Results 1,701-1,720 of 20,831 for speaker:David Norris
- Seanad: An tOrd Gnó - Order of Business (26 Feb 2019)
David Norris: Hear, hear. Exactly.
- Seanad: An tOrd Gnó - Order of Business (26 Feb 2019)
David Norris: It was in support of Senator Black's point about trees.
- Seanad: An tOrd Gnó - Order of Business (26 Feb 2019)
David Norris: He has been disappointing.
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (26 Feb 2019)
David Norris: Under Standing Order 62(3)(b) I request that the division be taken again other than by electronic means.
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (26 Feb 2019)
David Norris: I am sorry to interrupt but are we dealing with amendment No. 91c or 91d?
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (26 Feb 2019)
David Norris: Is it 91c or 91d, Acting Chairman?
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (26 Feb 2019)
David Norris: That is the reason I interrupted Senator McDowell.
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (26 Feb 2019)
David Norris: We had good snap votes.
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (26 Feb 2019)
David Norris: I strongly support this amendment, which is an important one tabled by Senator McDowell. Four words are significant here because this does not operate in any circumstances or the general run of things. The four words are, "necessary", "expedient", "urgency" and "sufficient". In order for the amendment to come into play the Government would have to consider it necessary on the one hand, or...
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (26 Feb 2019)
David Norris: I am not sure it is sufficient for the Minister to say he is not accepting the amendment because he has in mind some hypothetical amendment at some date in the future, perhaps on Report Stage. We have to consider what is before us, not what may be in the future. For that reason, I hope Senator McDowell will press-----
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (26 Feb 2019)
David Norris: Perhaps not quite straight away. I think we need to hear some more pearls of wisdom.
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (26 Feb 2019)
David Norris: Not quite; there may be one dissenting voice.
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (26 Feb 2019)
David Norris: Under Standing Order 62(3)(b) I request that the division be taken again other than by electronic means.
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (26 Feb 2019)
David Norris: Yes.
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (26 Feb 2019)
David Norris: It is agreed.
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (26 Feb 2019)
David Norris: The proposal that they be discussed together was not agreed and that is the crucial point.
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (26 Feb 2019)
David Norris: The Senator should read it out in order that we will all know what it is about.
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (26 Feb 2019)
David Norris: I understand the reasoning behind Senator McDowell's amendment and it is important the Government should have the possibility of prescribing a time limit. However, I believe there is something wrong with the Senator's amendment. The word "may" occurs twice in the amendment. It states: "The Government may prescribe a time period [that is all right] within which the Commission may make its...
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (26 Feb 2019)
David Norris: Do I hear a "but" coming?
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (26 Feb 2019)
David Norris: The Senator is queen of the "mays".