Results 2,941-2,960 of 18,727 for speaker:Michael McDowell
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (14 Nov 2018)
Michael McDowell: Section 28(2) states: "In addition to what is provided for in section 27...". Will it be a criminal offence to infringe the confidentiality provisions set out in section 28(2)?
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (14 Nov 2018)
Michael McDowell: Why then is the section being retained in the Bill? To me, it does not appear to add anything to section 27, as amended.
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (14 Nov 2018)
Michael McDowell: I am sorry to be difficult, but where are the provisions of section 27, as amended, made applicable to section 28?
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (14 Nov 2018)
Michael McDowell: We are back on the section, as amended. Is that right?
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (14 Nov 2018)
Michael McDowell: I see we have amended it. I do not want to be repetitive but I really believe this offence is non-investigable for the reasons I mentioned previously. Could the Minister explain with regard to subsection 2(b) why the ban on revealing any matter concerning the removal of a member is confined to the period of time before the removal takes place under section 20?
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (14 Nov 2018)
Michael McDowell: Subsection 2(b) concerns any matter concerning the removal of a member of the commission. The persons prohibited from dealing with that are people who are or have been members of the commission. Does it mean that somebody who was removed from membership of the commission is free to talk about that and the reasons he or she was removed after the removal but is not free to do so before his or...
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (14 Nov 2018)
Michael McDowell: Before or after? It is of some relevance. If somebody is removed from the membership of the commission, one would presume he or she would be entitled to say afterwards why he or she was removed or why it was unfair that he or she was removed - or maybe not. Perhaps there is a total prohibition and they are supposed to go to their grave without comment about what happened to them and why...
- 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?