White calls for change in tone of debate on Legal Reform

Alex White has called for a change in the tone of the current debate on legislation to reform legal services in the State. Speaking in the Dail Alex said:

“The tone of the debate in recent months has been unfortunate. There has been overstatement on the part of the professions as to the implications of some of the Bill’s proposals….but there has also been overreaction to that overstatement… including references to cabals, and allegations of people trying to stay in the nineteenth century. A change of tone in the debate is required in the coming weeks and months when decisions will have to be made regarding the final content of the legislation. We need to lower the temperature of this tense debate….so that we come to the best possible outcome – not for any one interest group, but for the citizens we represent.

“As a practising lawyer and a member of the Bar, I have been disappointed by the slowness of reform and an unwillingness in the past on the part of the professions to embrace or promote change. This has led to a situation whereby people now feel they are victims of change, instead of themselves taking the opportunity, when it is there, to advance proposals for change to the way things are done.

“For example, there is a need to address the question of equity within the legal professions, and in particular the distribution of work at the Bar, to facilitate younger barristers coming into the profession – people who are willing and well able to work. That has not been done but it is an area that should have been addressed and still requires to be addressed. People have been slow to embrace that.

“The independence of the legal profession is critical in any democracy. It is actually a test of the strength of a democracy. All litigants – rich or poor – are entitled to be represented by absolutely fearless advocates, who are never threatened by any attempts to trample their independence. They must not have any concern about repercussions, either from the Government or elsewhere.

“This issue is also related to economic rights. Prospective foreign investors need to understand and appreciate that we have a fully independent legal profession that is beholden to no one, be it the Government or anyone else. It is therefore absolutely vital that that independence should be protected.

“It is not a formalistic matter. I have heard people saying that there is nothing in the Bill that undermines the independence of an individual practitioner. It is a bigger issue than that, however. One must consider carefully the proposed new Authority, for example. The method of appointing the Authority is essential to ensuring the independence of the profession and it is not an incidental question. Nor should the raising of this issue be taken as a criticism of the Minister or the Government. It has to do with the manner in which people perceive that Authority. They need to be sure that it is entirely at arm’s length from the Government, and that it is independent not just in the operation of its functions – which one would assume – but in every way. There should be no sense on the part of any Authority members that they are beholden to the Government, even where is no such intention on the part of the Government.

“The Minister is open to amendments on the means of appointment to the Authority. It is necessary to amend the provision. There are many ideas on how this can be achieved. Other professions, including the medical profession, have a good statutory regime for the appointment of the independent regulator in their cases. These are the parallels we should be looking at”.

A Fair and Effective Penal System

This week, Labour launched its plans to overhaul the penal system in this country.  It is quite clear that the current system doesn’t work and is not effective - least of all it is not cost-effective.

In the past ten years the prison population has almost doubled and at an average cost per prisoner of €79,307, it is the most expensive in the world.

Labour want a cheaper and more effective alternatives to prison be provided for.  The current system only exacerbates the problem.  By adopting the policies in this document, we believe it will provide both social and economic benefits.

I would encourage you to take a look at the document by clicking here.

People are entitled to lay the blame – White tells Seanad in banking debate

The only way we can assess the success of the various measures the Government has taken in respect of the banking system is to apply the test it established at the outset in this regard. The Minister of State and his colleagues have outlined that test in this and the Lower House on many occasions. The is test is not designed to develop a banking system of which we can, in some symbolic way, be proud or which will satisfy international opinion. The real test the Government has set down – in my respectful opinion, it is the correct one – is that we should have a banking system which lends to the real, active and productive economy. This system must also be part, once again, of a vibrant and dynamic economy. That is the test the Government set in respect of the various measures it has introduced and it is the only one we can be realistically expected to apply.

I invite the Minister of State to outline the success achieved in the aftermath of the various measures brought forward by the Government. What have been the outcomes? We were promised that one of the outcomes would be that the banking system would be restored and begin to lend to a productive economy. On the evidence, this does not appear to have occurred. The Government owes the people an explanation in this regard.

Senator Dan Boyle always refers to honesty. It is ever so slightly irritating to hear him state that those on this side of the House are not being honest, and that all the honesty lies with those on the Government benches. He implies that on each occasion we say anything we are being dishonest. We can, as we are entitled to do, disagree with what has been and is being done, call the Government to account and take the debate in directions which the Senator or the Minister of State might not particularly wish it to go. If we do these things, however, it does not mean we are being dishonest. Perhaps the Minister of State will, in his usual honest fashion, address the matter of whether the banking system has even remotely begun to pass the test the Government set in respect of it.

The Minister of State touched on the subject of retribution and referred, rather amusingly, to the establishment of a star chamber. He has raised an important issue which deserves further ventilation. In that context, however, I am not interested in the erection of a guillotine on St. Stephen’s Green. Senator MacSharry has often stated the latter is precisely what the Opposition is seeking. That is not what we are seeking.

The Opposition is seeking the kind of scrutiny and examination necessary and, ultimately, wants those responsible for causing the difficulties that have arisen to be prosecuted. I use the term “prosecuted” in the broadest possible sense. I am not merely referring to criminal prosecution. As a society, we are entitled to apportion blame. People should not be apologetic and state we should not look backward or engage in a culture of blame but rather should look to the future. Certainly, I am principally interested in what happens in the future. But I would have thought that, of all people, the Minister of State would agree that it is not possible to do anything about the future if one does not have some understanding of what happened in the past. This applies equally to the banking system and the Government’s failure to regulate it. We are entitled to lay blame.

Labour will not tolerate delay in holding of children’s referendum

Responding to the announcement by Barry Andrews, Minister for Children, concerning the wording of the Constitutional referendum on children’s rights, Senator Alex White said:

“The Minister for Children was an active member of the Committee that agreed a wording for the Constitutional amendment. The Minister for Justice was also involved.

“No-one will disagree with the need to get the wording right, but it’s a pity that the Minister and the government couldn’t have identified the so-called ‘unintended consequences’ during the course of the complex, and relatively lengthy deliberations of the Committee.

“We will await the government’s approach to the opposition in order to see what precisely they have in mind when they refer to ‘unintended consequences’. This newly arrived-at view, and the reasoning behind it, must be communicated to the other parties forthwith.

“The Labour Party will of course co-operate, as we have throughout, with all reasonable efforts to put in place a Constitutional amendment to enhance the rights of children.

“We will not, however, tolerate any move designed to delay or long-finger this urgent and essential measure.”

Civil Partnership Bill is major step forward in a relatively dark period for the country

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on Second Stage of this hugely important and momentous legislation.  The Labour Party enthusiastically supports the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations for Cohabitants Bill 2009.  We will try to amend it in some areas and, while we can to some extent predict the Minister’s response to our proposals, we will push them as strongly as we can.  We hope to expand on the vital work done on this Bill with further legislation when the Labour Party is in Government.

I think this is the first time since I entered the Oireachtas three years ago that I have commended the Government on any issue but I am happy to congratulate it on bringing this legislation before the Houses.  I also acknowledge the heavy lifting that was required from the Green Party in order to bring the matter to its present status.

When we discuss this Bill in more detail on Committee Stage, we should not forget that we are trying to improve the lives of individual citizens.  We should, therefore, also congratulate the thousands of campaigners who have fought for this legislation.  None of this would happened without people who were prepared to go to meetings, spend time on campaigns and work out how incremental change could be achieved.  Perhaps some felt they were compromising themselves while others wanted to progress their goals without being seen as incrementalists but they made the same intelligent political decision as so many other figures in history by accepting this Bill as legislation that could be achieved and leaving for another day the fight to build something better.  For that reason, I am delighted to be a Member of this House as this Bill comes before us.

11 years after Labour Bill on Whistleblower Protection, we still wait

One of the most frustrating things about debates on transparency and the need for new legislation and measures to deal with whistleblowing and related matters is the extent to which people give the impression that there has only been a recent discovery or realisation of the necessity for such measures. Senator Dan Boyle hopes there will not be another general election before something is done about this, but there have already been two general elections and we are well into the third Oireachtas since this issue was raised for public debate in 1999 by Deputy Pat Rabbitte who published a Bill that year to deal with this issue.

It is fully 11 years since this matter was first raised for public debate. It is simply not good enough for anyone, be they a Minister, supporter of the Government or otherwise, to imply that these matters are now coming forward for public consideration and concern and must be addressed in the light of what has happened recently. We knew about these issues many years ago. There is little use in people saying that now we have seen the dreadful things that have occurred which we never thought would happen – the subtext being that they never thought there would be a problem – but on which we have been proven wrong, we must do something about it. It is simply not good enough to give the people that excuse.

The Minister of State referred to the conclusion of the Company Law Review Group. Bluntly, the company law review group is wrong. When we are considering its report and when we are pointing out, as the Minister of State did, the fact that this group of eminent individuals came to this conclusion, we should bluntly state that the conclusion was wrong. Had these matters been considered in the depth and with the realism with which they should have been considered, the group would have come to a different conclusion. Mr. Paul Appleby and Mr. Michael Halpenny, the representative of the ICTU, were the two lone members of the group who maintained the view that it was necessary to bring forward a report that proposed robust whistleblower protection and legislation. When considering the balance sheet of what has occurred, I believe the best way for the Minister of State to view that group’s report is to conclude that it was wrong. We must do something different from what it recommended.

Labour Bill to bring law in line with reality

Speaking at the Launch of Labour’s ‘Guardianship of Children Bill 2010′

The Bill we are publishing today will bring our law and practice into line with the reality of life for many thousands of families in Ireland.

Largely because of the peculiarly strong Family provisions in Article 41 of the Constitution, we have failed to recognise that very many people nowadays live in stable and loving relationships and families which are not families in the traditional sense.

The emphasis in the Bill is not on competing or conflicting rights of parents, but rather on the rights of the child to the care and responsibility of both parents – married or not.

It will bring Ireland into line with important provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and also the European Convention on Human Rights.

Taken together with the significant potential for enhancing children’s rights represented by the proposed Children’s Rights amendment to the Constitution, this Labour Bill would bring a very real advance for children. It would also confer legal recognition in a more equitable fashion on the responsibilities of both parents for the care and upbringing of their children.

More :: Guardianship of Children Bill 2010

Committee’s proposals for a children’s rights amendment

Minister for Children Barry Andrews came to the Seanad chamber last night in order to discuss the Final Report of the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children.  This was my contribution to the debate.

I welcome the Minister of State on the occasion of the publication of this extremely important report which is founded on a high level of consensus across the political divide. I endorse the comments of my colleagues regarding the input of all parties into the report. In particular, I commend the Minister of State on his consistent engagement and regular attendance at committee meetings. The commitment shown by Senators in the committee’s deliberations was exemplary and undermines any argument that might be made for abolishing this Chamber.

This issue is characterised by complexity and, often, the presumption of disagreement even where it does not exist. People assumed on the basis of history that certain things cannot be changed but when we began to examine in detail what words actually mean, it was funny how quickly we were able to progress towards agreement. The Minister of State clearly outlined the achievements made in terms of the proposed wording. If this amendment is implemented, we would have a Constitution which protected children as the holders of autonomous rights. It would be a misnomer to say we are putting children’s rights into the Constitution for the first time but we want to ensure they have rights in and of themselves and not just mediated through their membership of families.

The Minister of State has regular dealings with all the organisations engaged with children’s rights and advocacy, including the Children’s Rights Alliance and Barnardos. These organisations offered significant support to the committee and in some cases made multiple submissions. Their universal welcome for the outcome of our deliberations is in itself a measure of the extent to which progress has been made in the course of our work.

In regard to Senator O’Toole’s remarks, it would be more accurate to say the committee proposes to revise Article 42 rather than insert a completely new article because some of the existing wording is retained. This may give rise to confusion in some quarters during the debate. The provisions dealing with primary, physical, moral and intellectual education which are already in the Constitution are simply lifted into this new proposal. The committee debated whether we should unpick the provisions on education or include a right to secondary education. Several colleagues even argued for the inclusion of a right to third level education. However, members did not feel the terms of reference of the committee extended that far and I believe we reached the correct conclusion. The Bill published in 2007 delineated to a considerable extent the work of the committee. A major debate remains to be had, not least in the context of the Constitution, regarding the right to education but it was not within our remit to make proposals in regard to the sections we lifted from Article 42. We have not dropped the word “physical” because the provision in question was simply left unchanged.

Courts left to ‘plug the gap’ in assisted human reproduction law

We need to clarify the Minister for Health and Children’s comment on Tuesday in respect of a commitment on the part of the Government to introduce legislation to regulate assisted human reproduction. The Supreme Court made an extremely important decision in which it again pointed to a failure on the part of the Houses of the Oireachtas to implement legislation in this area. Once again, the Supreme Court has had to plug the gaps outrageously left by us, the legislators. The Government is primarily responsible for introducing legislation in this area.

When decisions such as the Supreme Court ruling of yesterday are made, it is often argued that there are many views and significant disagreement on the issue in question. I anticipate that government members may make the perfectly reasonable argument that assisted human reproduction is a complicated issue. While there are many views on it, the responsibility of legislators is not to sit back and do nothing, as we have done many times when it became clear there were many views on an issue, but to face up to the fact and work out carefully and meticulously, perhaps in committee, how precisely we should legislate. Assisted human reproduction is an important and sensitive issue on which legislation should be introduced at the earliest possible time.

Alex on RTE News

I was featured during the report on the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill in the Seanad on RTE’s Nine O’Clock News last night.

You can view the clip by clicking here.