Results 1-20 of 38 for destroyed speaker:James Reilly

Joint Oireachtas Committee on Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation: Cost of Doing Business in Ireland: Discussion (17 Oct 2017)

James Reilly: ...this was already looked at and decided against on this occasion. However, the clamour for action will grow stronger if something is not done about it. We do not want to see the hotel industry destroyed and I want to see the 9% VAT rate remain, as do my colleagues. However, the issue is whether we are going to be listened to about this obvious and clear practice. No disrespect to the...

Seanad: Public Health (Alcohol) Bill 2015: Committee Stage (Resumed) (26 Oct 2016)

James Reilly: ...humans. What of the 1,500 beds occupied every night out of the approximately 11,000 in our system that are related to alcohol use? What of the tens of thousands of families whose lives have been destroyed because of alcohol in terms of the hurt it has caused, the damage to relationships, the unwanted pregnancies and the violence, not to mention obesity, of which alcohol is a huge part?...

Written Answers — Department of Children and Youth Affairs: Child Care Services Funding (1 Dec 2015)

James Reilly: ...’s participation in the programme. The childcare provider uses the information on the completed form to register the child on PIP. Once the child has been entered on PIP, the childcare provider must destroy the form in order to comply with data protection requirements. Once the child has been registered on PIP, a Parental DeclarationFormis printed and signed by both the parent and...

Written Answers — Department of Health: Rats and Mice (Destruction) Act (4 Feb 2014)

James Reilly: ...him to take such steps as are prescribed in the notice within a time specified therein or enter upon the land and take such steps as are necessary and reasonably practicable for the purpose of destroying the rats and mice on the land or of preventing the land from becoming infested with rats and mice, and may recover any reasonable expenses so incurred from the occupier of the land...

Seanad: Protection of the Public Interest from Tobacco Lobbying Bill 2013: Second Stage (18 Dec 2013)

James Reilly: ...preventable public health threats, with almost 6 million people dying globally from smoking each year. On a human level, that amounts to 6 million lives needlessly cut short and 6 million families destroyed. On an economic level, it accounts for a substantial section of the health care budget which might be saved or redirected to other areas in need of funding. Governments must take...

Committee on Health and Children: Select Sub-Committee on Health: Health Insurance (Amendment) Bill 2013: Committee Stage (3 Dec 2013)

James Reilly: I have sat here and listened for the past 20 minutes to a Deputy who has gone around in circles. This came from an individual who was a Minister of State in a Government that destroyed this country and caused 250,000 people to lose their jobs, which might have something to do with the fact that 250,000 people have left the insurance market and that 250,000 more have medical cards.

Health Insurance (Amendment) Bill 2013: Second Stage (Resumed) (21 Nov 2013)

James Reilly: What about Fianna Fáil's amazing contribution to destroying our financial sovereignty?

Seanad: Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill 2013: Committee Stage (Resumed) (18 Jul 2013)

James Reilly: ...to lawful termination of pregnancy in accordance with the X case and the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the A, B and C v. Ireland case. Section 22 sets out that it is an offence to destroy unborn human life intentionally. However, in order to regulate access to lawful terminations of pregnancy, exemptions are made under the terms of Bill where there is a real and...

Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill 2013: Report Stage (Resumed) (11 Jul 2013)

James Reilly: ...maximum, not a minimum, sentence and discretion is provided for. The effect of amendments Nos. 151 and 158 would be to delete the provisions that cover the offence under the Bill of intentionally destroying unborn human life. These provisions replace and update sections 58 and 59 of the 1861 Act and, therefore, are essential to uphold the constitutional position on the issue. I will not...

Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill 2013: Report Stage (Resumed) (11 Jul 2013)

James Reilly: While I can appreciate the concern of the Deputies, the amendments are unnecessary. Section 22 of the Bill makes it clear that it is an offence to intentionally destroy unborn human life. As I said previously, the provisions made in the Bill intend to ensure that in circumstances where the unborn may potentially be viable outside the womb, doctors must make all efforts to sustain its life...

Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill 2013: Report Stage (Resumed) (11 Jul 2013)

James Reilly: I reiterate what I have said. The Bill is very clear. It is unlawful to intentionally destroy unborn human life, but it is not unlawful to terminate a pregnancy where this is the only course of action open to the clinicians to avert the real and substantial risk to the life, as opposed to the health, of the woman. That is what the Supreme Court judgment states and I have made it quite...

Committee on Health and Children: Select Sub-Committee on Health: Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill 2013: Committee Stage (Resumed) (3 Jul 2013)

James Reilly: This area is fraught and I understand what people have said and I accept their concerns. It is, as people have pointed out, the only place where we actually refer to intentionally destroying unborn human life. That phrase is not used anywhere else in this Bill. The issue of avoidance of doubt was to not have any chilling effect from the point of view of doctors, which Deputy Boyd Barrett...

Committee on Health and Children: Select Sub-Committee on Health: Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill 2013: Committee Stage (Resumed) (3 Jul 2013)

James Reilly: ...I am saying. Under the Bill, a woman has a right to a termination of pregnancy if that is the only treatment that can avert the real and substantial risk to her life. It does not confer a right on her or anybody else to destroy the life of the unborn as an entity in itself. If that happens as a consequence of the gestational period involved, it is obviously going to be the outcome....

Committee on Health and Children: Select Sub-Committee on Health: Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill 2013: Committee Stage (2 Jul 2013)

James Reilly: .... It is a termination, not a destruction. That is very clear. There has been some comment on this, which has been disingenuous to say the least, to suggest that babies would be aborted, as in destroyed, right up to the point of delivery at birth. That is utterly untrue. The legislation and the Constitution are very clear and, frankly, I do not think we can be clearer.

Ceisteanna - Questions - Priority Questions: Health Insurance Cost (14 May 2013)

James Reilly: ...to come across, after two years, as concerned and wanting action on it is a little rich. That is not the way his Government left the country. It was left in poverty and in tatters. His Government destroyed our financial sovereignty. It accounts for much of the reason why so many people are unemployed or cannot afford private insurance. Mr. McCarthy is right. Insurance will become...

Written Answers — Department of Health: Newborn Screening Cards (16 Apr 2013)

James Reilly: ...parents for the retention or use of these newborn screening cards taken between 1984 and 2002 for research, or other, purposes. The Data Protection Commissioner had ruled that the cards should be destroyed by the HSE to comply with a ruling from the Data Protection Commissioner that the indefinite retention of newborn screening cards breached the Data Protection Acts 1998 and 2003. ...

Written Answers — Department of Children and Youth Affairs: Guthrie Cards Retention (26 Mar 2013)

James Reilly: ...parents for the retention or use of these newborn screening cards taken between 1984 and 2002 for research, or other, purposes. The Data Protection Commissioner had ruled that the cards should be destroyed by the HSE to comply with a ruling from the Data Protection Commissioner that the indefinite retention of newborn screening cards breached the Data Protection Acts 1998 and 2003. ...

Written Answers — Department of Health: Data Protection (20 Mar 2013)

James Reilly: ...Deputy Data Protection Commissioner, representatives from my Department, the Health Services Executive (HSE) and the Children's University Hospital, Temple Street, which resulted in the decision to destroy existing cards that are older than ten years. This is to rectify a situation which had developed and which, in the words of the Data Protection Commissioner, "...was unlawful and could...

Written Answers — Department of Health: National Newborn Screening Programme (12 Mar 2013)

James Reilly: ...the mother to have her new born child screened, retention of the newborn screening card for ten years and the retention of information on those cards for twenty five years. It was also agreed to destroy existing cards that are older than ten years. It must be remembered that there is no written consent from parents for the retention or use of these newborn screening cards taken between...

Written Answers — Department of Health: Data Retention (14 Feb 2013)

James Reilly: ...Deputy Data Protection Commissioner, representatives from my Department, the Health Services Executive (HSE) and the Children's University Hospital, Temple Street, which resulted in the decision to destroy existing cards that are older than ten years. I received representations from a number of people and organisations, who pointed out their potential value for research. Consequently, I...