Barrett, Seán

Wednesday, 19 June 1991

Dáil Éireann Debate
Vol. 409 No. 10

First Page Previous Page Page of 86 Next Page Last Page

Select Committee on Crime: Motion.

I had a few things to say.More Button

Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Bill, 1990 [ Seanad ]: Committee Stage.

I also received a letter this morning which surprised me, informing me that the amendment tabled to extend this Bill to include latent damage to property has been ruled our of order. Again, this amend...More Button

That is correct. I am referring to the Statute of Limitations Act, 1957. Like Deputy McCartan I would ask the Minister not to make fools of us in this House. Let him go outside and try to explain ...More Button

The Private Members' Bill responded to a particular problem. I accept that it referred only to personal injuries but that is not a good argument for not using a Government Bill, having listened to th...More Button

The kernel of this legislation is really on this point.More Button

I will, of course. Like Deputy McCartan, I got a letter this morning saying that the amendment was ruled out. This amendment has been down certainly since 6 March 1991 and this is 19 June. Nearly f...More Button

Morgan v. Park Developments Limited.More Button

I wish to take the Minister of State up on a point he made in reply to the points made by me in my contribution. He quoted the decision of the Supreme Court but it looked at the matter from a technic...More Button

As the law stands in relation to non-personal injuries, it is clear from the advice we are getting that it is unconstitutional. In response to the point the Minister made about the difficulties amend...More Button

That is fair enough, but we have been having a good discussion.More Button

Certainly. We would have been discussing this point under an amendment but unfortunately it has been ruled out of order and I took the opportunity to make the point of the need to amend the law now, ...More Button

I too received the submissions from the law society and I am inclined to agree with their point. What bothers me is a case taken by, say, a personal representative of somebody who is deceased. A pro...More Button

Will the Minister explain what would happen if someone was on the hospital waiting list——More Button

No, the one the Government created. What would the position be if something happened the patient after the time he or she was referred to a specialist but during which he or she had not seen him? W...More Button

Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Bill, 1990 [ Seanad ]: Committee Stage (Resumed).

Will the Minister give us an assurance that he will review the situation in relation to latent damages to property between now and Report Stage?More Button

I do not have a copy of the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act with me but surely the point made by Deputy McCartan is a fair one. What we are talking about here is personal injuries arising fro...More Button

Can the Minister give an example? Is he saying that if somebody is nine or ten years old when his father is killed, he must be 18 before he can take an action?More Button

Is this the first time that retrospective legislation is being passed in this area? I am not objecting to it, but the Minister spent a lot of time this morning talking about the effects this would ha...More Button

I have no problem with it.More Button

Criminal Damage Bill, 1990: Committee Stage (Resumed).

I welcome this amendment. I was informed by way of a reply to a parliamentary question that the number of vehicles stolen in the greater Dublin area in 1990 was in the region of 7,000. This is the equ...More Button

Unfortunately this means that the people who are paying their insurance premiums have to carry a portion of the cost of the payments made by the Motor Insurers Bureau. A person who takes another pers...More Button

One does not need to be a genius to come to the conclusion that there are people who do not care because they will not be affected. Having regard to the fact that they are used to going in and out of...More Button

Not necessarilyMore Button

I do not wish to be disrespectful to the Minister regarding his reply but after four years in office the Government are out of touch with the seething anger among the public about what is happening in...More Button

I did not say the Minister of State.More Button

I move amendment No. 3: In page 5, subsection (6), line 30, after “foreseen” to insert “or should have foreseen”. Section 2 refers to damaging property. Subsection (6) states: “For the purposes of th...More Button

It all sounds very interesting.More Button

Let us get back to reality. We spent a lot of time dealing with the question of driving without motor insurance, people taking other persons' cars, damaging them and so on. Deputy McCartan made vario...More Button

Why would he not get away?More Button

If we put into law that “for the purposes of this section a person is reckless if he has foreseen”, the onus is on the prosecution to prove that the person foresaw that the damage that was done might ...More Button

Yes, for burning the car but what about the burning of a house ten doors down as a result?More Button

It would have to be proved that the person foresaw that the action was likely to cause damage to a house perhaps six houses down the road. That would have to be proved in court.More Button

Of course a person would do that. In court he or she would say: “I intended to burn the car, your Honour, but I did not mean to burn the house.” There would then be a big argument and the court woul...More Button

A programme for economic and social progress, No. 3?More Button

I move amendment No. 6: In page 6, line 1, after “has” to insert “or has had”. This section deals with possession of anything with intent to damage property. It starts by saying “a person (in this s...More Button

I welcome this section of the Bill. It is a move in the right direction. It is a concept I have been promoting for a long time. The courts should be given more options. We should certainly ensure ...More Button

I move amendment No. 7: In page 8, subsection (2), line 9, after “District Court” to insert “or such higher amount as shall be prescribed by law as the limit of jurisdiction of the District Court”. I...More Button

I move amendment No. 8: In page 8, subsection (2), line 13, after “property” to insert “or any person beneficially entitled to occupy or use or likely to be held responsible for repairs to the propert...More Button

I will, subject to the Minister coming back on Report Stage. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.More Button

I move amendment No. 9: In page 8, lines 16 to 19, to delete subsection (3). This amendment seeks to delete subsection (3) which reads: A compensation order shall not be made unless both the owner of...More Button

I do not want to be awkward but as long as we have the legal aid system we have at the moment, the reality is that there are many people who just cannot afford to take a civil action because of the co...More Button

I should like to expand on the argument the next day. Progress reported; Committee to sit again.More Button

Last Updated: 23/05/2011 02:13:24 First Page Previous Page Page of 86 Next Page Last Page