Charles Flanagan (Laois, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am not convinced by the arguments put forward. We will be discussing the constitutional position under Article 35 at a later stage, as mentioned by Senator Norris, relating to the advice to the President and that arrangement as currently under the Constitution. It is quite clear, and we have known for many months, that no recommendations can be binding on the Government in this process because they are simply recommendations, no more and no less. That position is well understood. If the Government gets three recommendations, it can choose any or none of them. Of course, the revised print of section 47 effectively directs the Government to consider the names of those persons who have been recommended but it is quite clear, right through this debate and this Bill, that no recommendation is in any way mandatory. To that extent, the commission is in no different a position than the advisory board is currently.

I have another amendment to reinstate the senior judicial appointments advisory committee in the Bill. The title of that body tells us much about its role. It is advisory and cannot be more than that. There is no attempt on the part of anybody to dress it up as something that it is not. I do not see any great purpose in changing the Long Title in order to qualify the characterisation of a recommendation. It is a recommendation and I do not believe any part of the Bill is in conflict with that recommendation being advisory, recommended and no more.