Alex White law Archives

Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill 2009

15th July 2009

The Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill 2009 was debated in the Seanad for over eight hours yesterday and ultimately passed without amendment late last night. This is from my Second Stage speech:

I made the point on the Order of Business earlier that, unfortunately and regrettably, there did not seem to be much point in debating this legislation because the Government was clearly intent on not accepting any amendments, and that this would render our debate somewhat irrelevant. The Leader, Senator Donie Cassidy shook his head in response to my comment, which I took to be an indication that he disagreed with me. Senator Terry Leyden then indicated to the House that if amendments were brought before the House that the matter could be dealt with during the course of the summer. The Minister has now put that issue at rest and has made it very clear, in no uncertain terms, that no amendments to this legislation will be accepted by the Government and that, to use his words, “we need this legislation now”. Let us be clear about this, there is no intention on the part of Government to permit this House to amend this legislation in any respect today or on any other day.

Notwithstanding the Government’s view as to whether we should be listened to in this House on this legislation, we still have to reflect on our role as legislators. We are paid to come here by the people to deal with legislation. As to what is our role, I accept that the Government has a very particular role, perhaps an enhanced one in the sense that it has the expertise and advice of the Garda available to it and it is dealing on a day to day basis, operationally and in policy terms, with the management of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Therefore, it is in a position of expertise far greater than anything available to any of us. I accept that. That is how the system works.

Let us examine our role. I do not wish to oversimplify it but it appears to be the case that a Minister comes to the House to inform us of the changes that need to be made to the law because there is a problem that needs to be addressed and he outlines the changes he proposes we should make. It is our role to ask him to tell us why that is the case and to demonstrate it to us. We then consider whether that explanation is adequate and we either vote for or against the proposals brought by the Minister. I accept that is an oversimplification but it is not an unreasonable description of our role.

If I am correct in that are we not entitled to ask the Minister to do more than simply assert the need for certain legislation? The Minister must demonstrate the need for it to us. He must show us why it is necessary, not just simply by anecdote, the expression of his opinion or the communication to us indirectly of an opinion given to him by the Garda. He must give us some evidence on which we can take the rest of the argument in trust that what he says is necessary. I cannot, and do not, exclude the possibility - I say this genuinely - that these measures are necessary, but I am not prepared to agree to them simply by it being asserted to me without any evidence or convincing argument - in some cases without any argument at all - as to why they are necessary.

This is very serious legislation. We are dealing with the curtailment of rights and the liberty of the citizen, irrespective of what he or she is accused of, and in view of this we are under a bounden duty to exercise the strictest possible scrutiny of any such proposal. That is all I am interested in doing. Senator Quinn, and to some extent Senator Boyle, have expressed the hope that the Minister will return with responses to some of the questions that have been raised. I do not know whether the Minister will do so when he replies to Second Stage. However, he has made it clear that he does not intend moving from his position. That puts us in a very odd position in terms of trying to debate the issue, or any expectation we might have that the Minister might address any of the difficulties we have.

No excuses for rushing important legislation

3rd July 2009

Why is it that for many weeks there is little or legislation before the House but in the two or three weeks before the end of the session there is an extraordinary flurry of activity with measures being introduced and pushed through both Houses as is happening again now? Why is it that the Minister, the Department or those who manage the flow of business to the Houses cannot pace themselves a little better throughout the year? Why can legislation not be introduced in the House periodically in a manner that will allow it to breathe, as it were?

The Leader of the Seanad often says he does not guillotine legislation and that is true, but that misses the point. It is not a question of saying we can have an hour or two to read the legislation but of allowing the public to consider important legislation over a period of weeks. I am not suggesting that the Government never makes an effort to do that. In fairness, it does. However, that should be the universal approach to legislation, unless it is genuinely emergency legislation which must be put through the Houses in a period of days.

I have in mind some of the criminal justice legislation we are dealing with this week. There are two Bills this week and I presume the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill will be introduced in the House next week. The latter includes proposals for the considerable curtailment of the liberty of the citizen. It may well be that this is justified and that Members of the House support it but it is one of the most serious actions a parliament can take. The guarantee of last September is probably the most serious action a parliament can take in that it mortgages the future and future generations. However, in terms of the liberty of the citizen the proposed legislation provides for the expansion of the use of the Special Criminal Court and removing the important protection that juries provide.

I disagree regarding any further restriction on the use of juries. In the criminal context, in particular, it is a further restriction on the liberty of the individual, as is the introduction of secret hearings in the District Court regarding detentions and so forth. I appeal to the Leader to ensure, especially with legislation of this nature, that the public and the Houses be given an opportunity to consider such legislation over a longer time span. It should certainly be over a period of weeks and not days, as is now being proposed.

Make blasphemy a referendum issue

21st May 2009

The Seanad should take careful note of what has been said by a representative of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe in relation to adding blasphemy to the Defamation Bill. His comments were reported in yesterday’s newspapers. I ask the House and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to consider a proposal I would like to make. According to the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, he needs to resolve a constitutional dilemma in this area by means of legislation or by means of a constitutional amendment. I am a member of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution which recently recommended that the relevant section of the Constitution should be deleted.

Senator Regan is also a member of the all-party committee, which clearly recommended that this provision should be removed from the Constitution. That view is clearly shared across the board in these Houses. That is the correct way to proceed.

My suggestion to the Minister, through the Leader, is that if the parties in the Oireachtas agree that a series of amendments to the Constitution should be put to the people at an appropriate time, perhaps, although not necessarily, in October of this year, a referendum on the question of blasphemy should be put on that list of matters to be determined by the people on referendum day.

It would be proper to remove the provision in question from the Constitution. If the Minister’s comments are to be taken in good faith, it appears he believes he must do one thing or the other. He seems to be concerned about the possibility of addressing this issue by means of a constitutional amendment. We do not need to have a referendum on this issue tomorrow or the day after. It does not even need to take place this year, although it should not be put on the long finger.

In fairness, this matter has been on the table for ten years. We have lived with other interpretations of the Constitution. We have not rushed to introduce legislation to cater for the outcome of the X case, for example, although I believe we should have done so. In such circumstances, I propose that the Leader of the Seanad should try to secure all-party agreement to ask the Minister to address the matter of blasphemy by means of constitutional amendment at an appropriate time in the future. We should not have to deal with the legislative distraction the Minister is considering.

More :: Listen to the interview with Justice Minister Dermot Ahern on Morning Ireland (begins at 8mins 15secs)

Politicians - part of the problem or part of the solution?

3rd March 2009

On a wintry doorstep in south Dublin this week I was asked “Are you part of the problem or part of the solution?”

Good question.

As we struggle to come to terms with the severity of the recession, people are entitled to ask what difference politicians can make; or what difference politics itself can make.

I wonder whether we are deluding ourselves that our democracy works at all.

We seem to have lost sight of the promise of politics and the value of collective action. In recent years success has been measured solely in terms of individual achievement. Even the practice of politics proved susceptible to this trend. But there are limits to the ideology of individualism.

Instead of a collective approach to the provision of quality healthcare, childcare, education and care of senior citizens on the basis of need, irrespective of income, we have opted – often by default – for inequality and second-rate public services.

All of this has become obvious now as we rub our eyes after the mirage of the boom.

At the same time as income taxes were being reduced, the concept of public provision was being quietly eroded by the political ideology of individual provision. In effect what the government was saying was “every man for himself”, making it all the harder now for them to appeal to our collective consciousness.

But when did we make these choices?

In which election did we vote to abandon the principle of solidarity and collective provision in favour of a creed of “greed is good”?

In my view, the economic crisis is not the only challenge we face.

We face a destructive crisis of confidence in our democratic system.

The political system failed us during the so-called boom years. With few exceptions, the Dail did not provide a forum for real political debate about the economic choices we should make, and the kind of society we saw fit to create. A forum of debate was reduced to a chamber of silence. A place where the less said the better if you wanted to safeguard your electoral prospects – an approach memorably endorsed by the former Taoiseach Mr Ahern, who saw electoral politics as all about “getting in and staying in.” It’s hardly surprising then that so many people see the Dail as an exclusive club, whose members are pre-occupied with electoral survival above all else.

Perhaps the worst manifestation of how sick our system has become has been the needless expansion in the number of Ministers of State, each of whom enjoys the support of civil servants to “mind” their constituencies. In what was a telling justification of this excessive indulgence, Minister of State John McGuinness defended the practice on the grounds that Ministers are the “A&E ward of Government departments”.

“We pick up all of the pieces that are simply not functioning”, he added.

This very neatly sums up our predicament: Ministers of State, many without any clear executive responsibilities, using public resources – taxpayers’ money – to shore up their constituency profiles and, by extension, their electoral prospects.

This is simply not acceptable in a democracy – to say nothing of the enormous cost involved. Surely the answer to a non-functioning system lies in reform of the system itself, rather than substituting this questionable and self-serving “A&E ward” for proper government?

This kind of ‘politics as usual’ has to be challenged. It has to be changed.

We need to review the system of multi-seat constituencies, which fosters senseless competition within political parties and encourages clientelism. We need a radical reassessment of the value and function of all of our political institutions, including Seanad Eireann. The banking crisis has exposed the lack of any meaningful parliamentary scrutiny of financial and economic matters.

We should renew and strengthen our Freedom of Information laws, and include every single area of public administration and governance, allowing for exceptions only on the most compelling grounds. The current system of local administration must be replaced by a real and responsive system of local government. New technologies offer a real opportunity for expanding access by citizens to policy-making and public debate.

Political parties too have a responsibility to re-articulate and justify their policy platforms for the modern era. Again and again voters tell us that they struggle to differentiate between parties on policy grounds – especially between Fianna Fail and Fine Gael. Debate and even sharp disagreement between political parties is crucial to any democracy. But where their differences are rooted in forgotten contests, clearly the voters are not being presented with meaningful choices.

It is not enough to bemoan low participation rates and decreasing voter turnout. When we do this, or when we talk about the widespread lack of respect for politicians and the political process, we must come up with answers.

A radical renewal of our democracy is necessary. If people believe that the system is dysfunctional, then it is dysfunctional, and there is little point in politicians complaining that they are misunderstood.

I believe that we should act quickly to address these critical issues. We could do it through a radical programme of Democratic Renewal which would include a series of proposals for constitutional change. All of this should be subject to the widest possible public engagement and participation. Politics is far too important to be left solely to the politicians.

I believe that we can grasp this opportunity to turn the prevailing despondency, apathy and contempt for politics into positive political engagement. And such an initiative should not have to wait for the economy to turn around. It should begin now.

It need not be a partisan exercise. And it might just mean that politics and politicians (the current crop and those to come) really could become part of the solution, and not part of the problem.

Govt must act on shameful exploitation of workers revealed on Prime Time programme

2nd December 2008

The Prime Time Investigates programme on RTE last night revealed a shocking story of the exploitation of immigrant workers that demands urgent action by the government.

There can be little doubt that a minority of employers are engaging in the shameful exploitation of workers. What was revealed last night was nothing less than a systematic pattern of failure to pay even the minimum wage, provide contracts of employment, honour tax and PRSI regulations and adhere to safety standards.

One of the most disturbing revelations in the programme was the blatant disregard shown by a number of haulage companies for safety regulations which restrict the number of hours and days that a driver can work without a break. Failure to adhere to these regulations involves not simply unfair and unjust abuse of workers, but it also exposes other road users in Ireland and abroad to real danger.

Of course exploitation by some employers is not limited to immigrant workers, as many Irish workers also have to endure similar conditions. We now need far more effective action at government level to stamp these practices out and to ensure that all workers are protected from abuse and exploitation.

There are a number of measures that were promised when the Towards 2016 Agreement was concluded more than three years ago that have still not been implemented. For instance the Employment Law Compliance Bill, which is designed to put the National Employment Rights Authority on a statutory basis was published in March, but nine months later the government has still not started the legislative process. Other promised legislation to regulate the employment agency sector has not even been published and we still do not know when the EU Directive on Agency Workers will be given effect in this country.

While there has been increase in the number of labour inspectors, additional personnel and resources are still required if we are to stamp these sort of practices out and ensure that all workers get fair treatment.

More :: View the RTE Prime TIme Investigates Programme by clicking here

Bill is not correct way to deal with stem-cell research question

27th November 2008

Last night the Seanad debated the Stem-Cell Research (Protection of Human Embryos) Bill 2008 . Below is my own contribution to the debate.

I would not, and do not support the Bill introduced by Senator Mullen. I do not believe it is the way to deal with this complex problem. A Bill that is, essentially, founded on criminal sanctions or at least includes such sanctions as a crucial component in respect of embryonic stem cell research is not the way to deal with this complex matter. I agree, however, with those who said that this issue must be wrestled with and dealt with by the Legislature.

I compliment the Minister of State, Jimmy Devins TD on the comprehensive treatment he gave to the topic. However, ringing in his ears and in the ears of all of us are the demands and very strong suggestions from a number of bodies for regulation to be introduced, and for legislation in this crucial area. As recently as this year, the Irish Council for Bioethics made such a demand. Regulation is the way in which we should approach this matter.

I am sure Senator Mullen has a continuing interest in this topic. However, it is probably true that this debate was triggered by the decision of UCC some weeks ago. Whatever one might say about the particular call made by the ethics committee in UCC and, ultimately, by the governing body of the university, at least they wrestled with this question and came up with actual decisions. Some people may believe it to be a good thing to be uncertain, as it were, about where they stand. This may not be something to criticise. From an intellectual point of view, I understand and appreciate someone who takes that viewpoint but ultimately it is the case that decisions must be made.

Senator Maria Corrigan referred to President Bush. I remind the House that President Bush vetoed a Bill passed in the Senate in respect of the promotion and funding of stem cell research. President-elect Obama proposes to reverse that veto. These are decisions made in a much more complex and wealthier country which, no matter what way one looks at it, is likely to be at the forefront of these issues more quickly than we ever will be. Americans have faced up to the fact that they must make decisions.

Rushing through of Intoxicating Liquor Bill undermining integrity of the Seanad

9th July 2008

Intoxicating Liquor Bill 2008

The Seanad discussed the Intoxicating Liquor Bill 2008 this afternoon. This piece of legislation is somewhat unusual as the bill only passed the Dail last night and the government is seeking to have it passed in the Seanad by tomorrow evening.

At Order of Business this morning, a number of senators raised concerns regarding the rushing of this Bill. I stated that it was undermining the independence and integrity of the house.

What concerns me also, is the fact that I have received letters and emails by the dozen in the past 48 hours from people concerned about what effect the legislation will have on them - not only members of the nightclub industry but youth groups and organisations. I have not yet had an opportunity to consider fully what each one states.

Below is my contribution to the second stage of the bill in the Seanad:

No one can doubt the background against which we are having this debate. We discussed it on a number of occasions in this House and it was discussed elsewhere. I refer to the abuse of alcohol, the problem of binge drinking, and the knock-on effect right across a range of social and personal problems such as mental health problems. All of these issues and their impact have been documented and elucidated in this House many times over.

No one questions the commitment of all of us, Senators on both sides of the House, to address this fundamental problem with which Dr. Gordon Holmes, in his insightful report, assisted us so much. The fact that all on this side of the House are complaining that this is, as Senator Quinn stated, “rushed legislation of the worst kind”, are criticising the legislation and the manner in which it has been introduced, and the speed with which it is being forced through both Houses, can not be taken for one minute as indicating any less of a concern on the part of those of us on this side of the House who would make that point with addressing this issue.

The question really is; does it address the issue? Dr. Holmes, in his report, wrote of the need for a comprehensive approach to this problem right across society but that is not what is in this Bill. The Bill contains a number of welcome provisions, but this is not the comprehensive attack on a serious social problem that we all know is needed. It is not consistent with debate, analysis, careful scrutiny of the problem and then the bringing forward of solutions to have legislation in this House, for the first time in my relatively short period here, where the deadline for amendments on Committee Stage came before the Second Stage, although there was some flexibility indicated for later today. It is ludicrous for us who are expected, as I stated on the Order of Business, to carry out the important constitutional function, to scrutinise legislation and to decide whether it is appropriate that it should be passed, to be faced with such a situation.

I heard one of my colleagues state that he was lobbied by one of the associated bodies, I think it was the nightclub association. I have not had time to be lobbied by them. There is not enough time to meet the people who have expressed an interest and an involvement. Certainly, people who are involved in it are just as entitled as anybody else to raise their concerns with legislators. What we do about that is another matter, but we should have an opportunity to listen to them and to think and consider carefully what they have to say.

Mugabe has no respect for rule of law in Zimbabwe

2nd July 2008

Yesterday, a debate took place in the Seanad on the current situation in Zimbabwe. Below is my own contribution to the proceedings:

On behalf of the Labour Party in this House I join my colleagues in what has been said. I especially welcome the clarity of the Minister’s address to the House when he rightly described the election as an obscene charade and stated clearly and without equivocation the Government’s rejection of this sham election. He correctly stated that the Members of the Oireachtas and the Irish people are rightly appalled by what has happened in Zimbabwe and the Government’s unequivocal position is that the results of last Friday’s vote cannot be regarded as legitimate or in any way constituting the democratic and free expression of the Zimbabwean people’s will. This is important point for us as politicians giving leadership.

The Minister also correctly said the principle of free and fair elections is a fundamental cornerstone of democracy. That is true, but another cornerstone of democracy is the rule of law. For years we have known that Robert Mugabe and his Government have no respect for the rule of law. I was in a privileged position this weekend. I have just returned from Belfast where I attended the World Bar Conference of the International Council of Advocates and Barristers, ICAB, which was held jointly in Belfast and Dublin. We had the great privilege of hearing from a Zimbabwean lawyer, Ms Beatrice Mtetwa, as reported in today’s newspapers. She informed the lawyers gathered from all over the common law world of the insanity and complete breakdown of any sense of respect for rule of law throughout the court system and the absence of respect for even remnants of an independent media. She gave an astonishing sense of a society which has completely disintegrated in terms of any recognisable features of a democracy as we understand it.

I ask the Leas-Chathaoirleach to allow me the indulgence to tell my colleagues of a unanimous resolution passed yesterday afternoon by lawyers gathered at this conference representing the bars of Australia, England, Wales, Hong Kong, Ireland, Namibia, Northern Ireland, Scotland, South Africa and Zimbabwe, being member bars of ICAB. I will briefly read the resolution because it isolates and identifies the key issues in Zimbabwe and points to something positive that can be done. Despite the despair there are some actions. The question we all asked our colleague from Zimbabwe at the weekend was whether there is anything lawyers, politicians, citizens and media people can do. There is a despair regarding the response that was forthcoming.

The resolution includes a number of points. First, as we have done here, is “to deplore the defiance by the Government of Zimbabwe of its human rights obligations under domestic and international law”. The second resolution is “to call upon the secretariats of the Southern African Development Community, the African Union [most importantly] and the United Nations to initiate all steps necessary to procure the return of the rule of law to Zimbabwe and respect by the Government of Zimbabwe for the rule of law”. This is a crucial point which the Minister’s speech touched on and he is correct. It is unusual to have to call on a government to respect the rule of law, but that is the case in Zimbabwe with a complete breakdown of the courts system and any respect for the rule of law.

The third point in the resolution is “to condemn the detention without trial of our colleague [lawyer and politician] Eric Matinenga, Member of Parliament of Zimbabwe and leader of the Harare Bar and the defiance [by the regime] of the order for his release granted on an urgent basis by the High Court”. The High Court ultimately released him but not before a major struggle to achieve it. Again there is complete defiance by the Government of Zimbabwe.

The fourth point is “to call upon the members and secretariat of the Southern African Development Community to ensure that independent legal observers are permitted to be present at all courts in Zimbabwe throughout the trials of members of the legal profession who are being prosecuted for alleged offences”. These are people who are representing clients in the courts of Zimbabwe and who are being prosecuted for criminal offences literally comprising the defence of citizens of Zimbabwe before the courts of Zimbabwe.

The fifth resolution is “to demand that the lawyers of Zimbabwe be permitted without intimidation or penalty to perform their duty to represent and defend their clients in accordance with the rule of law and ensure the entitlement of their clients to basic human rights”. This is not a cry for special privileges for lawyers. When lawyers are being intimidated and prevented from doing the job they are supposed to do, society suffers.

The sixth point is “to demand that the magistrates of Zimbabwe be allowed to adjudicate impartially and without intimidation on the cases which come before them”. We asked Ms Mtetwa whether she would suggest we include the wider judiciary in Zimbabwe and demand that all the judges in Zimbabwe be allowed to adjudicate impartially, but she said there would be no point because people who know in Zimbabwe have given up on the judges. The judges of the higher courts in Zimbabwe are so locked into this rotten regime that there is no point in asking for an independent approach by them. There is some hope in the lower courts and the magistrates and she agreed that we include this point. However, she said it would be a waste of time to ask for the higher courts of the Zimbabwean judiciary to exercise independence. This is a sad testament to what is happening there. The seventh resolution is “to demand that the Attorney-General of Zimbabwe independently and impartially exercise his powers to uphold the rule of law”.

The Minister made the point that the Government will do what it can through the EU, and I am sure it will, but is vital the maximum amount of pressure is brought to bear on those countries that can have an influence. South Africa has been mentioned many times by my colleagues. While we cannot presume to interfere with the African Union, our views must be made known to it. It must cease being a trade union for African presidents and act as a real organisation in defence of the democratic rights of the people of Zimbabwe.

More :: Read the full debate by clicking here

‘Cé mhéad abhcóidí a bhfuil na scileanna sin acu, dairíre?’

15th May 2008

Trathnóna inné, thosaigh an Bhille na nDlí-Chleachtóirí (An Ghaeilge) 2007. Yesterday evening, the Legal Practitioners (Irish Language) Bill 2007 began. My second stage speech is below:

Is ceart an-thábhachtach, atá ag gach duine sa tír, an cheart an Gaeilge a úsáid in imeachtaí os comhair na cúirte. Is fiú mórán an cheart sin. Caithfimid a bheith cinnte go bhfuil an tseirbhís sin le fáil sna cúirteanna ag gach éinne a theastaíonn uathu tairbhe a bhaint as. Ba chóir dúinn córas éifeachtach a chur i bhfeidhm. Caithfidh an chóras sin a bheith macánta freisin. Luaigh an Aire an Acht Lucht Cleachtuithe Dlí (Cáilíocht) 1929, a fhorálann gur chóir d’abhcóidí “leor-eolas” ar an dteanga a bheith acu. Mínítear “leor-eolas” san Acht sin mar an méid sin oilteachta i labhairt agus i scríobh na Gaeilge agus is leor chun a chur ar chumas cleachtóra dlí, le héifeacht, treoracha a ghlacadh, comhairle a thabhairt do chliaint, finnéithe a cheistiú agus imeachtaí sa Ghaeilge a thuiscint. Is abhcóide mé le blianta fada anuas agus dá bhrí sin, is féidir liom an cheist a chur - cé mhéad abhcóidí a bhfuil na scileanna sin acu, go macánta?

Tá suim ag a lán abhcóidí sa Leabharlann Dlí sa Ghaeilge. Níl siad in ann cásanna a dhéanamh sna cúirteanna trí Ghaeilge mar níl an caighdeán oiriúnach acu. Tá sé ag roinnt abhcóidí, ach níl sé ag formhór dóibh. We must be honest about having a system in place that allows and provides for an efficient and reliable system to be available for people who wish to have their business in court conducted in Irish. There is little point in continuing with what in reality has been a fiction. The fiction goes back to the 1929 Act where that system was put in place. For 80 years it simply has not been the reality at the level that was contemplated in 1929.

Rinne mé an scrúdú seo i 1987, nuair a bhí mé in Óstaí an Rí. Bhí olltoghchán ar siúl ag an am céanna. Bhí mé ag obair i RTE ag an am sin. Tháinig na torthaí amach an lá tar éis an toghchán. Ní raibh mórán ullmhúcháin déanta agam don scrúdú Gaeilge an lá chéanna. Chuaigh me isteach go dtí Óstaí an Rí ar mo rothar chun bualadh leis an scrúdaitheoir. Bhí an-suim aige sna torthaí ó Chontae Maigh Eo. D’éirigh liom sa scrúdú Gaeilge.

I was delighted to pass the test but somewhat miffed to discover that my friend, who had never learned a single word of Irish ever because he had been given some sort of dispensation or exemption in school, passed with equally flying colours ten minutes later. This was the sort of fiction that was evident. Admittedly, this has improved in recent years. I agree very strongly with my colleagues’ point that we need to put in place a system that does justice to the language and makes presumptions about people’s knowledge thereof. As Senator McDonald rightly said, the system should encourage professional lawyers to learn Irish and reach a certain level of proficiency while at the same time favouring those who make an effort to reach a higher level.

There was some debate on a number of amendments tabled by my colleague, Deputy Brian O’Shea, in the Dáil. The then Minister of State, Deputy Carey, said that during Committee Stage in this House, he would return to some of the matters raised. Nuair a bheidh an díospóireacht againn, b’fhéidir go mbeidh further discussion againn on individuals who are already in the system. I refer also to those who went through the system 30 or 40 years ago but who did not pass the test and were deprived of their qualification. I do not know why they did not have the same outcome as my friend who did not have a word of Irish. Perhaps they did not have the same examiner.

I welcome the basic thrust of the Bill. There is no question that it is progressive although there are a few issues I would like to revisit on Committee and Remaining Stages.

Níos Mó :: Léamh an Bhille na nDlí-Chleachtóirí (An Ghaeilge) 2007 anseo. Read the Legal Practitioners (Irish Language) Bill 2007 here.

Category: law