen by the Government, the Bar and the various courts as a highly suitable, would not apply because he or she did not like the application process. The courts might then become a political football because of what the media would make of a failure to find three names. Rather than allow that to happen, would it not be vital, when the second round is over, regardless of the outcome, that there would be finality with respect to the appointment? That finality would come by way of a recommendation from the Attorney General to the Minister for Justice and Equality. He or she could then bring it to Cabinet.

There would not then be a situation of an unfilled post, media speculation and all sorts of nonsense on the social media about the state of the Judiciary, etc. That is one of the areas where the Minister could ensure he or she does not end up in a scenario where, having gone through the process twice, he or she is still without a suitable applicant.I am not sure that could be done by amending the Bill on Report Stage. I am very mindful of the fact that on Report Stage it is, "One stab and you are out" with respect to debate on amendments. Our opportunity to tease out these issues is now. We will not get the same opportunity on Report Stage. While I greatly appreciate the Minister's willingness to work with us on it, I want assurance that we are going to find a way out. I do not want the Judiciary to be brought into disrepute. God knows politics gets enough of that from social media and the media in general. We do not want members of the Judiciary to be second-guessed by whatever media one cares to look at. We do not want TV programmes or "Prime Time" going through who might or might not have applied, why they might or might have been selected and why the constitutional role of the Attorney General prevents him or her from bringing making a recommendation as the legal adviser to the State. We need solid reassurances at this stage that the Minister will work with us on that.