Results 10,821-10,840 of 11,509 for speaker:Ivana Bacik

Seanad: Enforcement of Court Orders (Amendment) Bill 2009: Second Stage (7 Jul 2009)

Ivana Bacik: Further, on a point of order, the Leader indicated earlier that there would be a review. I have tabled an amendment, that I had to compile during Second Stage. I do not think the Minister has had time to review my amendment nor the other amendments from the parties. All the amendments have not been circulated.

Seanad: Business of Seanad (7 Jul 2009)

Ivana Bacik: On a point of order, is the Leader saying Report Stage will be taken tonight?

Seanad: Enforcement of Court Orders (Amendment) Bill 2009: Committee Stage (7 Jul 2009)

Ivana Bacik: I understood from the four lists that the first amendment we would take would be amendment No. 1, a Government amendment, followed by Senator Regan's amendment No. a1 and then followed by my amendment No. 1a. If I could take the Chair through those amendments, amendment No. 1 on the Government list mentions page 3, subsection (1), line 12, which comes before Senator Regan's amendment of page...

Seanad: Enforcement of Court Orders (Amendment) Bill 2009: Committee Stage (7 Jul 2009)

Ivana Bacik: I wish to support the proposed amendment, which is eminently sensible since it proposes a different regime as an alternative to the sanction of imprisonment being imposed upon a debtor. Rather than imprisonment, it envisages an attachment of income or welfare order that would be made to address circumstances where somebody is unable or unwilling to pay debts. It is in keeping with the...

Seanad: Enforcement of Court Orders (Amendment) Bill 2009: Committee Stage (7 Jul 2009)

Ivana Bacik: I am also disappointed at the Minister of State's response to Senator Regan's amendment. It is unfortunate that he is not willing to contemplate some form of attachment of earnings or welfare option within the Bill, given that it purports to improve the situation as far as debtors are concerned and to ensure no further breach of the Constitution in the way the court will deal with debtors....

Seanad: Enforcement of Court Orders (Amendment) Bill 2009: Committee Stage (7 Jul 2009)

Ivana Bacik: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak again on this point because it is very important. Senators Regan and Alex White referred specifically to the passage in Ms Justice Laffoy's judgment which they say mandates the adoption of some form of attachment of earnings order. I took the opportunity to read again the relevant passages in the judgment. It is very clear that their analysis is...

Seanad: Enforcement of Court Orders (Amendment) Bill 2009: Committee Stage (7 Jul 2009)

Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 1a: In page 4, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following: "(e) and provide information in ordinary language to the debtor in order that the debtor may seek a variation of an existing instalment order at the hearing which he or she is required to attend, and (f) and provide information also in ordinary language to the debtor of the consequences of not appearing at any...

Seanad: Enforcement of Court Orders (Amendment) Bill 2009: Committee Stage (7 Jul 2009)

Ivana Bacik: I am disappointed by the Minister of State's response, particularly his refusal to contemplate the insertion of information for debtors about the possibility of a variation of attachment orders. I ask for further clarification in respect of the concept of balance to which he referred. I contend that simply setting out in the legislation the procedure that is to be followed will not...

Seanad: Enforcement of Court Orders (Amendment) Bill 2009: Committee Stage (7 Jul 2009)

Ivana Bacik: In light of the Minister of State's response, I fail to understand the reason the summons should not state that a variation may be sought and, further, that mediation may be sought. It is interesting that the Minister of State referred to balance. Like Senator White, I fail to comprehend the argument being made in this matter. The legislation stipulates what is required to be included in...

Seanad: Enforcement of Court Orders (Amendment) Bill 2009: Committee Stage (7 Jul 2009)

Ivana Bacik: I will conclude in two brief sentences. While I am pleased to learn that such a leaflet is being proposed, why not insert it in the legislation? The preparation of a leaflet appears to undermine the Minister of State's objection to my amendment.

Seanad: Enforcement of Court Orders (Amendment) Bill 2009: Committee Stage (7 Jul 2009)

Ivana Bacik: It is important to recognise the different rights of the different parties in this Bill. This amendment looks at the procedure more from the creditor's point of view by seeking to ensure that where personal service is being avoided by a debtor, a different order may be made by a judge to compel the attendance of the debtor before the court. That seems to be very much in the interest of the...

Seanad: Enforcement of Court Orders (Amendment) Bill 2009: Committee Stage (7 Jul 2009)

Ivana Bacik: I welcome this amendment. In its briefing paper, the free legal advice centres pointed out that the use of "may" in the Bill as it stands seemed inadvertently to give a judge the discretion to do neither of the two things proposed in section 6(3), which clearly would have been a flaw in the legislation. I emphasise, in a constructive spirit, that this amendment is welcome. It is noteworthy...

Seanad: Enforcement of Court Orders (Amendment) Bill 2009: Committee Stage (7 Jul 2009)

Ivana Bacik: I support amendment No. 2b. As Senator Regan said, the argument in favour of the need to include some attachment of earnings procedure in this legislation has been rehearsed. Like Senators Alex White and Regan, I explained that the correct interpretation of Ms Justice Laffoy's judgment means that some procedure of this kind is required to ensure that the debt enforcement mechanisms are...

Seanad: Enforcement of Court Orders (Amendment) Bill 2009: Committee Stage (7 Jul 2009)

Ivana Bacik: I support this sensible amendment, which would clarify the meaning of section 6(10). It is worth emphasising that with debts of this nature, the debt remains in place even after any term of imprisonment has been served. In that sense it is very different from a fine. Where people are imprisoned for non-payment of a fine, their imprisonment effectively discharges the fine since the...

Seanad: Enforcement of Court Orders (Amendment) Bill 2009: Committee Stage (7 Jul 2009)

Ivana Bacik: I support the amendment. There is a serious lack of clarity in subsection (12) and Senator White's amendment is trying to make sense of it. If one looks at it carefully, it makes no sense: "If a debtor fails to comply with subsection (5)(a)(ii), without reasonable excuse, the District Court judge may deal with the matter as if it were a contempt of that court." Subsection (5)(a)(ii) is the...

Seanad: Enforcement of Court Orders (Amendment) Bill 2009: Committee Stage (7 Jul 2009)

Ivana Bacik: I also wanted to take issue, particularly with the proposed section 9(2). I have no problem with the general principle that a Minister may direct that a person be released because that is a function of the Executive. Returning to Ms Justice Laffoy's judgment, she said there is no rational basis for treating people differently if they are imprisoned for non-payment of a debt or facing a...

Seanad: Enforcement of Court Orders (Amendment) Bill 2009: Committee Stage (7 Jul 2009)

Ivana Bacik: It has been 69 years since the 1940 Act was passed and things have certainly moved on. I was not aware this provision was in the 1940 Act. I am surprised to hear it and I do not imagine it has ever been used, certainly not in recent times and since the judgments that clarified separation of powers on imprisonment. We need to review the matter and not simply replicate it in the new legislation.

Seanad: Enforcement of Court Orders (Amendment) Bill 2009: Committee Stage (7 Jul 2009)

Ivana Bacik: I support the amendment. We have already discussed at some length the need to ensure that debtors are informed at the earliest possible opportunity of the consequences of failure to comply with orders and other information about the procedure. Again, the amendment seeks to do that at a different stage of the process where instalment orders are to be served on the debtor. The amendment...

Seanad: Order of Business (2 Jul 2009)

Ivana Bacik: I echo the words of other Senators in calling again for a debate on prison policy. In light of the announcements that have been made about the Central Mental Hospital and Thornton Hall, it is timely that we would debate this. Like others, I heard Professor Harry Kennedy on the radio this morning. He is doing an excellent job in the Central Mental Hospital despite difficulties with...

Seanad: Order of Business (2 Jul 2009)

Ivana Bacik: It was never appropriate to criminalise mental illness by placing psychiatric patients in an institution on a campus that was really a prison campus which included the enormous prison which was proposed for Thornton Hall. I am glad it has been announced that Thornton Hall will at least be delayed. There is a strong argument to review in much greater depth the need for building more prison...