Results 2,201-2,220 of 18,726 for speaker:Michael McDowell

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (10 Apr 2019)

Michael McDowell: Imagine if the President of the High Court was not on the shortlist and yet was supposed to participate in the commission thereafter, having been adjudicated on as unsuitable for recommendation to the Government, or less suitable than those who were shortlisted. The relationship between that officeholder and the rest of the commission would be severely tested by such an event. Supposing...

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (10 Apr 2019)

Michael McDowell: At least comprehensive.

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (10 Apr 2019)

Michael McDowell: The Minister misunderstands my motivation in proposing this measure. He ascribes it to a wider motivation, which is opposition to lay participation in the commission. I have no objection to lay participation in the commission.

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (10 Apr 2019)

Michael McDowell: The Judicial Appointments Advisory Board has lay members on it. I have no problem with that principle at all. I do have a problem of saying to the Chief Justice that the Chief Justice should not chair the commission purely as a put down for the Judiciary. I do have a problem with saying that lay people must be a majority of every sub-committee as a matter of principle when that is not...

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (10 Apr 2019)

Michael McDowell: The Senator had not heard the word until recently.

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (10 Apr 2019)

Michael McDowell: The excuse that might be offered is that it is not that such a person would be unsuitable to be a member of the Supreme Court, but that the commission might believe that three other people were more suitable. That might be the excuse that is made for there being a shortlist of three among which he or she did not appear. I have thought the matter through, however, and even in that scenario,...

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (10 Apr 2019)

Michael McDowell: Yes.

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (10 Apr 2019)

Michael McDowell: Tá.

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (10 Apr 2019)

Michael McDowell: I move amendment No. 93b:In page 31, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following:"47. Where the Commission has in the past recommended the appointment of any person to any type of judicial office, that person shall for the purposes of this Act also be deemed to be recommended to any judicial office of the same type except when the person has notified the Commission or the Secretary to...

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (10 Apr 2019)

Michael McDowell: Having been recommended.

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (10 Apr 2019)

Michael McDowell: Following what the Minister stated by way of observation on the amendment, it is quite likely, given the turnover of people in the judicial hierarchy, that positions in the Court of Appeal will become vacant quite frequently. In a matter of months, somebody in the Supreme Court could retire, somebody from the Court of Appeal could then get that job and there would be another vacancy on the...

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (10 Apr 2019)

Michael McDowell: Perhaps the principle behind my amendment could be addressed by including the words "shall be deemed to be recommended to any judicial office of the same type where the vacancy arises within three years" or something of that nature in the Bill. I would be happy to go along with such a wording. The principle of what I am talking about, however, is, again, to make the system work. It is...

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (10 Apr 2019)

Michael McDowell: I was not quite clear there. Is the Minister saying he is open to the idea of the commission ranking the shortlist?

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (10 Apr 2019)

Michael McDowell: Am I clear that the Minister is opposed to the commission stating this is its shortlist of three with a ranking of one, two and three? Is this what the Minister is saying?

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (10 Apr 2019)

Michael McDowell: Is this in an amendment the Minister is thinking of tabling on Report Stage?

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (10 Apr 2019)

Michael McDowell: It is not possible at present I think unless-----

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (10 Apr 2019)

Michael McDowell: The point is that is-----

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (10 Apr 2019)

Michael McDowell: As Senator Norris says in a disorderly manner, that is not in the Bill.

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (10 Apr 2019)

Michael McDowell: That is not in the Bill as I understand it at the moment. Unless the Minister proposes to amend the Bill to allow for this, the commission has no function as I see it in selecting people in a particular order. Of course, this is of some significance because if it will operate on a consensus basis that is one thing but if it is going to be taking votes on who appears as numbers one, two and...

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (10 Apr 2019)

Michael McDowell: This is fairly important because I had understood until this afternoon - and the Bill has been on Committee Stage for some considerable period as we are all well aware - that the shortlist was to be an inordinated shortlist, one in which three names appeared without any signal to the Government as to which was the most preferred, the second most preferred and the third most preferred...