Michael McDowell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

What I am slightly mystified by is whether the process envisaged is one where the commission looks at the candidate, decides whether he or she is "eligible", "possesses the requisite knowledge", "is suitable on grounds of health", has complied with section 44(1) and section 22 and then decides the person is good but that the commission is obliged to have an interview with that person before putting him or her on the short-list. If that is the way it works, that is fine, but it does not mean that everybody who goes for the job gets a chance at being interviewed. What I find odd about that is this. Why would any High Court judge not have the right to be interviewed for a job? Is there any group of people where one could say one will not even have a chat with him or her to see whether he or she is good or bad, especially the laypeople in the group? Lay people will be in a position where they do not know. They will not have seen any of these people functioning. The first time they will lay eyes on them is when the short-list is being drawn up, if that construction of section 46 is correct. That is what worries me. The laypeople will be completely in the dark. A majority may decide to interview Senators Ward or McDowell and that is the first the laypeople will have any knowledge of how the person stood up in the flesh, so to speak, and made a good or a bad impression. That is not a good idea. I support Senator Ward's amendment. If there are to be interviews, they should be discretionary. They should not just come at the end of a process. It is obviously not intended that everybody will get an interview. Who is selected for interview will be a matter largely conducted on paper and without seeing the people at all. I find this an unsatisfactory section.