Results 181-200 of 9,393 for speaker:Alex White

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Alex White: ——does not line me up with press barons, irrespective of whether I am a member of the Labour Party. I am perfectly free to make the argument in the context I make it. I will not fly off the handle as other people seem to do at the least suggestion in here but I take exception to the coupling of the argument I am making, in the context of freedom of expression, with the notion of the big...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Alex White: I support this section and disagree with Senator Norris. I do not think it is a licence for judges to defame people. I ask the Minister to confirm this but my understanding of this protection — if it can be called such — is practically ancient. Authority for this proposition goes back at least 400 years——

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Alex White: It certainly goes back to the early 17th century. The principle is a very good one. I suggest if Senator Norris reflects on it, a good analogy is the protection afforded to us in this Chamber. We have a responsibility in this House to debate public issues, to deal with the cut and thrust of those issues. There have been occasions when — I will not say Senator Norris — some of our...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Alex White: That serves as an introduction for the comment I wish to make on the balance of the section. As the Minister stated, it looks like an exhaustive list of circumstances which will be covered by absolute privilege. This is something new to our statute law. As lawyers would acknowledge, the very fact that it is a detailed list would give rise to a serious concern about matters which do not...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Alex White: It is somewhat controversial at the moment as to whether it is or not.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Alex White: The Taoiseach.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Alex White: I seek clarification from the Minister on one point. My understanding of paragraph (k) is that a statement "made in proceedings before a committee" includes a statement made by a witness giving evidence at the committee.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Alex White: As I listened to Senator Walsh I wondered if I was wrong but that is clearly its meaning.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Alex White: I wish to put on record my view that this is an entirely appropriate provision and that absolute privilege ought to attach to witnesses before committees of the Oireachtas.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Alex White: I do not think that is part of this grouping of amendments. We are discussing Nos. 6, 7, 9 and 10.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Alex White: We can return to this issue when it arises, but I am concerned on behalf of the plaintiff by Senator Norris's proposal. If the potential plaintiff — the little man or woman as described — must face multiple defendants in one action and decide who is responsible——

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Alex White: I know, but it could be the unintended effect of what the Senator has in mind. I welcome the Government amendment and the language in the Bill. Senator O'Donovan raised the question of justification and was concerned that we would move from it to truth. The Minister was right to state that they are the same. The 1961 Act uses the word "truth" in seeking to explain what it means by...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Alex White: If we had continued with the term "public importance" the courts would have been adjudicating as to what constituted a matter of public importance. Controversy would have arisen with the inevitable and almost paternalistic sense as to what a court thinks is an issue of public importance. I welcome the substitution as the concept of public interest is known to us. Although it is not without...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Alex White: I move amendmentNo.13: In page 18, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following subsection: "(2) The court may regard an apology as effecting a substantial mitigation of damage if, but only if, it is made within 14 days of complaint being made in respect of the utterance to which the apology relates, and if the defendant's proposals for publication of the apology are reasonable.". This...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Alex White: I agree with most of what the Minister said. In particular, I agree with his comments on subsection (3) and his contention that an apology should not constitute an express or implied admission of liability. I thank Senator Norris for his support of my amendment and I wish I could return the favour on this occasion. Unfortunately I cannot, as it would open up——

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Alex White: I am hoping for a chance to support one or other of the amendments Senator Norris has tabled very carefully to this legislation. He has given much attention to it, both on this occasion and the last, as we can see from reading the transcripts. If we introduced the word "automatically", it would then give rise to a debate as to the circumstances in which an apology should or should not...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Alex White: On the basis of what the Minister has said I will withdraw my amendment. However, I may revisit it at a later stage.

Seanad: Order of Business (6 Dec 2007)

Alex White: I agree with the comments made by colleagues regarding Íngrid Betancourt and the Labour Party would support anything we can do in these Houses to make our position known. To return to the issue of the budget, I hear shouts from the other side of the House to the effect that it was a great budget——

Seanad: Order of Business (6 Dec 2007)

Alex White: ——but there is complacency regarding the issues Senator Fitzgerald mentioned earlier. What should be the benchmark in terms of the budget, and is it a subject for debate in this House? How do we decide whether it is or is not a great budget? I heard people say on a radio programme this morning that there was a warm welcome for the stamp duty changes, but when I listened further it was...

Seanad: Order of Business (6 Dec 2007)

Alex White: We are way down on the list.