Michael McDowell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

It is the same vacancy in the sense that it is appointment to be a judge of the High Court. A vacancy has arisen and been filled and somebody who was short-listed and recommended the Government will be required to reapply when the next vacancy arises.

Amendment No. 92 tabled by Senator Bacik was rejected and, as such, there is no particular order of recommendation. The Government will not know whether a person was the first or last choice of the commission. The Government will be confronted with a situation whereby, two months later, different names appear before it and it does not know why. It would be a crime for the Attorney General to disclose why a person has been removed from a shortlist. He will not be allowed to inform the Government that a particular judge who was recommended two months previously has fallen off the list due to lack of interest or because one or more better candidates appeared and that judge is no longer in the top three. That whole idea is a little bit repugnant. I presume this commission is a serious body that will do serious work. If a person is recommended, the commission is saying that, not merely is he or she suitable, but that, of all the people who applied, it has selected him or her for inclusion on a shortlist. Senator Bacik's amendment would have required that the commission to set out the order of its recommendations. As it was defeated, effectively, the Government must play blind man's buff and wonder which candidate the commission favoured and whether one of them was spectacularly better than the other two. That information is not given to the Government under this system, but a person can suddenly disappear off the shortlist and the Government is left wondering why. That does not make sense. For each vacancy that arises, the commission is supposed to nominate three persons who are suitable and whom it can recommend to the Government. In a situation whereby one person is, in the view of the commission, the best of the candidates and the other two are also-rans who suffice to fill out the list of three, the Government is not informed of that, which is interesting.If a name disappears off the list, the Government is left completely in the dark as to why someone who was recommended two months ago is no longer being recommended. There is no channel of communication to establish for the Government's information why someone who seemed to be one of the top three applicants for the job is no longer in the top three.

I cannot see any harm being done by this. What harm could the amendment in my name actually bring about? It could mean that the Government would realise there were three applicants for a given position two months ago and maybe someone better has come along in the view of the commission. It may be that is the explanation or perhaps not. Anyway, the Government will not be told. It is a little like the election of a Pope.