Gerard Craughwell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

-----there is something we have got to get clear.

What we are talking about is fixing a time for the commission, at the request of the Minister, to report. The point I have been trying to make, and I hope I make it clear, is that there is no simple way to fill a public appointment because, ultimately, it is reviewable by the courts, and I have been involved in public appointments during my life. When the commission prepares its advertisement it must cover all eventualities. My colleague, Deputy McDowell, made the point yesterday that the questions that are asked of applicants must be the same. We cannot have different questions asked of different candidates. They must be the same. There must be a way to evaluate the questions in order that it can be ensured they are equally treated across all applicants.

I fully accept what Senator Norris said. We are talking about the most senior judicial appointments in the country but we cannot allow subjectivity to come into the appointment process. We are talking about a process where we are trying to put in place a system to appoint members of the Judiciary. There is no room for subjectivity in such a system. It must be fully transparent and reviewable in the event of a dispute, and such a review must be seen to have been fair.

There are countless cases in public appointments down through the years where people who were disappointed in a competition went for a review and in the review a marking scheme was an absolute must. The point we are making is that we need the commission to know on the day the Minister asks it to fill a vacancy that it has X many days in which to do that. It is up to it to find an interview board, prepare the advertisement, compile the questions it will ask of the applicants, have a marking scheme for those questions and remove any element of subjectivity because subjectivity gives rise to doubt. That is what we are trying to ensure. That is the nub of what I hope will be in this new section 45.

Let there be no doubt about it. I do not care how senior a position we are appointing, be it from the Chief Justice down, every applicant is entitled to know that he or she was treated in a fair and consistent manner. Applicants are entitled to know what marks were available for each question, how many of those marks they got and why they lost marks. They are entitled to all of that. They are also entitled to have themselves compared against the ultimate winners. I do not know how we will do that because we are talking about putting three people forward.

Senator Norris adverted to the fact of their being external consultants. There is an issue where external consultants may be used in the short-listing process. That is something that would have to be built into the time to which we are adverting. If the Minister accepts this amendment, and I hope he will, in setting a time limit for the commission to report, it will have to take into account all the matters I outlined, including the possibility of an appeals process because natural justice requires that there would be an appeals process of some sort or other. I will leave it at that and await the Minister's response.