Results 5,121-5,140 of 21,096 for speaker:Charles Flanagan
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (10 Apr 2019)
Charles Flanagan: It does.
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (10 Apr 2019)
Charles Flanagan: To my mind, "shall consider" is a requirement.
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (10 Apr 2019)
Charles Flanagan: No, I am open to allowing the commission engage in the due process. It will engage in an interview process deemed appropriate and then make a recommendation to the Government and the Government will give the matter due consideration.
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (10 Apr 2019)
Charles Flanagan: No, that is eminently possible that there will be an order of ranking.
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (10 Apr 2019)
Charles Flanagan: No.
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (10 Apr 2019)
Charles Flanagan: There can well be an order of ranking coming from the commission to the Government.
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (10 Apr 2019)
Charles Flanagan: These will be issues for the commission itself. I do not wish to unduly influence the process as far as the commission is concerned. That is why we have a process. The difficulty with the amendments is they are designed specifically to bypass the process of recommendation.
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (10 Apr 2019)
Charles Flanagan: I do not believe that because somebody is a sitting member of court, he or she should be excluded from applying in the normal course of events, and then the commission in its wisdom will make a decision on the matter of the recommendation, not me.
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (10 Apr 2019)
Charles Flanagan: Not to go back over an amendment in the name of Senator Bacik that has been withdrawn, and not to discuss it in her absence, which would be unfair and probably against the rules, I would direct Senators to Chapter 2, section 40(2)-----
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (10 Apr 2019)
Charles Flanagan: The Senator has been operating from a different page. It is section 40(2), which states, "the Commission shall, in accordance with this Act, recommend to the Minister, in respect of the judicial office concerned, the names of 3 persons, ranked in the order of the Commission’s preference."
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (10 Apr 2019)
Charles Flanagan: The point at issue as far as Senator Bacik is concerned is that she was directing that the Government give particular consideration towards the recommendation.What we have here is merely a statement of preference on the part of the commission with no direction to Government. In the circumstances this would, to my mind, present Government with a difficulty.
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (10 Apr 2019)
Charles Flanagan: I suggest that this issue would be the subject matter of consideration by the commission. After all, we are empowering and enabling the commission to set its own rules in terms of the practice and procedure. I draw Senator McDowell's attention to section 53(5)(g) and (h) on the matter of the "the need for good standards of communication with applicants for judicial office, and the provision...
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (10 Apr 2019)
Charles Flanagan: There is not any obligation on the part of the commission to engage in the grading or recommendation process by way of order of ranking. It may well submit a number of names to the Government and allow the Government to consider them by way of an equality of recommendation. In the circumstances, it is best to leave the matter to the commission to decide its ordering of rules. If the...
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (10 Apr 2019)
Charles Flanagan: I am not accepting Senator McDowell's amendment.
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (10 Apr 2019)
Charles Flanagan: I am not inclined to accept the amendment because there are practical solutions available. One of these is that a person recommended but not appointed could well be the next person to be recommended and appointed, rather than have a statutory provision that an individual, once recommended, would always remain on a preferential recommended list.
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (10 Apr 2019)
Charles Flanagan: I might have a look at it on Report Stage but I am not accepting it now.
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (10 Apr 2019)
Charles Flanagan: In the event that we may revisit this matter on Report Stage, I ask the Senator not to press the amendment at this Stage.
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (10 Apr 2019)
Charles Flanagan: I have good news for the Senators as far as amendment No. 93c is concerned. It would place a duty on the commission to notify each and every applicant but Senators will recall that during the lengthy debate on 20 February, I agreed to accept an amendment moved by Senator Craughwell, namely, amendment No. 87b. I doubt that Senator Norris has a clear recollection of it but it is on the third...
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (10 Apr 2019)
Charles Flanagan: Yes, I did.
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (10 Apr 2019)
Charles Flanagan: Amendments Nos. 94 and 95 correspond to Report Stage amendments Nos. 93 and 95 in the Dáil. The latter were part of a series of amendments that the Ceann Comhairle ruled could not be moved in the Lower House for procedural reasons. Section 47, to which these two amendments relate, provides for the recommendation to the Minister of a commission member and for the recusal of such member....