Michael McDowell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

That is the purpose. If that is the purpose, then let us make it very clear that by simply changing two words, any person who does that, including an applicant, commits that offence. That will stop all canvassing of the kind the Minister is trying to stop.

Again, there is a mulishness in regard to this Bill. No amendments at all are taken from this side of the House – nothing. If it were not for the fact that the Minister's name was wrong, this would already have been through both Houses. The Minister has to go back to the Dáil in the autumn and the reason she has to go back to the Dáil in the autumn is that she does not want an Article 26 reference before the summer. So be it, but I cannot see why somebody would not accept the proposition that it is equally wrong for ten judges to go to the Chief Justice and say, “We want X appointed to our court”, as it is for that person himself to say, “I would really like to be a member of that court.” It just does not make sense. It is nonsense.It is shameful that it has not been picked up. A simple amendment, tendered in good faith, is just cast aside because it is spreading the net too wide - is it? The Minister already said this afternoon that it is fine for a journalist to publish confidential information if he or she gets it. Is it fine, now, for members of the Judiciary to canvass the Chief Justice in favour of a particular judge? If it is, that is fine; I accept that. If it is not, I ask the Minister to please accept this amendment. Her dignity does not require that she reject every amendment.