Results 4,041-4,060 of 21,096 for speaker:Charles Flanagan

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (2 Jul 2019)

Charles Flanagan: I invite the Chair to interpret it in accordance with the Standing Orders.

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (2 Jul 2019)

Charles Flanagan: On a point of order, will the Acting Chairman clarify if it is possible for amendment No. 100a to be moved when amendment No. 100 was not moved?

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (2 Jul 2019)

Charles Flanagan: I assumed that amendment No. 100a must be related to amendment No. 100.

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (2 Jul 2019)

Charles Flanagan: With respect, I question the Acting Chairman's advice to the Seanad that amendment No. 100a is not related to amendment No. 100.

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (2 Jul 2019)

Charles Flanagan: The two amendments must be related. With the application of a modicum of common sense, one must ask how an amendment numbered 100a can have no relation to an amendment numbered 100.

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (2 Jul 2019)

Charles Flanagan: The physical place of amendment No. 100 derives from its direct relation to amendment No. 100. The two must be related.

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (2 Jul 2019)

Charles Flanagan: We have had game playing here for more than a year.

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (2 Jul 2019)

Charles Flanagan: I am not accepting-----

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (2 Jul 2019)

Charles Flanagan: While I appreciate the intention of the amendment, I am not sure who determined that it should be listed as amendment No. 100a as it bears no relationship to or has no connection with amendment No. 100. I still find the process extremely difficult to understand. I find many of the Standing Orders of the Seanad difficult to comprehend. I will not accept the amendment for drafting reasons....

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (2 Jul 2019)

Charles Flanagan: I merely wish to refer to what I said about amendment No. 99 which, if I were to have a stab at remembering, I would say we discussed some weeks ago. I did not accept that amendment and I am not accepting No. 101 because of its similarity to it. I am satisfied that in the circumstances it is not necessary.

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (2 Jul 2019)

Charles Flanagan: I am nodding because I want to take up exactly the point that has been raised by Senator Norris, which is the reason I cannot accept the amendment. It is too confining. In other words, the effect of the amendment would be such that the only consideration that can be given is on the matter of the published statement. It is too confining in that regard because there may well be other issues...

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (2 Jul 2019)

Charles Flanagan: I am happy to accommodate the Senator by way of having a further look at it. My concern is that the effect of the amendment, as drafted, would confine the process to looking only at the recommendation made under section 56(4)(a), namely, the published statement only. It could well have the effect of other recommendations not being considered. I do not believe that is what Senator McDowell...

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (2 Jul 2019)

Charles Flanagan: I do not wish to prolong the debate, but we seem to have shifted from section 53 to section 56. I indicated to Senator McDowell that I would be happy to go back to the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel with a view to achieving the balance sought in the amendment, but it might not be a direct consequence of it. We can deal with section 56 if we get to it.

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (2 Jul 2019)

Charles Flanagan: These are important amendments, particularly amendment No. 102, which seeks to ensure that the lay members of the procedures committee are, in effect, barred from any participation in the preparation of a statement or of a statement of requisite skills and attributes for a particular judicial office. It strikes at the heart of the Bill because the repeated opposition from Senators McDowell...

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (2 Jul 2019)

Charles Flanagan: The Senator's argument would be all very fine if we were dealing with purely legal skills and attributes, but there is more than that involved in the appointment of a member of the Judiciary. There is a requirement, for instance, for administrative skills, analytical skills and skills in dealing with human interest issues. It is about more than just knowledge of the law, albeit that is a...

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (2 Jul 2019)

Charles Flanagan: Senators Norris and McDowell both referred to the situation in Scotland. The amendment in the name of the Independent Senators draws heavily from the Scottish law except that it does not make reference to what appears to me to be an important aspect of the Scottish Act, where it makes quite clear that a portion of the section does not prevent a member of the board, presumably a lay member...

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (2 Jul 2019)

Charles Flanagan: What we are doing, which is entirely in keeping with the main function and the main thrust of the Opposition amendments going back over a year, is to effectively hobble the lay members and to create a hierarchy. Senator McDowell said that there are important aspects of this that non-lawyers and non-judges should have no hand, act or part in, thereby creating a hierarchy where there are...

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (2 Jul 2019)

Charles Flanagan: That is the giveaway, the Senator referred to "people who know what they are talking about."

Written Answers — Department of Justice and Equality: Residency Permits (2 Jul 2019)

Charles Flanagan: I am advised by the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service (INIS) of my Department that the person referred to by the Deputy held permission to remain in the State on the basis of marriage to an Irish national and that permission expired on 28 June, 2019. I understand the person must contact INIS to request further permission to reside. I also understand that it remains open to...

Written Answers — Department of Justice and Equality: Immigration Status (2 Jul 2019)

Charles Flanagan: I am advised by the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service (INIS) of my Department that, in response to a notification pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999 (as amended), the persons concerned have submitted written representations. These representations, together with all other information on file, will be fully considered, under Section 3 (6) of the...