Results 15,761-15,780 of 18,736 for speaker:Michael McDowell

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (14 Nov 2018)

Michael McDowell: I am unhappy because I am not getting clarity as to whether somebody removed from the commission is entitled to speak about it and whether people are entitled to speak about it before or after their removal. I am not getting clarity on this.

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (14 Nov 2018)

Michael McDowell: It would then be somebody who is or was a member of the commission for subsection (1).

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (14 Nov 2018)

Michael McDowell: That is the point I am coming to. If I am a member of this commission and am removed from it, am I free to talk about the fact that I was removed and how unfair it was, etc., after my removal?

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (14 Nov 2018)

Michael McDowell: That is a remarkable situation in that somebody could be removed from membership of the commission and be prohibited on pain of committing a criminal offence from discussing the reason he or she was removed from the commission.

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (14 Nov 2018)

Michael McDowell: I do not find that satisfactory. First of all, a person who is removed should be at liberty to speak about the reason he or she was removed. If the other members of the commission have been party to the transactions that led to that person's removal, they should be at liberty to speak about it and defend themselves if the person removed is entitled to reveal what happened to him or her.

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (14 Nov 2018)

Michael McDowell: My worry is that we seem to be providing that somebody could be removed from the commission and that it would be a criminal offence for him or her to discuss matters concerning the removal that took place before his or her removal.

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (14 Nov 2018)

Michael McDowell: I find that unsatisfactory and unnecessary. I cannot imagine that it would be satisfactory that somebody would be removed from the commission and would effectively commit a criminal offence if he or she explained to the public what had happened to him or her, so I am opposed to the section.

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (14 Nov 2018)

Michael McDowell: This is the last section in Part 4. Curiously, it looks like an insignificant section but it has interesting aspects. One relates to the purpose of the section, which is to oblige the commission to keep a record of all applications made to it under section 39 and its deliberations and recommendations regarding appointments to judicial office. Several issues arise in this regard. Obviously,...

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (14 Nov 2018)

Michael McDowell: Does the Minister consider that the proceedings of the commission and its decisions should be open to judicial review? In that context, will the keeping of records of deliberations be of assistance? Will discovery lie against the commission if there is a challenge to the validity of the decisions or recommendations of the commission?

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (14 Nov 2018)

Michael McDowell: That is the point. Therefore, it is not a matter for the commission to decide what it will keep a record of.Section 53, which concerns the keeping of records, deals with the preparation of:(a) a statement setting out the selection procedures, and (b) a statement of requisite skills and attributes. Each of those statements has to be approved by the commission. Subsection (5) states:In the...

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (14 Nov 2018)

Michael McDowell: I appreciate what the Minister says. However, it occurs to me that, if we adopt the current wording of section 29, we are, in effect, approving in advance the distinction between certain senior judicial offices mentioned in section 44 as it now stands and all judicial offices insofar as section 39 applies to them. I am very much opposed to section 44 as it stands and the requirement for all...

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (14 Nov 2018)

Michael McDowell: I am glad to hear that hint of a hint that things might not be set in stone. Going back to what the Minister said about the passage of the legislation through the Dáil and what happened on Second Stage, Committee Stage, and Report Stage, I was just trying to work out how it was that he was defeated on these matters. Who or which parties were involved? In particular, did Sinn Féin...

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (14 Nov 2018)

Michael McDowell: Was Sinn Féin part of the combined Opposition which defeated the Minister on this matter?

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (14 Nov 2018)

Michael McDowell: I am just trying to work out what the prospects of getting agreement in this House are if the same attitudes persist there and here. I do not want to discuss the finer details of what happens in the Dáil, because it is a separate Chamber.

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (14 Nov 2018)

Michael McDowell: Can I ask the Minister again, without trespassing excessively on what the other House did, whether the question of promotional appointment was dealt with in the way that I am proposing to deal with it?

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (14 Nov 2018)

Michael McDowell: That is a point of interest because I agree completely with the Minister that it would be a mistake to say that the Supreme Court is off limits to a direct non-judicial appointment. In general terms, most people and politicians would agree that it is probably good that the Supreme Court consists to a large extent of people who have judicial experience rather than people who come in with no...

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (14 Nov 2018)

Michael McDowell: -----and we are straying.

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (14 Nov 2018)

Michael McDowell: What I am saying is that the expressions of interest under section 44-----

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (14 Nov 2018)

Michael McDowell: We are on section 29 and what I am worried about-----

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (14 Nov 2018)

Michael McDowell: -----in this section 29 is that we seem to be cementing into the Bill a distinction that I am very unhappy with, that is, the expressions of interest procedure that goes to this commission and the other mode of appointment under section 29. Does paragraph (b) of section 29 also contain an obligation to keep a record of deliberations, because paragraph (a) does under the section 39 procedure?...