Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Returning to my amendments, which relate to the Attorney General, if amendment No. 6 is not successful, I will not move amendment No. 11 so you will have it all to yourselves. I will certainly be opposing it if amendment No. 6 is not successful. The statements here have made the case for my amendments. I have not opposed the political stage of the process. My amendments do not seek to remove that discretion of the Cabinet between the three persons. As has been described, it is very likely that there will be multiple considerations applied in the Cabinet selection process, some of which may involve eyes with whatever size of eye attached to it in terms of ideology. This is why we are meant to be putting in place a process that has an independent stage previously and then a stage where the Cabinet looks and chooses which person it prefers from those deemed to be appropriate.

The problem is that the Attorney General is in both parts of the process. The Attorney General will be giving advice in respect of the deliberations of Cabinet between the three candidates put forward to it. As a result, it is inappropriate for the Attorney General to also be in a position to propose or oppose those in the other independent part of the process. There is a blurring of the lines between two processes where one is meant to feed into the other and the Attorney General is placed inside both of them. It is a concern.

We mentioned how candidates A, B and C might go forward and the Attorney General might say candidate B or C is a problem. None of us will be privy to that information because the Attorney General's relationship when it comes to giving advice to the Cabinet is bound by Cabinet confidentiality. There is a problem for all those engaging in the judicial appointments commission when one of its members says whatever. It is fine for the Attorney General to give confidential advice to the Government but it is a concern if people come out of one process and give unknown input onwards. There is almost a dual recommendation system where we will have the official three recommendations and then whatever the Attorney General says. I am not saying the Attorney General should not have a role but his or her role rightly belongs around the Cabinet table giving input at that point. To have the Attorney General in two different parts of the process is a problem and I am more convinced of that from today than ever before.

I urge the Minister to consider moving the Attorney General from this part in the process. If the Attorney General is to be there, and I agree it is frustrating to be solely in what is effectively an auditing role, I believe he or she must be in such an auditing role. If the Attorney General was to have such an auditing role, an actual active role for people who could vote and do all the other parts of the process could be created even within the limitations of the nine members.