Michael McDowell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

The interview is conducted by a panel. I do not know how it has a result. Presumably the panel reports to the commission what it thought or if it came to any conclusions that there was nothing much one way or the other about this person and that he or she is what he or she appears to be on paper. I am wondering what the "result" of a panel would be.This goes back to a point we have just dealt with. Are people who are in the running to be on the short-list going to be interviewed? Is there going to be some marking system or a method of determination? In most jobs, there is a scheme of the questions that can be put. I have always wondered, in respect of persons applying to be a judge or to be promoted from the High Court to the Court of Appeal, what questions are put to them at interview. They cannot be asked how they are going to decide cases. I presume they cannot be asked questions to determine whether they are conservative or liberal. They cannot be asked questions about their gender, orientation or those kinds of things. What questions can be put to them? If the interview process is going to be fair between applicants, is there going to be a scheme of the interview questions that may be put to people, asking them why they want to be promoted or given this position? Is their response to be evaluated on the basis of credibility or comparatively to other candidates?

I am a bit mystified as to what the results of an interview process could be. It is one thing if it were simply the case that the whole of the commission, having made a decision in principle to appoint Joe or Mary Bloggs to a particular position, were to say "We better check with an interview that the appointee is a reasonably normal person." However, if the panel goes to the list of applicants and determines that they will interview the following eight people, on what basis are they going to report back to the rest of the commission that Mary Bloggs was better than Joe Bloggs or did better at interview? What does "doing better at interview" actually mean in these circumstances, especially when one gets to the position of Chief Justice? A good interview or a bad interview to become Chief Justice - I do not know what that would be.

Since we are being told the Government has to be informed of the results of an interview, what does that mean and what formality is there that a person is deemed okay or far better than the other people who were interviewed, or better in the following respects, or exhibited the following attributes at interview? I would like to know what is meant by that phrase.