Results 2,501-2,520 of 18,761 for speaker:Michael McDowell

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (12 Feb 2019)

Michael McDowell: If the Leas-Chathaoirleach would let me finish this sentence I will then report progress.

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (12 Feb 2019)

Michael McDowell: It has nothing to do with "ad hocery".

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (12 Feb 2019)

Michael McDowell: It is a considered Cabinet decision making provision for the situation it has just created. I want to make it clear that what the Minister is proposing will create a six-month delay where there are two follow-on appointments. We will be dealing with it at great length on the next occasion so the Minister can relax as he will have plenty of time to deal with it.

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (5 Feb 2019)

Michael McDowell: I welcome the Minister back to the House. Amendment No. 86c was under discussion when the debate was adjourned on the last occasion. It provides that no provision of the Act "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 any judicial office with a...

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (5 Feb 2019)

Michael McDowell: I welcome the Minister's clarity on this issue except I would ask him to clarify one further point. Is it his view that such an approach will be excluded by this legislation if it is passed in its present form?

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (5 Feb 2019)

Michael McDowell: That is a slightly different answer to the question I put. Does the Minister believe that such communication would be excluded if this Bill is enacted in its present form?

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (5 Feb 2019)

Michael McDowell: We are dealing here with a fairly basic constitutional principle and just to say it is undesirable while denying this House the right to make an amendment to make it clear that it is possible seems to me to be attempting to use this legislation to frighten any future Government away from exercising its constitutional prerogatives. Why is it undesirable? Supposing a cabinet looks at a...

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (5 Feb 2019)

Michael McDowell: The problem with all of this is that we are faced with a situation where the Government is entitled to reject the three names recommended to it in respect, for example, of the appointment of an ordinary member of the Supreme Court. What is it to do when that happens? I do not see written into this Bill the phrase, "Sorry, try again". I do not see provision for an indication to the...

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (5 Feb 2019)

Michael McDowell: -----remove its discretion to the greatest extent possible and, through these statutory provisions, corner it into accepting the proposals of the commission in the form of a shortlisted candidate. I must express my deep disappointment that these amendments are not being accepted because it betokens a concerted onslaught on the true constitutional position. The true constitutional position...

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (5 Feb 2019)

Michael McDowell: The Attorney General is not a member of the Government but, rather, an adviser to the Government.

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (5 Feb 2019)

Michael McDowell: The Attorney General sits at Cabinet.

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (5 Feb 2019)

Michael McDowell: Three is the maximum.

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (5 Feb 2019)

Michael McDowell: There is no long list.

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (5 Feb 2019)

Michael McDowell: Under the Bill, there is no long list.

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (5 Feb 2019)

Michael McDowell: The reason I say there is no such thing as a long list is currently, the JAAB advises the Government of the people who applied, and of the people it considers suitable for an appointment. Sitting judges do not come into the equation. What is proposed under this Bill is that the only communication that the newly formed judicial appointments commission gives to the Government is, what I call,...

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (5 Feb 2019)

Michael McDowell: Senator Norris may think that is logic but-----

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (5 Feb 2019)

Michael McDowell: If Senator Norris was short-listed for that job in Trinity, it would not have implied that there was a long list. The commission will advise the Government of the three people they consider suitable-----

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (5 Feb 2019)

Michael McDowell: It might in logic but this Bill has little to do with logic.

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (5 Feb 2019)

Michael McDowell: Under the Bill as currently drafted, if the Government rejects the three names sent forward to it, there is no provision for it to communicate that back to the commission and to ask it to compile a different list, by adding or subtracting somebody or coming up with three different names. There is no provision for that. I ask the Minister to confirm that I am right in saying that there is no...

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (5 Feb 2019)

Michael McDowell: It gives the Government some basic information and advice and makes explicit provision for where it is unhappy with the commission's recommendations. That is all it is designed to do. If it is rejected, it is clear what the Government is trying to do with this legislation. It is trying to say to future Governments that they may never exercise their own constitutional prerogative and...