If there is agreement on little else, there is agreement that the appointment of Mr Hugh O'Flaherty to the European Investment Bank was a political appointment, made by the majority party in Government to a man who had years of party loyalty behind him.

However, no one has drawn attention to the fact that as a member of the judiciary he had left these political associations behind him. Re-establishing them through this appointment carries the risk of affecting public perceptions of the judiciary as a whole.

As more and more political scandals have come to light in recent years, one institution whose status has remained unaffected has been the judiciary. Indeed, if anything it has been enhanced, as successive tribunals run by High Court judges have shown neither fear nor favour in tackling the most powerful in the land and examining their conduct and affairs.

In the High Court itself individuals are turning to the courts to vindicate their, and their children's, rights to education, care and shelter. In that court judges such as Mr Justice Peter Kelly have not shrunk from castigating the Government for its failure to face up to its responsibilities. This has been done by a judiciary which, though politically appointed, is widely seen to be fair and impartial.

Judges are appointed by the government of the day, and are usually drawn from the ranks of those members of the legal profession who have links, to a greater or lesser extent, with the party or parties in government.

But from the date of their appointment judges sever their links with their parties, and it is widely accepted that their rulings are made free from any party political influence. This was as true of Mr O'Flaherty as any other member of the judiciary. As one senior counsel put it, "Once you take a bench job you are no longer in the political sphere."

However, the manner of his appointment to the European Investment Bank has transformed Mr O'Flaherty from a former impartial member of the judiciary into a creature of a political party. It cannot but affect the public perception of the judiciary as a whole, and damage the general acceptance of its independence from political influence.

Former judges are frequently appointed to other positions by the government of the day, running tribunals being a typical example. But in general they have been asked to do additional jobs without any apparent regard for their former political affiliations.

Few lawyers would argue, as members of the Opposition appear to, that Mr O'Flaherty should have been left to languish in unemployment for ever. There is a widespread feeling in both branches of the legal profession that he paid a disproportionately heavy price for behaviour described by Mr Justice Hamilton as "inappropriate and unwise" and "damaging to the administration of justice", but also as having been prompted by humanitarian motives.

HIS resignation, under threat of impeachment, arose from the absence of any mechanism to discipline a judge, short of a resolution to both Houses of the Oireachtas, a deficit that is at present being examined by a committee under the chairmanship of the Chief Justice.

It is likely that, had the Government appointed Mr O'Flaherty to a position in the institutions of this State - for example, to head the Law Reform Commission, or to take on a tribunal - there would have been few serious objections.

It would have been in line with other appointments of former judges to continue to serve the State in a different capacity. It would have recognised the fact that he had served the State well and that his premature departure from the Supreme Court, though the only outcome available, was a drastic one for what was essentially a lapse of judgment.

But the specific job to which he was appointed puts it into a different league. As one senior counsel said, "If a suitable recompense had been found, which was appropriate in all the circumstances, there would not have been much agitation. But he is ending up in a better job than the one he was in - or the one he hoped to get [Chief Justice]."

It is also of concern that Mr O'Flaherty's legal background was not in financial law. This, combined with the sheer magnitude of the job he has got, places his appointment even more firmly in the category of political appointments, and gives the impression that this distinguished former jurist is essentially a party political animal. This is not what judges are meant to be.