Results 681-700 of 11,441 for speaker:Ivana Bacik

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 (8 Jul 2009)

Ivana Bacik: I join previous speakers in referring to a letter by 133 practising criminal lawyers, working both in the prosecution and defence areas, which was published in today's edition of The Irish Times. The letter calls for the withdrawal of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill 2009. Members must take on board the comments and suggestions made by the lawyers in question when we contemplate the...

Seanad: Order of Business (8 Jul 2009)

Ivana Bacik: He speaks infallibly.

Seanad: Enforcement of Court Orders (Amendment) Bill 2009: Report and Final Stages (8 Jul 2009)

Ivana Bacik: I second the amendment. We debated this issue at length on Second Stage, and I spoke in support of it. Having read Ms Justice Laffoy's judgment several times, especially the relevant passage at pages 81 to 82, it is clear she is of the opinion that the proportionality test in Heaney v. Ireland can only be fulfilled where there is provision for some type of attachment of earnings procedure....

Seanad: Enforcement of Court Orders (Amendment) Bill 2009: Report and Final Stages (8 Jul 2009)

Ivana Bacik: I am very grateful to the Minister for accepting my amendment from yesterday and acknowledging that in his speech. I put the amendment on Committee Stage last night and we voted on it. The Minister of State, Deputy Curran, indicated he could not accept it but I am delighted there has been a change of mind overnight and that it has been accepted. This is an important principle and I am very...

Seanad: Enforcement of Court Orders (Amendment) Bill 2009: Report and Final Stages (8 Jul 2009)

Ivana Bacik: I second the amendment. I spoke on the amendment last night. We are grateful to the Minister for reviewing what we said in the Seanad last night. We can anticipate that he is aware of the arguments in favour of this simple clarifying amendment.

Seanad: Order of Business (9 Jul 2009)

Ivana Bacik: I echo the words of Senator Coghlan and again call on the Leader to ensure we have a debate on the pharmacy issue with the Minister for Health and Children next week. I believe he has already promised and I would like him to confirm it. I also support Senator Ó Murchú's call for an all-party motion to be adopted in this House on the need for humanitarian relief to get through to the...

Seanad: Order of Business (9 Jul 2009)

Ivana Bacik: Fr. Russell says there is nothing there, it is just a tree and one cannot worship a tree.