Results 11,021-11,040 of 11,695 for speaker:Ivana Bacik

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 (2 Jul 2009)

Ivana Bacik: I echo the words of other Senators in calling again for a debate on prison policy. In light of the announcements that have been made about the Central Mental Hospital and Thornton Hall, it is timely that we would debate this. Like others, I heard Professor Harry Kennedy on the radio this morning. He is doing an excellent job in the Central Mental Hospital despite difficulties with...

Seanad: Order of Business (2 Jul 2009)

Ivana Bacik: It was never appropriate to criminalise mental illness by placing psychiatric patients in an institution on a campus that was really a prison campus which included the enormous prison which was proposed for Thornton Hall. I am glad it has been announced that Thornton Hall will at least be delayed. There is a strong argument to review in much greater depth the need for building more prison...

Seanad: Order of Business (2 Jul 2009)

Ivana Bacik: This is an evidence-based rationale. The numbers of women travelling for abortion has dropped and women in crisis pregnancy have been much better cared for since the inception of the Crisis Pregnancy Agency.

Seanad: Order of Business (2 Jul 2009)

Ivana Bacik: We should all appreciate the work of the agency.

Seanad: Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2009: Second Stage (2 Jul 2009)

Ivana Bacik: I am grateful for the time and I wish to say some brief words about the Bill which amalgamates several different areas within it. As I stated previously, I am always somewhat wary when a Bill is introduced to the House with the words "miscellaneous provisions" in the title because usually it indicates that many rather significant changes are proposed. It is unfortunate that it has been...

Seanad: Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2009: Second Stage (2 Jul 2009)

Ivana Bacik: I thank the Minister.

Seanad: Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Bill 2009: Committee and Remaining Stages (2 Jul 2009)

Ivana Bacik: I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach for allowing me to speak and I apologise for not speaking earlier on the Bill. I support Senator Regan's amendment. I heard the Minister of State's reply but, given the level of power we grant to superior officers in sections 7 and 8 of this Bill, it is critical we ensure there is a sufficient level of safeguard present to ensure there is no abuse of the...

Seanad: Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Bill 2009: Committee and Remaining Stages (2 Jul 2009)

Ivana Bacik: I apologise for trespassing again. I wish to make one specific point to the Minister of State that I raised on Second Stage. I mentioned we already have powers to issue search warrants and have provided for superior officers in certain legislation, in respect of urgent circumstances, and so on. It is interesting that in 2006 the Criminal Justice Bill, as it then was, in what I believe was...

Seanad: Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Bill 2009: Committee and Remaining Stages (2 Jul 2009)

Ivana Bacik: As I stated on Second Stage, I support the prohibition on carrying out surveillance except in accordance with a valid authorisation or an approval. This is an important cornerstone of the Bill and is one of the reasons for which the legislation has received a broad welcome from civil liberties groups. It states that surveillance shall only be carried out in accordance with the procedures...

Seanad: Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Bill 2009: Committee and Remaining Stages (2 Jul 2009)

Ivana Bacik: I agree with Senator Regan, in that a specific purpose of this kind would be useful, particularly as the legislation is being introduced with the express purpose of dealing with organised crime. I told the Senator that I am not sure about whether the word "gangland" is the most appropriate for use in criminal legislation. We all know what it means, but it has a tabloid or, unfortunately,...

Seanad: Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Bill 2009: Committee and Remaining Stages (2 Jul 2009)

Ivana Bacik: Broad purposes are provided in section 4(1). It is a critical section because it provides for the application for authorisation to a judge. The purpose for which the application may be made is broad, namely, "as part of an operation or investigation being conducted by the Garda Síochána concerning an arrestable offence" or "preventing the commission of arrestable offences". I wish to...

Seanad: Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Bill 2009: Committee and Remaining Stages (2 Jul 2009)

Ivana Bacik: I support the amendment. Senator Regan has identified a real problem with the provision. As I stated, section 5(7) is very important because it is the one that authorises entry to a place, including a dwelling. To put it bluntly, it allows the State to bug people's homes. Doing so is subject to judicial authorisation in the context of sections 4 and 5. Very well-developed case law on...

Seanad: Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Bill 2009: Committee and Remaining Stages (2 Jul 2009)

Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 5: In page 9, subsection (8), line 26, after "granted." to insert the following: "Where the surveillance is to be carried out at or in a private dwelling, it shall not be carried out for more than 24 hours from the time at which the approval is granted.". It might be helpful if I address amendments Nos. 6 and 7 with this amendment because they are all related and...

Seanad: Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Bill 2009: Committee and Remaining Stages (2 Jul 2009)

Ivana Bacik: Sections 4 and 5 provide for judicial authorisation for surveillance which we have all welcomed with the statutory framework and the criteria and so on, albeit that some of us on this side of the House think the criteria could be tighter and judges given more guidance on granting authorisations. My concerns, however, are strongest in respect of sections 7 and 8 because these provide for...

Seanad: Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Bill 2009: Committee and Remaining Stages (2 Jul 2009)

Ivana Bacik: I am grateful to the Minister of State for his considered response and for the information on the Attorney General's advice and that there are certain operational reasons for the need for a specific time period. The reason for distinguishing a dwelling is not something I have plucked from the air. I accept that sometimes it can be difficult to ascertain whether it is a dwelling but...

Seanad: Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Bill 2009: Committee and Remaining Stages (2 Jul 2009)

Ivana Bacik: I am grateful to Senator Regan for making the very obvious point that 24 hours would be enough time to ascertain whether the premises was a dwelling. The Minister of State's point on the maximum period reminds me of the old saying that housework expands to fill the time available. I do not know whether the Minister of State is familiar with that. Similarly, where there is a power to use...