Results 5,081-5,100 of 20,831 for speaker:David Norris

Seanad: Heritage Bill 2016: Report and Final Stages (13 Apr 2017)

David Norris: I move amendment No. 39:In page 8, line 3, after "defendant" to insert the following:". This will be determined by the issue of a receipt by Waterways Ireland confirming that a payment has been received". I did not realise this amendment was being discussed.

Seanad: Heritage Bill 2016: Report and Final Stages (13 Apr 2017)

David Norris: The issuing of a receipt should be accepted as proof and that is the only proof one can have. I do not understand why the Minister would object to that. The amendment is being pressed.

Seanad: Heritage Bill 2016: Report and Final Stages (13 Apr 2017)

David Norris: Yes.

Seanad: Heritage Bill 2016: Report and Final Stages (13 Apr 2017)

David Norris: If there is any challenge, that receipt can be produced as evidence.

Seanad: Heritage Bill 2016: Report and Final Stages (13 Apr 2017)

David Norris: Yes.

Seanad: Heritage Bill 2016: Report and Final Stages (13 Apr 2017)

David Norris: Is there not a reference in the legislation indicating that it has to issue a receipt?

Seanad: Heritage Bill 2016: Report and Final Stages (13 Apr 2017)

David Norris: No, one does not. I am definitely going to press this amendment. There is nothing in the legislation indicating that one gets a receipt. Apparently, there is such as reference, as I note the Minister's advisers are indicating that there is. When they have written out in clear legible writing that we can have this, I will be satisfied.

Seanad: Heritage Bill 2016: Report and Final Stages (13 Apr 2017)

David Norris: I thank the Minister and compliment her advisers for being on the ball.

Seanad: Heritage Bill 2016: Report and Final Stages (13 Apr 2017)

David Norris: Has amendment No. 40 has been ruled out of order?

Seanad: Heritage Bill 2016: Report and Final Stages (13 Apr 2017)

David Norris: Will the Acting Chairman explain how on earth a person can be a charge on the Exchequer? A person is there already - there is a person at the hatch. Perhaps we could have some elucidation as to why this-----

Seanad: Heritage Bill 2016: Report and Final Stages (13 Apr 2017)

David Norris: I think we will challenge this.

Seanad: Heritage Bill 2016: Report and Final Stages (13 Apr 2017)

David Norris: Would the Senator like to explain that?

Seanad: Heritage Bill 2016: Report and Final Stages (13 Apr 2017)

David Norris: Can I suggest-----

Seanad: Heritage Bill 2016: Report and Final Stages (13 Apr 2017)

David Norris: Can I comment on that? We have not discussed that amendment yet. It is highly unlikely-----

Seanad: Heritage Bill 2016: Report and Final Stages (13 Apr 2017)

David Norris: The Minister has given a-----

Seanad: Heritage Bill 2016: Report and Final Stages (13 Apr 2017)

David Norris: I am responding to what the Minister said, namely, that amendment No. 40 was out of order-----

Seanad: Heritage Bill 2016: Report and Final Stages (13 Apr 2017)

David Norris: ----because of amendment No. 41, but we have not reached it yet and it will not be accepted by the Minister, so amendment No. 41 cannot be used as an argument for amendment No. 40 being out of order.

Seanad: Heritage Bill 2016: Report and Final Stages (13 Apr 2017)

David Norris: We very much appreciate that. I believe Senator Ó Domhnaill is the proposer of amendment No. 40 and I recommend that we refer this to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges for a ruling on whether it was-----

Seanad: Heritage Bill 2016: Report and Final Stages (13 Apr 2017)

David Norris: I understand that but we should send it to that committee for a ruling on whether it is properly out of order.Let me make a point of principle. I have felt for a long time that there should at least be some justification given for rulings from the Chair. It is like if I had an argument with my poor unfortunate older brother who died last year. If we had an argument, I would ask, "Well,...

Seanad: Heritage Bill 2016: Report and Final Stages (13 Apr 2017)

David Norris: Just stating it was out of order but not stating any reason or justifying the fact.