Results 5,461-5,480 of 11,664 for speaker:Ivana Bacik

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (21 Nov 2018)

Ivana Bacik: In the interest of time, I will. These are important points but they were raised with me subsequent to the Bill commencing Committee Stage. Therefore, I could not table amendments on the matter for Committee Stage. The issue raised appears to involve a somewhat technical oversight, but with potentially serious consequences. It concerns the relationship between this Bill and the Legal...

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (21 Nov 2018)

Ivana Bacik: I should have brought the definition. I am sorry. I am reading from the note I have been given. It is from a constituent.

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (21 Nov 2018)

Ivana Bacik: I am told the section 2 definition from the 2015 Act has a broad definition of "practising barrister", to include employed barristers engaged in the provision of legal services. I understand the Act has now been commenced, but only very recently because the Legal Services Regulatory Authority has had to establish a roll of practising barristers. It is only as a result of this that the...

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (21 Nov 2018)

Ivana Bacik: No.

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (21 Nov 2018)

Ivana Bacik: I thank the Minister for his comprehensive response. He did not respond to me on the other point about in-house lawyers but I am happy to wait for that.

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (21 Nov 2018)

Ivana Bacik: We can return to that. On the amendments, I welcome the widening of eligibility for appointments to judicial office to include legal academics, which is an important and positive reform. In putting amendments forward, Senator Ó Donnghaile and I are trying to ensure the section works, that it is not too cumbersome and so on. Specific criteria for eligibility generally are also welcome,...

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (21 Nov 2018)

Ivana Bacik: I thank the Senator.

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (21 Nov 2018)

Ivana Bacik: They still do that.

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (21 Nov 2018)

Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 73:In page 23, lines 32 and 33, to delete "Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, the High Court, the Circuit Court, or the District Court" and substitute "Supreme Court, Court of Appeal or High Court".

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (21 Nov 2018)

Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 76:In page 24, to delete lines 15 to 17 and substitute the following: “(a) teaches one or more subjects in the field of law, and (b) carries out research, or supervises the carrying out of post-graduate research, in one or more such subjects,”.

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (21 Nov 2018)

Ivana Bacik: We withdrew it on the basis that the Minister and I had an exchange on it and I am grateful to the Minister for indicating a willingness to consider the issue and an inclination to accept at least the spirit of it. I just want to check the wording of it. I fully intend resubmitting a similar amendment on Report Stage. I said all this earlier.

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (21 Nov 2018)

Ivana Bacik: Just to put the record straight on a point of order, I am not simply withdrawing an amendment unilaterally. We had quite an extensive discussion.

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (21 Nov 2018)

Ivana Bacik: We had a discussion and I explained the basis of its withdrawal. I would take issue with any suggestion, and I do not think Senator McDowell intended it-----

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (21 Nov 2018)

Ivana Bacik: -----that I am withdrawing it without any due consideration.

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (21 Nov 2018)

Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 77: In page 24, to delete lines 34 to 41 and substitute the following:“(6) In this section ‘educational establishment’ means a university to which the Universities Act 1997 applies, and in computing, for the purposes of this section, any period that a person must have served as a legal academic, successive employment of the person by 2 or more of any...

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (21 Nov 2018)

Ivana Bacik: It had occurred to me before Senator McDowell raised this issue that the technological universities might be covered. Certainly there are excellent law faculties and departments in very many of them, so that is an important point. It relates to a point I made earlier in respect of the in-house lawyers and the relationship between this Bill and the other legislation such as the Legal...

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (21 Nov 2018)

Ivana Bacik: Amendment No. 90 is a more substantial and significant amendment than the other amendments in this group and I am at a loss as to why my amendment, No. 91, is included.

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (21 Nov 2018)

Ivana Bacik: I am quite happy that it would not be dealt with in this group because while it is a proposed amendment to section 44, which is also the subject of amendment-----

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (21 Nov 2018)

Ivana Bacik: I am happy to separate it.

Seanad: Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) (21 Nov 2018)

Ivana Bacik: Yes, it does not make any difference. Amendment No. 91 is better dealt with along with amendments Nos. 86 and 87, both of which refer to gender balance in appointments. That appears to be the more appropriate grouping.