Results 16,201-16,220 of 18,737 for speaker:Michael McDowell

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (30 Jan 2019)

Michael McDowell: I do not have much to add to what was said on the last occasion and do not intend to delay the discussion on this amendment any further.

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (30 Jan 2019)

Michael McDowell: There is no presumption of constitutionality about any Bill before the Dáil.

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (30 Jan 2019)

Michael McDowell: To wrap up the debate on amendments Nos. 86a and 86b, they are related. Amendment No. 86b proposes a new section 41, which is designed to clearly state what seems to be the actual consensus right across this House. Also, it seems now, I am happy to say and without exaggerating the situation, at least not to be frowned upon by the Minister as a proposition. To me, central to the question as...

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (30 Jan 2019)

Michael McDowell: I move amendment No. 86b:In page 28, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following: “Government’s function under Article 35 of Constitution 41. No provision of this Act affects in any way the function and duty of the Government, in advising the President on appointment to judicial office under Article 35 of the Constitution, to advise in accordance with its own judgment and...

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (30 Jan 2019)

Michael McDowell: I move amendment No. 86c:In page 28, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:“Communication with person eligible for appointment to judicial office 41. No provision of this Act affects, limits or inhibits the right of the Government, or of the Minister or the Attorney General acting on the authority of the Government, to communicate with a person eligible for appointment to...

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (30 Jan 2019)

Michael McDowell: It could be a celebrated solicitor.

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (30 Jan 2019)

Michael McDowell: A number of points arise from what the Minister and Senator Norris have said on amendment No. 86c. First, it is becoming apparent that the Minister believes the terms of section 39 will be the sole method with which any judge can effectively be engaged at all in respect of an appointment. I believe that is the purpose of this Bill. What the Minister says does not shock me in the slightest...

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (30 Jan 2019)

Michael McDowell: Then what is it to do? Is it to state it will make its own appointment, as it did not think much of those three? How will it make that appointment? Will it tap somebody on the shoulder and tell that person it intends appointing him or her? Will it know whether an individual has already been appointed and rejected by the commission? We do not know because this is left deliberately vague...

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (30 Jan 2019)

Michael McDowell: That is the Executive's primary function. If it does not agree with the three names that come forward on some short-listed basis from a commission, it is not merely entitled to reject them. It also can decide it can do better than that. What if it takes advice from the Attorney General, the Minister for Justice and Equality or whoever and decides it could do better? What if it decides...

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (30 Jan 2019)

Michael McDowell: How can it consider those persons if it is not allowed to know who is interested in the position? This amendment aims to tease out the unconstitutionality of the intention of the Bill. As the Minister again hinted today, that intention is to ensure that by reason of the prohibition on canvassing and due to section 39, which was forced through against my wishes, the only practical way in...

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (30 Jan 2019)

Michael McDowell: -----will be by going through the appointments commission. In 2004, there was a very good reason for the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board, JAAB, process not being applied to serving Judiciary, namely, that the Government did not have to heed the advice of the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board regarding the merits or demerits of a High Court judge seeking appointment to the Supreme...

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (30 Jan 2019)

Michael McDowell: One is on one side of this issue or the other. One cannot have it both ways. What worries me about the Bill, and I do not want to attack the Minister personally or the Department, is that there is a certain cowardice in saying nothing prevents the Government from making its own choice but it must do so in a fog of ignorance and in a manner that prevents it from giving effect to its own...

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (30 Jan 2019)

Michael McDowell: We must also discuss the other amendments in the group.

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (30 Jan 2019)

Michael McDowell: We have dealt with that one.

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (30 Jan 2019)

Michael McDowell: I hope I will have no difficulty in persuading the Minister that amendment 86d is absolutely unacceptable. It states:In page 28, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:"Disclosure of identity of persons eligible for appointment to judicial office41.Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 27and 28, nothing in this Act renders it unlawful for the Attorney General to inform members...

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (30 Jan 2019)

Michael McDowell: If, in respect of the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court, the Government gets the same three names recommended to it on three successive occasions and does not like them, is it not entitled to inquire who is being passed over for those three people to be named and why the commission insists on putting those three people before the Government for nomination when the Government has already...

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (30 Jan 2019)

Michael McDowell: I listened carefully to what the Minister just said, but I am absolutely mesmerised by what I did not hear and what I failed to grasp in what he said. Is the Attorney General to be free to inform the Cabinet-----

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (30 Jan 2019)

Michael McDowell: -----that someone has applied a number of times and has been passed over?

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (30 Jan 2019)

Michael McDowell: The answer to that is either "Yes" or "No". If the answer is "No", as Senator Norris seems to think is the case, it only increases my worries and deeply held sentiment that the Bill is intended to have an unconstitutional effect. Imagine the Cabinet getting the names of three people it is not keen on for appointment and someone asking whether Ms Justice or Mr. Justice so and so would be...

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (30 Jan 2019)

Michael McDowell: -----that a particular candidate whom it is discussing has been rejected on a number of occasions and stands rejected from being shortlisted? I would just like to know. Rather than circling around the issue, I want to know the plain, simple, straight proposition. Is that what this Bill actually says?