Charles Flanagan (Laois, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

-----conjured up images of intrigue, mystery and blackballing within the room where the judicial appointments commission members are sitting. He has referred to members absenting themselves or staying in the room, and it is all couched in intrigue. I do not believe it will be at all like that. The fundamental misguidance of Senator McDowell is borne from a hostility on his part to any involvement by persons other than lawyers and judges and an inability to countenance any lay participation on the basis of a lack of understanding on the part of lay persons of the appointments process. That is with what I have a fundamental difficulty. It very much explains his implacable opposition to the Bill.

The amendment undoubtedly wishes to completely circumvent the recommendation process and would allow a member of the commission to notify the Government secretary of his or her wish to be considered for appointment by, thereby completely setting aside the new appointments system. That is with what I have a problem. I cannot accept a proposal that eligible persons on the commission need not bother with the new appointments system as it would defeat the fundamental objective of the Bill, although it is certainly consistent with the view of Senator McDowell, echoed by Senator Norris.

I remind Senators of the recusal aspect of subsection 47(3) in particular.The principle of recusal is not new. It is important. I would go back to the Courts and Court Officers Act 1995, which specifically provides for the recusal of the Attorney General. I do not accept the basis of the amendment. I believe it is along the lines of what we have seen for the past 100 hours or more, a failure to acknowledge the reformist nature of the Bill, involving persons other than members of the Judiciary or senior barristers.