I think that, if we've gotten to the point where we can't say “highly recommended”, that means we're talking about a person who shouldn't be on the list. In my opinion, people who are highly recommended are the only ones who should be on the list.
As regards the categorization—I'm talking about the old committees—I wonder why one should appoint a person who is not highly recommended. If I were the minister, I would wonder what's wrong with that person. Would it be because that person doesn't have much knowledge of the law or because the vote was divided? I don't know how that works. If the votes were divided, perhaps the members of certain committees said that, when the votes are divided, it's recommended, but, if it's unanimous, it's highly recommended.
Personally, the fact that the distinction was removed doesn't trouble me very much. However, I hope you will recommend that there be a regulatory framework and that you ensure that only persons who are prepared to recommended highly are placed on the list.