DOCSLIB.ORG

Dáil Éireann

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Vol. 762 Tuesday, No. 3 24 April 2012 DÍOSPÓIREACHTAÍ PARLAIMINTE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES DÁIL ÉIREANN TUAIRISC OIFIGIÚIL—Neamhcheartaithe (OFFICIAL REPORT—Unrevised) Dé Máirt, 24 Aibreán 2012. Ceisteanna — Questions Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform Priority Questions …………………………… 277 Other Questions …………………………… 286 Leaders’ Questions ……………………………… 296 Topical Issue Matters ……………………………… 304 Ceisteanna — Questions (resumed) Other Questions (resumed) The Taoiseach …………………………… 305 Estimates for Public Services 2012: Messages from Select Committees …………… 319 Order of Business ……………………………… 319 Ministerial Rota for Parliamentary Questions: Motion ………………… 326 Topical Issue Debate Pension Provisions …………………………… 327 Nursing Home Repayment Scheme ……………………… 329 Departmental Reports …………………………… 331 Garda Stations ……………………………… 333 Social Welfare and Pensions Bill 2012: Second Stage (resumed)……………………………336 Motion to Instruct Committee ………………………… 344 Private Members’ Business Motorist Emergency Relief Bill 2012: Second Stage ………………… 357 Questions: Written Answers …………………………… 379 DÁIL ÉIREANN ———— Dé Máirt, 24 Aibreán 2012. Tuesday, 24 April 2012. ———— Chuaigh an Ceann Comhairle i gceannas ar 2.00 p.m. ———— Paidir. Prayer. ———— Ceisteanna — Questions Priority Questions ———— Sale of State Assets 107. Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he will ensure that the sale of State assets will not include the disposal of any assets of a company involved in the provision of water supply to households throughout the country; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20542/12] Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform (Deputy Brendan Howlin): As the House will be aware, the Government decided last week that the new Irish water utility is to be an indepen- dent State-owned subsidiary of Bord Gáis Éireann. The new water utility is not and will not be included in the Government’s programme of State asset disposals. The Government is com- mitted to keeping it under State control. Bord Gáis Éireann is an excellent example of a strong, vibrant and dynamic State company, which has demonstrated its capacity to invest and develop new, efficient and competitive busi- ness for the benefit of Irish consumers. In taking last week’s decision, the Government’s inten- tion was that a number of key synergies would be achieved between the gas and the water utilities core network functions, such as operating in a regulated environment, network manage- ment, metering and utility operation systems. It is also important to note that these core func- tions will not be impacted by the sale of Bord Gáis Energy, the energy generation and supply business of Bord Gáis Éireann, which I previously announced as part of the Government’s State asset disposal programme. Deputy Sean Fleming: Perhaps the Minister did not get the gist of the purpose of my ques- tion. Earlier this year, on 22 February, the Minister announced the Government had decided to sell Bord Gáis Éireann’s energy business. Be that as it may, we will not discuss whether it is a good idea in this debate. Subsequently, last week the Government decided in light of the experience and knowledge of Bord Gáis about metering, billing and dealing with hundreds and thousands of consumers throughout the country it should be given the job of dealing with the provision of water meters. In his opening comment the Minister—— 277 Priority 24 April 2012. Questions An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I ask the Deputy to frame a question please. Deputy Sean Fleming: In his opening comment the Minister spoke about an independent subsidiary. These two words are mutually contradictory; a subsidiary is under something else and not independent by definition. Will the Minister accept that regardless of whether the Minister, Deputy Hogan, made a hames of his role in the proposed metering of water, he will be held responsible for the possible privatisation of water meters throughout Ireland because he, as Minister, has opted to give that business to a company, part of which Government has already decided to privatise? The Government has decided to sell-off part of Bord Gáis Éireann, BGE, and, because of its expertise in metering and billing households, to give it responsibility for the new water utility. Will the Minister accept that the public will find it hard not to view this as a key step along the road to privatisation, which I accept is not the Minister’s intention at this stage? However, in light of this, I ask that the Government remove to Bord Gáis from its list of companies to be privatised. Deputy Brendan Howlin: No. Let me be crystal clear, the new State company, Irish Water, will, as far as the Government and I are concerned, be a wholly State owned company per omnia saecula saeculorum. This will be enshrined in specific legislation to be introduced. Irish Water will be a State company providing water in an integrated manner across the State. It is wholly different from the sale of the energy generating component of BGE. We want to keep the expertise that set up and developed BGE and to use it in setting up the next fine State company. Things are not set in aspic. The next major State company, the biggest since the ESB was founded, will be Irish Water. Bord Gáis Eireann, in terms of its level of expertise in managing a publicly owned company with a distribution, billing and metering system, has the management structure which the Government wants to roll out over time — it will be years before all of this is put in place properly — the new Irish Water company. That is the logic behind it. The parallel issue of setting up competition within the energy sector, which the energy gener- ating component of BGE will provide as competition for the wholly State owned ESB, will also be good for the consumer. Deputy Sean Fleming: Will the Minister accept that the more he speaks the more he confuses the issue in the public mind? The Minister stated in his initial reply that Irish Water would be an independent subsidiary of Bord Gáis. In his subsequent reply he said it would be a wholly owned State company. It cannot be both. It must be one or the other. It will be owned by Bord Gáis, not the State. Deputy Brendan Howlin: The State owns Bord Gáis. Deputy Sean Fleming: It does not own the shares in its subsidiary companies. Deputy Brendan Howlin: It does. Deputy Sean Fleming: It does not, Bord Gáis owns them. The Minister should check com- pany law. One does not own the assets of a company just because one owns a share in it. That is a fact. I again plead with the Minister to remove Bord Gáis from its list of companies to be part privatised by way of the sale of assets given it is the company to which the Government is giving the water metering and billing service in regard to the provision of water. The two services should not be combined in one company. Deputy Brendan Howlin: I thought earlier that the Deputy was just being inquisitive. I know now he is being mischievous. I will clarify the position again. Irish Water will be set up as a 278 Priority 24 April 2012. Questions subsidiary of a wholly owned State company, namely, BGE. It will be wholly State owned. It is intended—— Deputy Sean Fleming: BGE will be the parent company. Deputy Brendan Howlin: The State owns BGE and every aspect of it. Deputy Sean Fleming: No. It owns a share of it. An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Please allow the Minister to continue without interruption. Deputy Brendan Howlin: The Deputy is engaging in tautology. It is the Government’s inten- tion that the new Irish Water entity — this will be put in statute law and debated in the House — will be wholly State owned. Parallel to that, as part of the memorandum of understanding, we have looked at what non-strategic assets we could sell off. The Government has come to the conclusion that allowing for greater competition in the energy sector through the privatis- ation of the energy generating element of BGE, and for private competition to the wholly owned public entity, the ESB, which will remain as a vertically integrated wholly State com- pany, will be good for the Irish consumer. Public Sector Allowances 108. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he has brought to Cabinet the findings of his Department’s review of allowances and premium payments paid to public sector workers; and if he intends to make public these findings. [20540/12] Deputy Brendan Howlin: As the Deputy is aware from my previous replies, on 5 December last, during my address on the 2012 Expenditure Estimates, I announced that a review of allowances and premium payments would be carried out by my Department. This announce- ment was made on foot of a Government decision which requires the public service to take additional measures to deliver further efficiencies in 2012 and thereby ensure the pay bill targets which have been set are met, with a view to delivering additional pay savings in 2013 and subsequent years. The measures include a reduction of 10%, or approximately €40 million, in overtime payments in 2012. This is being achieved by means of a reduction in allocations for overtime by that amount. To date, my Department has received well over 800 business cases in respect of allowances and premium payments. As a result of resource constraints, the volume of submissions to be evaluated and the complexity and variance of allowances across all sectors, it has not been possible to complete the review in a short timeframe. Indeed, agen- cies and Departments are continuing to propose business cases and seek further explanations in advance of the completion of the review.
Recommended publications
  • GRAND CHAMBER CASE of MOCANU and OTHERS V. ROMANIA

    GRAND CHAMBER CASE of MOCANU and OTHERS V. ROMANIA

    GRAND CHAMBER CASE OF MOCANU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (Applications nos. 10865/09, 45886/07 and 32431/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 17 September 2014 This judgment is final. MOCANU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA JUDGMENT 1 In the case of Mocanu and Others v. Romania, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of: Dean Spielmann, President, Guido Raimondi, Mark Villiger, Isabelle Berro, Peer Lorenzen, Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, Ledi Bianku, Nona Tsotsoria, Ann Power-Forde, Işıl Karakaş, Nebojša Vučinić, Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, Paul Lemmens, Aleš Pejchal, Johannes Silvis, Krzysztof Wojtyczek, judges, Florin Streteanu, ad hoc judge, and Johan Callewaert, Deputy Grand Chamber Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 2 October 2013 and 25 June 2014, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last- mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in three applications against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by three Romanian nationals, Mrs Anca Mocanu (no. 10865/09), Mr Marin Stoica (no. 32431/08) and Mr Teodor Mărieş, and by the Association “21 December 1989”, a legal entity registered under Romanian law and based in Bucharest (no. 45886/07) (“the applicants”) on 28 January 2009, 25 June 2008 and 13 July 2007 respectively. 2. Before the Court, Mrs Mocanu, Mr Mărieş and the applicant association were represented by Mr A. Popescu, Ms I. Sfîrăială and Mr I. Matei, lawyers practising in Bucharest. Mrs Mocanu was granted legal aid. Mr Stoica, who was also granted legal aid, was represented until 8 December 2009 by Ms D.
  • Da´Il E´Ireann

    Da´Il E´Ireann

    Vol. 580 Tuesday, No. 1 17 February 2004 DI´OSPO´ IREACHTAI´ PARLAIMINTE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES DA´ IL E´ IREANN TUAIRISC OIFIGIU´ IL—Neamhcheartaithe (OFFICIAL REPORT—Unrevised) Tuesday, 17 February 2004. Ceisteanna—Questions Taoiseach ………………………………… 1 Minister for Finance Priority Questions …………………………… 14 Other Questions …………………………… 28 Adjournment Debate Matters …………………………… 34 Leaders’ Questions ……………………………… 35 Requests to move Adjournment of Da´il under Standing Order 31 ……………… 42 Order of Business ……………………………… 43 Finance Bill 2004: Allocation of Time Motion …………………… 52 Ministerial Rota for Parliamentary Questions: Motion ………………… 53 Motor Vehicle (Duties and Licences) Bill 2004: Second Stage ……………… 54 Private Members’ Business Electronic Voting: Motion ………………………… 82 Motor Vehicle (Duties and Licences) Bill 2004: Second Stage (resumed)……………………………114 Referral to Select Committee ………………………… 139 Adjournment Debate Community Employment Schemes ……………………… 139 School Closures ……………………………… 142 Hepatitis C Incidence …………………………… 144 Social Welfare Benefits …………………………… 148 Questions: Written Answers …………………………… 153 1 2 DA´ IL E´ IREANN DI´OSPO´ IREACHTAI´ PARLAIMINTE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES TUAIRISC OIFIGIU´ IL OFFICIAL REPORT Imleabhar 580 Volume 580 De´ Ma´irt, 17 Feabhra 2004. Tuesday, 17 February 2004. ———— Chuaigh an Ceann Comhairle i gceannas ar 2.30 p.m. ———— Paidir. Prayer. ———— Ceisteanna — Questions. 5. Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if the Government has plans for the holding of ———— constitutional referenda during 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2892/04] Constitutional Amendments. 6. Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the 1. Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the progress made to date with regard to the constitutional referenda he intends to hold during implementation of the recommendations of the 2004; and if he will make a statement on the Oireachtas committee on the Constitution; and if matter.
  • Thatcher, Northern Ireland and Anglo-Irish Relations, 1979-1990

    Thatcher, Northern Ireland and Anglo-Irish Relations, 1979-1990

    From ‘as British as Finchley’ to ‘no selfish strategic interest’: Thatcher, Northern Ireland and Anglo-Irish Relations, 1979-1990 Fiona Diane McKelvey, BA (Hons), MRes Faculty of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences of Ulster University A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the Ulster University for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy August 2018 I confirm that the word count of this thesis is less than 100,000 words excluding the title page, contents, acknowledgements, summary or abstract, abbreviations, footnotes, diagrams, maps, illustrations, tables, appendices, and references or bibliography Contents Acknowledgements i Abstract ii Abbreviations iii List of Tables v Introduction An Unrequited Love Affair? Unionism and Conservatism, 1885-1979 1 Research Questions, Contribution to Knowledge, Research Methods, Methodology and Structure of Thesis 1 Playing the Orange Card: Westminster and the Home Rule Crises, 1885-1921 10 The Realm of ‘old unhappy far-off things and battles long ago’: Ulster Unionists at Westminster after 1921 18 ‘For God's sake bring me a large Scotch. What a bloody awful country’: 1950-1974 22 Thatcher on the Road to Number Ten, 1975-1979 26 Conclusion 28 Chapter 1 Jack Lynch, Charles J. Haughey and Margaret Thatcher, 1979-1981 31 'Rise and Follow Charlie': Haughey's Journey from the Backbenches to the Taoiseach's Office 34 The Atkins Talks 40 Haughey’s Search for the ‘glittering prize’ 45 The Haughey-Thatcher Meetings 49 Conclusion 65 Chapter 2 Crisis in Ireland: The Hunger Strikes, 1980-1981
  • Drugs: the Judicial Response

    Drugs: the Judicial Response

    Drugs: The Judicial Response PETER CHARLETON, SC and PAUL ANTHONY MCDERMOTT, Barrister Introduction1 Criminal Appeal accepted the fact that drop in Ireland would be the subject of the defendant: much speculation but as little informed he tension in relation to a judicial debate as possible. A huge rise in Was a person who, while he traded economic prosperity leading to general response to crimes committed by in misery, was a victim of the drug addicts is increasingly that building works which spread that T system himself in that he was a prosperity into deprived areas may be between moving towards treatment heroin addict and that his activities options or towards an even more one factor. Another factor may be were at least in part directed towards Ireland’s unique laws on the seizure of rigorous imposition of penalties. Public feeding his habit. opinion in Ireland about the evils of criminal assets. Another possible factor drug misuse has probably never been as Irish courts have struggled, as have is the break-up of the gang which made strong as it is at the present time.2 courts everywhere in the western world, the passage of this law easier. More on with the concept of drug addiction as this later. Coupled with strident political calls mitigation. Differences have been drawn The purpose of this article is to incarcerate drug traffickers are pleas between the cold blooded non-user of for more resources to allow dependants therefore to examine the opposing trends drugs and those who commit various of the courts being used as deterrent to leave their habits behind them.
  • Appendix 1 – NPHET Membership Details Membership at a Point in Time Reflects the Work Ongoing

    Appendix 1 – NPHET Membership Details Membership at a Point in Time Reflects the Work Ongoing

    Appendix 1 – NPHET Membership Details Membership at a point in time reflects the work ongoing. Expert advisors and / or other stakeholders may be invited to attend meetings from time to time. Dr Tony Holohan (Chair) Chief Medical Officer, Department of Health (DOH) Prof Colm Bergin Consultant Infectious Diseases, St. James’s Hospital and Professor of Medicine, Trinity College Dublin Mr Paul Bolger Director, Resources Division, DOH Dr Eibhlin Connolly Deputy Chief Medical Officer, DOH Ms Tracey Conroy A/Sec, Acute Hospitals Division, DOH Dr John Cuddihy Interim Director, Health Protection Surveillance Centre (HPSC) Dr Cillian de Gascun Director, National Virus Reference Laboratory (NVRL), UCD, Consultant Virologist Mr Colm Desmond A/Sec, Corporate Legislation, Mental Health, Drugs Policy and Food Safety Division, DOH Dr Lorraine Doherty National Clinical Director for Health Protection, HPSC, HSE Dr Mary Favier President, Irish College of General Practitioners (ICGP) Dr Ronan Glynn Deputy Chief Medical Officer, DOH Mr Fergal Goodman A/Sec, Primary Care Division, DOH Dr Colm Henry Chief Clinical Officer, HSE Dr Kevin Kelleher Asst. National Director, Public Health, HSE Ms Marita Kinsella Director, National Patient Safety Office, DOH Mr David Leach Deputy National Director of Communications, HSE Dr Kathleen Mac Lellan A/Sec, Social Care Division, DOH Dr Jeanette Mc Callion Medical Assessor, Health Products Regulatory Authority (HPRA) Mr Tom McGuinness Asst. National Director, Office of Emergency Planning, HSE Dr Siobhán Ní Bhrian Lead for
  • THIRD SECTION CASE of BAZJAKS V. LATVIA

    THIRD SECTION CASE of BAZJAKS V. LATVIA

    THIRD SECTION CASE OF BAZJAKS v. LATVIA (Application no. 71572/01) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 19 October 2010 FINAL 19/01/2011 This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. BAZJAKS v. LATVIA JUDGMENT 1 In the case of Bazjaks v. Latvia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Josep Casadevall, President, Elisabet Fura, Boštjan M. Zupančič, Alvina Gyulumyan, Ineta Ziemele, Luis López Guerra, Ann Power, judges, and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 28 September 2010, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no. 71572/01) against the Republic of Latvia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a “permanently resident non-citizen” of the Republic of Latvia, Mr Igors Bazjaks (“the applicant”), on 29 May 2001. 2. The Latvian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs I. Reine. 3. The applicant alleged, in particular, that the conditions of his detention in Daugavpils prison had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment and that he lacked an effective remedy in that regard. 4. On 26 November 2004 the President of the Third Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government and to invite them to submit written observations concerning the complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. It was also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility.
  • 1 National Public Health Emergency Team – COVID-19 Meeting Note

    1 National Public Health Emergency Team – COVID-19 Meeting Note

    National Public Health Emergency Team – COVID-19 Meeting Note – Standing meeting Date and Time Thursday 7th January 2021, (Meeting 71) at 10:00am Location Department of Health, Miesian Plaza, Dublin 2 Chair Dr Tony Holohan, Chief Medical Officer, DOH Dr Ronan Glynn, Deputy Chief Medical Officer, DOH Dr Kevin Kelleher, Assistant National Director, Public Health, HSE Prof Philip Nolan, President, National University of Ireland, Maynooth and Chair of the Irish Epidemiological Modelling Advisory Group (IEMAG) Dr Cillian de Gascun, Laboratory Director, NVRL and Expert Advisory Group (EAG) Chair Dr Máirín Ryan, Deputy Chief Executive and Director of HTA, HIQA Dr John Cuddihy, Interim Director, HSE HPSC Dr Siobhán Ní Bhriain, Lead for Integrated Care, HSE Dr Eibhlín Connolly, Deputy Chief Medical Officer, DOH Dr Mary Favier, Immediate past president of the ICGP, Covid-19 advisor Dr Michael Power, Consultant in Anaesthetics / Intensive Care Medicine, Beaumont Hospital Ms Rachel Kenna, Chief Nursing Officer, DOH Mr Greg Dempsey, Deputy Secretary, Governance and Performance Division, DOH Ms Tracey Conroy, Assistant Secretary, Acute Hospitals Policy Division, DOH Dr Lorraine Doherty, National Clinical Director Health Protection, HSE Members via Dr Colette Bonner, Deputy Chief Medical Officer, DOH videoconference1 Mr Colm Desmond, Assistant Secretary, Corporate Legislation, Mental Health, Drugs Policy and Food Safety Division, DOH Ms Yvonne O’Neill, National Director, Community Operations, HSE Mr Phelim Quinn, Chief Executive Officer, HIQA Dr Siobhán
  • Irish Universities Help F Ight the Covid-19 Pandemic

    Irish Universities Help F Ight the Covid-19 Pandemic

    IRISH UNIVERSITIES HELP FIGHT THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC www.iua.ie @IUAofficial Irish Universities help fight the COVID-19 Pandemic Doctors Samer Arnous, Tony Moloney and Nick Barrett at University Hospital Limerick, testing University of Limerick produced visors and shield box. Exec Summary The COVID-19 pandemic has created unprecedented societal challenges. The Irish university sector has maintained ‘business as usual’ to the greatest extent possible by a rapid transition to remote learning and assessment. Meanwhile, the sector galvanised into immediate action, contributing to the national emergency response in every way possible as the pandemic developed. Our universities and their staff and students have, and are, making a hugely valuable contribution to the national efforts to fight the COVID-19 pandemic. We have captured key highlights in this publication. A more comprehensive schedule can be found at https://www.iua.ie/covid-19/universities-help- fight-the-pandemic/ Irish Universities help fight the COVID-19 Pandemic 3 Here are the key highlights of university efforts: Page 07 1 Page 11 2 COVID-19 testing Expert advice with staff and contact tracing: and students on the frontline: Highly skilled diagnostic laboratory staff from our Expert advice has been the hallmark of dealing with universities have been readily mobilised to undertake the COVID-19 crisis. Leading academics from across laboratory processing of samples and to take swabs the university sector have been on hand to guide and from patients at testing hubs. support the response: • Our researchers rose to the challenge of the • University leaders such asMaynooth University scarcity of testing reagents with our labs rallying to President, Philip Nolan and University College produce lysis buffer, viral transport medium and Dublin’s Dr Cillian de Gascun, have headed up key other essential solutions.
  • GRAND CHAMBER CASE of VINTER and OTHERS V

    GRAND CHAMBER CASE of VINTER and OTHERS V

    GRAND CHAMBER CASE OF VINTER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Applications nos. 66069/09, 130/10 and 3896/10) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 9 July 2013 This judgment is final but may be subject to editorial revision. VINTER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT 1 In the case of Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of: Dean Spielmann, President, Josep Casadevall, Guido Raimondi, Ineta Ziemele, Mark Villiger, Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, Dragoljub Popović, Luis López Guerra, Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, Nona Tsotsoria, Ann Power-Forde, Işıl Karakaş, Nebojša Vučinić, Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos, Paul Lemmens, Paul Mahoney, Johannes Silvis, judges, and Michael O’Boyle, Deputy Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 28 November 2012 and on 29 May 2013, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in three applications (nos. 66069/09, 130/10 and 3896/10) against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by three British nationals, Mr Douglas Gary Vinter (“the first applicant”), Mr Jeremy Neville Bamber (“the second applicant”) and Mr Peter Howard Moore (“the third applicant”), on 11 December 2009, 17 December 2009 and 6 January 2010 respectively. 2. The first applicant was born in 1969 and is currently detained at Her Majesty’s Prison Frankland. He is represented before the Court by Mr S. Creighton, a lawyer practising in London with Bhatt Murphy Solicitors, assisted by Mr P.
  • Download Bar Review Volume 22

    Download Bar Review Volume 22

    THE BAR Volume 22 Number 5 RJournal of TEhe Bar of IVreland IEW November 2017 Implementing the Victims' Directive: a prosecutor's perspective CONTENTS The Bar Review The Bar of Ireland Distillery Building 145-151 Church Street Dublin DO7 WDX8 Direct: +353 (0)1 817 5166 Fax: +353 (0)1 817 5150 Email: [email protected] Web: www.lawlibrary.ie EDITORIAL BOARD 133 Editor Eilis Brennan BL Gerry Durcan SC Brian Kennedy SC Patrick Leonard SC Paul Anthony McDermott SC Sara Moorhead SC Brian Murray SC James O'Reilly SC Mary O'Toole, SC 124 Mark Sanfey SC Claire Bruton BL Claire Hogan BL Mark O'Connell BL Ciara Murphy, Director Shirley Coulter, Director, Comms and Policy Vanessa Curley, Law Library Deirdre Lambe, Law Library Rose Fisher, Events and Administration Manager Tom Cullen, Publisher Paul O'Grady, Publisher PUBLISHERS 143 Published on behalf of The Bar of Ireland by Think Media Ltd Editorial: Ann-Marie Hardiman Paul O’Grady 127 Colm Quinn Design: Tony Byrne Tom Cullen Eimear Moroney Advertising: Paul O’Grady Message from the Chairman 120 LEGAL UPDATE XXIX Commercial matters and news items relating Editor's note 121 Feature 127 to The Bar Review should be addressed to: Protecting children's rights Paul O’Grady The Bar Review News 121 Think Media Ltd The Denham Fellowship Law in practice The Malthouse, Visit from Texan delegation A benchmark for bullying claims 129 537 NCR, Dublin DO1 R5X8 Tel: +353 (0)1 856 1166 John Philpot Curran commemoration The hidden persuaders and the inner 133 Fax: +353 (0)1 856 1169 nature of tort action Email: [email protected] Web: www.thinkmedia.ie Business news 123 Implementing the Victims' 138 Professional pension advice Directive: a prosecutor's perspective www.lawlibrary.ie Interview 124 Closing argument 143 Views expressed by contributors or The lawyer at the centre From wellness to resilience correspondents are not necessarily those of The Bar of Ireland or the publisher and neither The Bar of Ireland nor the publisher accept any Papers and editorial items should be addressed to: responsibility for them.
  • Download Bar Review Volume 21

    Download Bar Review Volume 21

    THE BAR Volume 21 Number 2 REVIEWJournal of The Bar of Ireland April 2016 Unlawful detention CONTENTS The Bar Review The Bar of Ireland Distillery Building 145-151 Church Street Dublin DO7 WDX8 Direct: +353 (0)1 817 5166 Fax: +353 (0)1 817 5150 Email: [email protected] Web: www.lawlibrary.ie EDITORIAL BOARD 45 Editor Eilis Brennan BL Eileen Barrington SC 66 Gerard Durcan SC Eoghan Fitzsimons SC Niamh Hyland SC Brian Kennedy SC Patrick Leonard SC Paul Anthony McDermott SC Sara Moorhead SC Brian R Murray SC James O'Reilly SC Mary O'Toole SC Mark Sanfey SC 56 Claire Bruton BL Diane Duggan BL Claire Hogan BL Grainne Larkin BL Mark O'Connell BL Thomas O'Malley BL Ciara Murphy, Director Shirley Coulter, Director, Comms and Policy Vanessa Curley, Law Library Deirdre Lambe, Law Library Rose Fisher, PA to the Director Tom Cullen, Publisher Paul O'Grady, Publisher PUBLISHERS Published on behalf of The Bar of Ireland 54 59 48 by Think Media Ltd Editorial: Ann-Marie Hardiman Paul O’Grady Colm Quinn Message from the Chairman 44 Interview 56 Design: Tony Byrne Tom Cullen Moving on Ruth O’Sullivan Editor's note 45 Niamh Short Advertising: Paul O’Grady Law in practice 59 News 45 Commercial matters and news items relating Damages for unlawful judicial jailing 59 to The Bar Review should be addressed to: Launch of Bar of Ireland 1916 exhibition Controlling the market 62 Paul O’Grady Bar of Ireland Transition Year Programme The Bar Review Report from The Bar of Ireland Annual Conference 2016 The Battle of the Four Courts, 1916 66 Think Media Ltd The
  • THIRD SECTION CASE of BAYATYAN V. ARMENIA

    THIRD SECTION CASE of BAYATYAN V. ARMENIA

    THIRD SECTION CASE OF BAYATYAN v. ARMENIA (Application no. 23459/03) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 27 October 2009 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. BAYATYAN v. ARMENIA JUDGMENT 1 In the case of Bayatyan v. Armenia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Josep Casadevall, President, Elisabet Fura, Corneliu Bîrsan, Boštjan M. Zupan čič, Alvina Gyulumyan, Egbert Myjer, Ann Power, judges, and Stanley Naismith, Deputy Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 6 October 2009, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no. 23459/03) against the Republic of Armenia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an Armenian national, Mr Vahan Bayatyan (“the applicant”), on 22 July 2003. 2. The applicant was represented by Mr J. M. Burns, Mr A. Carbonneau and Mr R. Khachatryan, lawyers practising in Georgetown (Canada), Patterson (USA) and Yerevan respectively. The Armenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr G. Kostanyan, Representative of the Republic of Armenia at the European Court of Human Rights. 3. The applicant alleged that his conviction for refusal to serve in the army had unlawfully interfered with his right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. 4. By a decision of 12 December 2006, the Chamber declared the application admissible under Article 9 of the Convention and the remainder inadmissible.