Results 7,201-7,220 of 21,096 for speaker:Charles Flanagan
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (14 Nov 2018)
Charles Flanagan: Yes. It is my understanding the criminal offences which apply to confidential information under section 27 will be applicable to the infringement of the confidentiality of certain proceedings under section 28.
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (14 Nov 2018)
Charles Flanagan: It does. It specifies areas of responsibility in the context of confidentiality, those areas being the proceedings of the commission and its committees, communications to and from the commission and its committees and communications to and from the commission or its committees to the office of the Minister.
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (14 Nov 2018)
Charles Flanagan: Have we not amended the section?
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (14 Nov 2018)
Charles Flanagan: It is a criminal offence under section 27, as amended, by virtue of amendment No. 69.
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (14 Nov 2018)
Charles Flanagan: After the removal has taken place, the person is no longer a member of the commission and will not be bound by the same regulatory framework as members of the commission.
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (14 Nov 2018)
Charles Flanagan: No, such a person would not be free to engage in any discussion of a public nature regarding his or her removal.
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (14 Nov 2018)
Charles Flanagan: I will get back to the Senator about that point.
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (14 Nov 2018)
Charles Flanagan: Such a person will not be entitled to disclose information regarded as confidential in respect of any matter before the removal has taken place. In the event that the removal has taken place, that person would no longer be a member of the commission.
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (14 Nov 2018)
Charles Flanagan: Such a person would, therefore, still be bound by the stricture regarding confidentiality.
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (14 Nov 2018)
Charles Flanagan: It appears not.
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (14 Nov 2018)
Charles Flanagan: It is clear that such people would not be in a position to comment publicly on the matter of their removal or the procedure surrounding their removal, which would be confined to the business of the commission and, therefore, covered by confidentiality.
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (14 Nov 2018)
Charles Flanagan: Section 29 reflects good practice across public bodies. There is a requirement that records be kept. As far as it is concerned, it will be for the commission to determine what those records will comprise. It is regarded as proper practice for a body of this type across the public sector. Public bodies are required to keep appropriate records, including minutes of meetings and important...
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (14 Nov 2018)
Charles Flanagan: The normal rules of discovery would apply. There may well be circumstances where decisions may be challenged. One of the challenges could well be by way of an application for a judicial review of a decision of the commission.
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (14 Nov 2018)
Charles Flanagan: On the second point raised, there are a number of later amendments in this regard. I refer in particular to Senator McDowell's amendment No. 90, which will give us an opportunity to discuss at that stage, which is a more appropriate part of the Bill, the issues surrounding those amendments. I will be happy to engage at that stage. On the first point in regard to the retention of records,...
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (14 Nov 2018)
Charles Flanagan: I note with interest that Senator McDowell warns himself against straying into further amendments and then proceeds to do so for a period of approximately 15 minutes. However, on the point at issue here in respect of the section under discussion, we are on Committee Stage. In the event of the Bill being amended substantially later, we can of course revisit the sections under discussion on...
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (14 Nov 2018)
Charles Flanagan: It was the combined Opposition.
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (14 Nov 2018)
Charles Flanagan: That could well have been the case. I would have to check the record.
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (14 Nov 2018)
Charles Flanagan: There was not sufficient support for it on Committee Stage in the Dáil.My recollection was, however, that I did not enjoy the support of other parties, including Sinn Féin.
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (14 Nov 2018)
Charles Flanagan: No, but I want to make the point on promotions here that there is a school of thought that is of the view that all appointments to the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal should be by way of judicial promotion. I do not subscribe to that view. There are very good examples where successful, expert lawyers were appointed directly from the well of the Law Library or indeed from the other arm...
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (14 Nov 2018)
Charles Flanagan: We are straying.