Results 6,621-6,640 of 11,469 for speaker:Ivana Bacik
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Report Stage (Resumed) (10 Dec 2019)
Ivana Bacik: I have been here for some time.
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Report Stage (Resumed) (10 Dec 2019)
Ivana Bacik: I am trying to facilitate debate.
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Report Stage (Resumed) (10 Dec 2019)
Ivana Bacik: I thank the Acting Chair
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Report Stage (Resumed) (10 Dec 2019)
Ivana Bacik: I thank the Acting Chairman. They are very different amendments.
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Report Stage (Resumed) (10 Dec 2019)
Ivana Bacik: The Acting Chair has ruled.
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Report Stage (Resumed) (10 Dec 2019)
Ivana Bacik: Sorry, I understood that the Acting Chair made a ruling to the opposite effect a moment ago when he stated that amendment No. 13 would dealt with separately. The other amendments-----
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Report Stage (Resumed) (10 Dec 2019)
Ivana Bacik: In all my time in this House, and as the Acting Chair just pointed out I have been here a while, I do not recall a Minister intervening to make a proposal after the Chair has ruled. This is a matter for the House, not the Minister. It is not a political proposition.
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Report Stage (Resumed) (10 Dec 2019)
Ivana Bacik: Excuse me, I did not interrupt the Minister.
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Report Stage (Resumed) (10 Dec 2019)
Ivana Bacik: I do not know why the Minister felt he needed to intervene on this.
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Report Stage (Resumed) (10 Dec 2019)
Ivana Bacik: I did not interrupt Senator Conway.
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Report Stage (Resumed) (10 Dec 2019)
Ivana Bacik: The Chair heard the Minister and I do not believe he had any function in making a proposal on the grouping. All he said was that he understood groupings were generally made for a good reason. He did not speak to the substance of this grouping.
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Report Stage (Resumed) (10 Dec 2019)
Ivana Bacik: May I express my view then?
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Report Stage (Resumed) (10 Dec 2019)
Ivana Bacik: As the proposer of amendment No. 13 and as somebody who has a view on the substance of these amendments, I would say that they are not suitable for grouping. I will wait until the Acting Chair is free to hear what I have to say.
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Report Stage (Resumed) (10 Dec 2019)
Ivana Bacik: Amendment No. 13, which is my amendment, deals with the provisions on page 8 relating to the definitions of "practising barrister" and "practising solicitor". I have quite a bit to say on the amendment. For some reason, it has been grouped with amendments Nos. 49 to 53, inclusive, and amendment No. 59. If one looks to those amendments, one sees where they come in. I will wait until the...
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Report Stage (Resumed) (10 Dec 2019)
Ivana Bacik: Amendments Nos. 49 to 53, inclusive, are very different. They come in much later in the text of the Bill and do not relate to the definitions of "practising solicitor" and "practising barrister". I have scrutinised them and I do not see why they are grouped. Amendment No. 13 is a discrete proposal that deals with a particular definition. I do not see the reason for grouping it with the...
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Report Stage (Resumed) (10 Dec 2019)
Ivana Bacik: I am being reasonable. The others may------
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Report Stage (Resumed) (10 Dec 2019)
Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 13: In page 8, after line 37, to insert the following: “(3) In this Act and in the Act of 1961— (a) “practising barrister” has the same meaning as it has in section 2 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015; (b) “practising solicitor” has the same meaning as it has in section 2 of the Legal Services Regulation Act...
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Report Stage (Resumed) (10 Dec 2019)
Ivana Bacik: The amendment proposes the insertion of a new subsection (3) into section 2. It states: "In this Act and in the Act of 1961 ... "practising barrister"” has the same meaning as it has in section 2 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 ... [and] “practising solicitor” has the same meaning as it has in section 2 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015." This...
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Report Stage (Resumed) (10 Dec 2019)
Ivana Bacik: I am sorry the Minister has dismissed the argument with such a brief turn of phrase. Senator McDowell put the case for it very strongly and, as he said, there are serious implications for the definitions of barrister and solicitor in this legislation. The Minister's amendments Nos. 51 and 52, which are now decoupled from amendment No. 13, only refer to the definition of practising barrister...
- Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Report Stage (Resumed) (10 Dec 2019)
Ivana Bacik: I do not believe anybody is precluding anyone else from discussing anything. I have just referred to amendments Nos. 51 and 52 as it is important to say why they are different.