Michael McDowell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I stand corrected by the Minister. I had forgotten about the subsection in section 40. Owing to his stated opposition to Senator Bacik's amendment, I had assumed there was not a process of ordering the list in accordance with the commission's preference. To return to the question of members of the commission being placed at number three rather than number one in the order of preference. That is yet another reason the amendment the House just made is a sensible one.

To go further, if the Government were, for instance, to select the third preferred choice of the commission and appoint that person, it would be very strange if the occupants of positions one and two had to resubmit themselves to the commission for re-evaluation in the light of the Government selecting a lower ranked recommendee. Is the Minister of the view that the order in which people were recommended would be made known to the people recommended? In other words, if I were recommended as a judge to the Government for appointment, would I be told that I was recommended number one or number three or would I be left in the dark on that subject? If I am left in the dark on that subject, it could affect my willingness to apply again. If I had been bypassed in favour of somebody else or, alternatively, if others were bypassed in favour of me, I might think the Government clearly does not want me and there is not much point in applying again. Is it envisaged that in light of the requirement that it comply with best practice, which is set out in the Bill, would the commission tell somebody that he or she came first on its list or would the candidate be left in the dark on that subject?