Results 9,921-9,940 of 11,689 for speaker:Ivana Bacik

Seanad: Order of Business (26 Jan 2011)

Ivana Bacik: I am just pointing out——

Seanad: Order of Business (26 Jan 2011)

Ivana Bacik: Why not bring the election date forward? Let us have it the previous week.

Seanad: Order of Business (26 Jan 2011)

Ivana Bacik: All I am saying is the current political instability surrounding the election is causing enormous problems for people in their everyday lives.

Seanad: Order of Business (26 Jan 2011)

Ivana Bacik: The solution we offered was to bring forward the motion of no confidence in the Government. This had the effect of ensuring a general election before the end of February. In terms of lack of clarity and instability, there were attempts——

Seanad: Order of Business (26 Jan 2011)

Ivana Bacik: Yesterday, from the other side of the House, there were deliberate attempts made by Senator Feeney and others to muddy the waters concerning civil partnership. It was suggested those entering civil partnerships would be in some way prevented or delayed from doing so because amendments on civil partnership in the Finance Bill would not be made.

Seanad: Order of Business (26 Jan 2011)

Ivana Bacik: It is true; I listened to Senator Feeney yesterday. The Labour Party has given a categorical commitment that the amendments necessary to ensure equity between civil partners and spouses will be brought forward in the finance (no. 2) Bill by 1 April, even if the Finance Bill is passed without the amendments in question made this week.

Seanad: Order of Business (26 Jan 2011)

Ivana Bacik: Civil partnership ceremonies may go ahead as planned in April. The chaos of the Finance Bill will not affect them and there will be no delays.

Seanad: Order of Business (26 Jan 2011)

Ivana Bacik: Is Senator Daly looking for more time?

Seanad: Order of Business (26 Jan 2011)

Ivana Bacik: Senator Daly was trying to re-open that debate earlier when I was speaking.

Seanad: Order of Business (26 Jan 2011)

Ivana Bacik: I do not think the election could have happened yesterday.

Seanad: Order of Business (25 Jan 2011)

Ivana Bacik: I am asking the Leader for clarity on the date. Others have commented or engaged in a long rant about political parties, but I would like to defend them, particularly the Labour Party. The imperative from our point of view and that of constituents was to ensure we would have certainty to bring to an end the political instability and chaos and that an election would be scheduled as soon as...

Seanad: Order of Business (25 Jan 2011)

Ivana Bacik: We have guaranteed that the civil partnership provisions will be dealt with in another finance Bill.

Seanad: Order of Business (25 Jan 2011)

Ivana Bacik: On a point of order, the Government agreed the timetable.

Seanad: Order of Business (25 Jan 2011)

Ivana Bacik: I second the amendment proposed by Senator Hannigan, that the whistleblower legislation be published, as we are anxious to have the debate on it tomorrow night in Private Members' time. It will probably be the last Private Members' Bill to be debated in the lifetime of this Seanad. I join others in asking the Leader for clarification on what other legislation will be dealt with this week....

Seanad: Communications (Retention of Data) Bill 2009: Committee and Remaining Stages (20 Jan 2011)

Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 6: In page 6, between lines 42 and 43, to insert the following subsection: "(6) Where data that relate to a person are in the possession of a service provider, and a disclosure request in respect of that data has been made under this section, that person shall be notified of the existence of the request within three months from the date of the request.". This is proposed...

Seanad: Communications (Retention of Data) Bill 2009: Committee and Remaining Stages (20 Jan 2011)

Ivana Bacik: I had anticipated that response. It is a pity that the issue was not examined more during the long period between Second Stage and now. The practical difficulties could easily be overcome. For example, the State authorities could have the obligation to inform the subject. It is worth taking note of other jurisdictions where there is a duty to notify. Without that duty to notify, the...

Seanad: Communications (Retention of Data) Bill 2009: Committee and Remaining Stages (20 Jan 2011)

Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 7: In page 6, before section 7, to insert the following new section: 7.--A provider shall comply with a disclosure request made to the service provider only where it is technically possible and reasonable in scope in that the request is not so wide as to place an undue cost on the service provider.". This amendment is in the same spirit as the earlier amendment we tabled...

Seanad: Communications (Retention of Data) Bill 2009: Committee and Remaining Stages (20 Jan 2011)

Ivana Bacik: In anticipation that the Minister would not accept our amendment to the section, we have opposed the section. We have done so for self-evident reasons. The section, as currently constituted, is too broadly framed. We believe that simply to provide that a service provider shall comply with the disclosure request without any proviso would place an undue burden on the service providers. I...

Seanad: Communications (Retention of Data) Bill 2009: Committee and Remaining Stages (20 Jan 2011)

Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 8: In page 7, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following subsection: "(5) A report under this section shall contain details of the numbers of prosecutions actually commenced as a result of investigations to which requests related, and a detailed justification for any significant excess of numbers of requests over numbers of prosecutions actually commenced.". This...

Seanad: Communications (Retention of Data) Bill 2009: Committee and Remaining Stages (20 Jan 2011)

Ivana Bacik: My amendment would do the same thing in a different way by deleting the phrase "render that disclosure request invalid or". For the same reasons, we believe section 6 should have meaning and a breach of it should have consequences and that it should not be open to abuse as suggested in section 10(1) as currently worded. We are concerned that a breach of section 6 must have consequences.