Results 10,341-10,360 of 11,477 for speaker:Ivana Bacik

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Committee Stage (10 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: I certainly take on board the Minister's comments. He may be correct that there may be a better way to deal with this. I take it he can perceive the mischief the amendment seeks to address.

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Committee Stage (10 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: There may be a better or less intrusive way to deal with it. Certainly, his suggestion that the converse should be the case might be the better way to deal with this issue. In other words, a purchaser would be given information about his or her obligations within the owners' management company. Consequently, I will withdraw the amendment at this stage, while reserving the right to table a...

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Committee Stage (10 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: As amendment No. 28 is the same as amendment No. 27, I am grateful to learn that the Minister intends to accept this principle. The purpose of amendment No. 28 was to address an omission the Labour Party had observed in the Bill, which was that the section did not require transfer of the reversion to the management company. Clearly, the Minister now has addressed this omission in amendment...

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Committee Stage (10 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: The Labour Party considered that subsection (2) seemed to mean that while the developer was obliged to transfer title to common areas, he or she would retain the beneficial interest until the development was completed. Consequently, it seemed unnecessary. I have not examined how the Minister's amendment affects this point. I seek a response from the Minister as to whether it deals with the...

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Committee Stage (10 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: It appears to address the issue I sought to address. While I will withdraw my amendment, I will review it again in the light of the Minister's amendment. I have not had the time to review the impact of the Minister's amendment on what I was trying to achieve but I will withdraw it at this point. Amendment agreed to. Amendment No. 30 not moved. Section 3, as amended, agreed to. SECTION 4....

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Committee Stage (10 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 34: In page 6, paragraph (a), line 38, to delete "2007" and substitute "2009". Amendment agreed to. Section 5, as amended, agreed to. Amendment No. 35 not moved. Section 6 agreed to. SECTION 7.

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Committee Stage (10 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: As the proposer of amendment No. 37, I am delighted the Minister has accepted its principle, which was suggested by the Apartment Owners Network, AON. It is important the developer should pay or, as the Minister phrased it, "shall, at its expense, effect". Either way, the principle remains the same, but the legislation clearly places the obligation to pay for the insurance policy on the...

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Committee Stage (10 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: In the circumstances, amendment No. 37 falls, as it would have the same effect as amendment No. 36. Amendment agreed to. Amendment No. 37 not moved.

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Committee Stage (10 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: In principle, our amendment has been accepted, albeit in a different way. I am delighted that the roll seems to be continuing. The principle, suggested by AON, is important. Not only would the owner of the beneficial interest make the declaration, but he or she would deliver it to the OMC to ensure the company knows about it. The purpose is straightforward, but I see that amendment No. 74...

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Committee Stage (10 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 48: In page 10, lines 1 to 3, to delete subsection (4). This amendment is aimed at deleting section 12(4). This subsection restricts the application of section 12 because it states it applies to multi-unit developments, in respect of which development works will commence after the enactment of the Bill. It seems the one unit-one vote rule, of which we all approve, does...

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Committee Stage (10 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: I accept the Minister's point. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Committee Stage (10 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 52: In page 11, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following subsection: "(2) The developer shall be liable to pay any charge under this section or section 15, within 30 days of invoice, for any unsold unit as if there were a unit owner for that unit.". The wording of the amendment has been suggested by the Apartment Owners Network, the members of which point out that...

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Committee Stage (10 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: I am grateful to the Minister for indicating his agreement that there is a mischief which we are trying to resolve. I will withdraw the amendment. I would be delighted to see the issue addressed in some way on Report Stage, although not necessarily through our proposed wording. The issue of the timing of the liability for service charges should be resolved in the legislation. Amendment, by...

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Committee Stage (10 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: I apologise for not being here to move the amendment and I am very grateful to my colleague, Senator Prendergast, who did so. I was attending a committee meeting. I am grateful to the Minister for indicating he has a certain sympathy for this amendment, particularly in light of the changing economic position. With the housing market more or less collapsing, the fear that this would lead to...

Seanad: Order of Business. (10 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: Will the Leader indicate when the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill is likely to come before the House? I am aware the legislation is still before a select committee and I understand an unprecedented number of amendments, some 700 in total, have been listed for the Bill. It is a matter of particular interest to learn when the legislation will come before the House as it is likely...

Seanad: Order of Business. (10 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: No, it relates to crimes that are alleged to have taken place in this jurisdiction.

Seanad: Order of Business. (10 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: The issue was discussed on television last night and the individual in question was convicted in 1983 in this jurisdiction. The Murphy commission indicates that 32 individuals made complaints or allegations against this man. A number of these complaints were made to the Garda. Questions need to be answered as to the reason this man was allowed to run a family friendly guesthouse in...

Seanad: Order of Business. (9 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: In answer to Senator O'Toole and speaking as someone who grew up in Cork, the interests of God and Munster are often conflated.

Seanad: Order of Business. (9 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: I second Senator Fitzgerald's amendment to the Order of Business, calling for a debate today on women's participation in politics. The Leader promised us such a debate this week. As yesterday was International Women's Day, it would be timely to have such a debate this week. As the House is well aware, last October the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights...

Seanad: Order of Business. (9 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: It is an anomaly; I see that the Leader is agreeing with me.