Michael McDowell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

-----approach to the issue? If we expect unsuccessful and successful candidates to be told whether they have been short-listed, we should instruct the commission through the legislation that this is the policy it is to apply. It only makes sense. Imagine dealing with the scenario we discussed earlier. The President of the High Court has recused himself from the process and allowed his fellow commission members to deal with it in his absence because he is interested in appointment to a position in the courts above his. Either he will be told the outcome or he will not. He is entitled to know it. If he has gone to the trouble of applying, he is entitled to be told by his fellow commissioners whether he was on the shortlist. If that applies to the President of the High Court, it applies to every other applicant. Applicants are entitled to know whether they made the shortlist.

The alternative view is people are to be left banging their heads against a stone wall not knowing whether they will ever be, or have ever been, short-listed. I can well imagine a senior solicitor or barrister who is seeking to be recommended. To leave such a person in the dark and not tell him or her whether he or she has ever been short-listed would be slightly insulting to the person. If, after five applications, the person has not been short-listed on any occasion, maybe the message will get through that it is pointless applying if he or she knows that. However, if the person were to believe on the contrary that it was possible to get through after being short-listed on a number of occasions but where the Government had preferred someone else, he or she might view having another go as being worthwhile. I cannot see any reason for this amendment not to be accepted.

I will put it to the Minister this way. If the amendment is not accepted and I am being fobbed off with section 53(5)(h) as the best he can do on the question of transparency, I do not believe that anyone will be informed of whether he or she was short-listed. In the absence of a clear statutory direction to inform unsuccessful and successful candidates as to whether they were short-listed, the commission will take the view that it is better to keep these matters confidential. That means the whole thing will be shrouded in secrecy and applicants will have no idea.This reminds me of the story about an American television reporter interviewing a rabbi in Jerusalem. The reporter suggested that the rabbi had been at the Wailing Wall for the past 50 years and he said "Yes, that's true". When asked if he prayed there every day he said, "Yes, that's true". When asked what he prayed for, he said peace, fraternity and love among people. The interviewer then asked what he thought after 50 years and he said that sometimes he thought he was just banging his head off a stone wall. We cannot have applicants for judicial office placed in that position.