Results 10,561-10,580 of 11,710 for speaker:Ivana Bacik

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Committee Stage (10 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: I support Government amendment No. 74. However, I have one query for the Minister on it. Item No. 3 of Schedule 3 requires that the safety file be transferred. Is that sufficiently specific? A fire safety file requires the production of all relevant documents that might be required to facilitate the owners and management company in meeting their statutory obligations under fire safety...

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Committee Stage (10 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: I thank the Minister.

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Committee Stage (10 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 72: In page 21, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following: "1. Sections 2 to 4 (obligation to have owners' management company).". This amendment seeks to ensure that a two, three or four unit development would still have a management company, otherwise it was thought the existing paragraphs of the Schedule would have made little sense. I am not sure if that is...

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Committee Stage (10 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: I will not press the amendment at this stage. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Schedule 1 agreed to. NEW SCHEDULE. Government amendment No. 73: In page 21, after line 14, to insert the following: 1. Section 4 - (Obligation of developer to transfer ownership of common areas of completed developments to owners' management company). 2. Section 5 - (Obligations to complete development to remain...

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Committee Stage (10 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: The Minister has kindly indicated he will consider quite a number of provisions in the Bill between now and Report Stage. Given that Senator Quinn and I have said we would like to see changes made on Report Stage rather than in the Dáil, on the basis of the full debate we have had today, does the proposed date give sufficient time for consideration? I am not opposing Senator O'Donovan's...

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Committee Stage (10 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: I thank the Acting Chairman.

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Committee Stage (10 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: Like Senator O'Toole, I will not press my amendment at this point given that the Minister indicated he will review this. However, the Law Reform Commission's analysis of the 5% concept is persuasive. I re-examined the detail of its recommendation. It points out that the 5% gives a significant inducement to a developer to complete a development in a timely manner to a standard which fulfils...

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Committee Stage (10 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: Not at this stage in light of what the Minister has said although I very much hope he will come back to us on the matter before Report Stage in the Seanad. I accept what he said about wanting to take time but if we could have a decent interval between Committee and Report Stages in the Seanad we might have an opportunity to hear if the Minister has a proposal equivalent to the 5% retention...

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Committee Stage (10 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 24: In page 6, subsection (6), line 1, to delete "The", where it firstly occurs, and substitute the following: "Except where the multi-unit development has been completed, the". This amendment is designed to make section 2(6) compatible with section 9(1). It mirrors the introductory wording of section 3(2), which states: "Except where the multi-unit development has been...

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Committee Stage (10 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: I am not pressing the amendment at this stage. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Section 2, as amended, agreed to. NEW SECTIONS.

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Committee Stage (10 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 25: In page 6, before section 3, to insert the following new section: 3.-A developer may not retain any units on completion of the development. Each unit shall be subject, on such completion, to a common legal framework including liability for charges. The amendment proposes the insertion of a new section 3 to the effect that a developer may not retain any units on...

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Committee Stage (10 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: In light of what the Minister has said I will not be pressing the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Committee Stage (10 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 26: In page 6, before section 3, to insert the following new section: 3.—No person may sell a unit unless the purchaser has supplied his or her residential address to the owners' management company and has undertaken to notify the company of any future changes in address.". This amendment also proposes to insert a new section and again arises from a suggestion by the...

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Committee Stage (10 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: I certainly take on board the Minister's comments. He may be correct that there may be a better way to deal with this. I take it he can perceive the mischief the amendment seeks to address.

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Committee Stage (10 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: There may be a better or less intrusive way to deal with it. Certainly, his suggestion that the converse should be the case might be the better way to deal with this issue. In other words, a purchaser would be given information about his or her obligations within the owners' management company. Consequently, I will withdraw the amendment at this stage, while reserving the right to table a...

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Committee Stage (10 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: As amendment No. 28 is the same as amendment No. 27, I am grateful to learn that the Minister intends to accept this principle. The purpose of amendment No. 28 was to address an omission the Labour Party had observed in the Bill, which was that the section did not require transfer of the reversion to the management company. Clearly, the Minister now has addressed this omission in amendment...

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Committee Stage (10 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: The Labour Party considered that subsection (2) seemed to mean that while the developer was obliged to transfer title to common areas, he or she would retain the beneficial interest until the development was completed. Consequently, it seemed unnecessary. I have not examined how the Minister's amendment affects this point. I seek a response from the Minister as to whether it deals with the...

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Committee Stage (10 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: It appears to address the issue I sought to address. While I will withdraw my amendment, I will review it again in the light of the Minister's amendment. I have not had the time to review the impact of the Minister's amendment on what I was trying to achieve but I will withdraw it at this point. Amendment agreed to. Amendment No. 30 not moved. Section 3, as amended, agreed to. SECTION 4....

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Committee Stage (10 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 34: In page 6, paragraph (a), line 38, to delete "2007" and substitute "2009". Amendment agreed to. Section 5, as amended, agreed to. Amendment No. 35 not moved. Section 6 agreed to. SECTION 7.

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Committee Stage (10 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: As the proposer of amendment No. 37, I am delighted the Minister has accepted its principle, which was suggested by the Apartment Owners Network, AON. It is important the developer should pay or, as the Minister phrased it, "shall, at its expense, effect". Either way, the principle remains the same, but the legislation clearly places the obligation to pay for the insurance policy on the...