Results 6,741-6,760 of 20,831 for speaker:David Norris
- Seanad: Legal Services Regulation Bill 2011: Report Stage (Resumed) (1 Dec 2015)
David Norris: No. On a point of order, this amendment seems to be redundant. The original line states: "Where the client or the legal practitioner is aggrieved by a direction made by the Authority under subsection (6) or its failure to make such a direction the person aggrieved". It is being changed to "he or she", but that has precisely the same meaning. What is the point in changing it?
- Seanad: Legal Services Regulation Bill 2011: Report Stage (Resumed) (1 Dec 2015)
David Norris: What is the difference between "the person aggrieved" and-----
- Seanad: Legal Services Regulation Bill 2011: Report Stage (Resumed) (1 Dec 2015)
David Norris: Grammatically, it has exactly the same meaning and impact.
- Seanad: Legal Services Regulation Bill 2011: Report Stage (Resumed) (1 Dec 2015)
David Norris: I am sorry, but they are not technical because they mean exactly the same thing. There is no technical difference between one and the other.
- Seanad: Legal Services Regulation Bill 2011: Report Stage (Resumed) (1 Dec 2015)
David Norris: And the draftsperson is W. Shakespeare, I presume?
- Seanad: Legal Services Regulation Bill 2011: Report Stage (Resumed) (1 Dec 2015)
David Norris: Ridiculous. There is a sense of style going on here. Someone believes that it is worthwhile wasting the time of the Seanad for a matter of style. It is complete nonsense.
- Seanad: Legal Services Regulation Bill 2011: Report Stage (Resumed) (1 Dec 2015)
David Norris: I welcome the Minister's very detailed explanation of these amendments. I am interested, however, in her remark that the view of the authority is too subjective. Despite the fact that the Minister provided for the wording that refers to the view of one of the legal bodies - I cannot remember which - she said before that it was too subjective, yet here it is now popping up. I am sorry; I...
- Seanad: Legal Services Regulation Bill 2011: Report Stage (Resumed) (1 Dec 2015)
David Norris: Does this mean the Minister is not moving amendment No. 122?
- Seanad: Legal Services Regulation Bill 2011: Report Stage (Resumed) (1 Dec 2015)
David Norris: If it is not needed, why is the Minister moving it?
- Seanad: Legal Services Regulation Bill 2011: Report Stage (Resumed) (1 Dec 2015)
David Norris: I agree with the Senator and I said something similar recently. Amendment No. 135 states, "In page 41, in subsection (1)(a) of the section 72 inserted by amendment 82 at Committee Stage in the Seanad, to delete “a reprimand” and substitute “an advice”." It refers to the section which states:Where, pursuant to the holding of an inquiry under section 71, the...
- Seanad: Legal Services Regulation Bill 2011: Report Stage (Resumed) (1 Dec 2015)
David Norris: This is not the sort of thing that should be introduced on Report Stage. If we are discussing traditional language-----
- Seanad: Legal Services Regulation Bill 2011: Report Stage (Resumed) (1 Dec 2015)
David Norris: -----that should have been known long before we got to Report Stage. That seems to me to be an obvious and logical thing, if we are talking about tradition and traditional language. That is very basic stuff. It should not come in on Report Stage. This is bad draftsmanship; about that there is no doubt. It is rather an insult to the Seanad to present material of this kind to the House....
- Seanad: Legal Services Regulation Bill 2011: Report Stage (Resumed) (1 Dec 2015)
David Norris: That is a good try, but a bit weak.
- Seanad: Legal Services Regulation Bill 2011: Report Stage (Resumed) (1 Dec 2015)
David Norris: No. Senator Barrett wants to contribute.
- Seanad: Legal Services Regulation Bill 2011: Report Stage (Resumed) (1 Dec 2015)
David Norris: Where did the word "Chapter" come from in the first place? This is another example of very sloppy draftsmanship.
- Seanad: Legal Services Regulation Bill 2011: Report Stage (Resumed) (1 Dec 2015)
David Norris: The word "Chapter" is not appropriately used. It obviously should be "Part" as that is the language of legislation. We have unearthed another example of poor draftmanship.
- Seanad: Legal Services Regulation Bill 2011: Report Stage (Resumed) (1 Dec 2015)
David Norris: Can we hear the Minister on this amendment?
- Seanad: Legal Services Regulation Bill 2011: Report Stage (Resumed) (1 Dec 2015)
David Norris: Can the Minister explain what the error was?
- Seanad: Legal Services Regulation Bill 2011: Report Stage (Resumed) (1 Dec 2015)
David Norris: I thought it might have been something to do with the phrase "sue of sanction". The original is garbage. It is inexplicable and incapable of being comprehended by the human intellect. It states, "In page 41, in subsection... to delete "Where the Disciplinary Tribunal makes a determination under section 71(9) sue of sanction...". What is "sue of sanction"? Is it "sue" as in "A Boy Named...
- Seanad: Legal Services Regulation Bill 2011: Report Stage (Resumed) (1 Dec 2015)
David Norris: I am trying to represent the sound of the asterisks. I compliment the final drafter, whoever he or she is, because the substitute text is comparatively easy to understand. There is no sue of sanction at all. It states "Where the Disciplinary Tribunal makes a determination under section 71(9) that the act or omission concerned constitutes misconduct and deals with the issue of sanction...