http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2011/5811/document2.pdf
The Legal Services Bill is a major overhaul of how legal practitioners are regulated in ireland. It includes: the creation of a new regulator that will take over a number of functions from the Bar Council and Law Society; a new system of processing complaints against legal practitioners; a new system of regulating legal costs charged by legal practitioners with the aim of protecting consumers; a loosening of the rules as to what legal practitioners can and cannot do in business.
I am very pleased with a number of aspects of the Bill:
-the functions of the authority as outlined
-the extremely robust powers of investigation of the Authority
-the formation of a new Authority, completely seperate from the Law Society/Bar Council
-a mandate to redraw codes of practice
-the treatment of excessive costs as misconduct
-a simpler, more credible complaints procedure
-scope for a seperate profession of conveyancing
-multi-disciplinary partnerships
-direct access to barristers
However, no mortal thing cannot be improved, so I will also point out a number of things which I believe could be revisited.
===============
The memo to the Bill and press releases from the Dept say that the Bill empowers the new Authority to regulate/licence educational institutions to train legal professionals (other than the law society and kings inns). However, I do not believe this power is actually contained in the Bill itself. Section 9 of the Bill is the only reference I can find to training institutions. Section 9(a) says that the Authority will keep legal education under "review". This is a very strange word to use, I have never seen it used like this in a piece of legislation before. To my mind, requiring the Authority to keep the provision of education under review, does not imply any power to determine or even influence the provision of education. It appears that far from empowering the Authority to licence new educational institutions (which I believe is a condition of the EU/IMF deal) or regulate existing ones, this Bill only requires/permits the Authority to observe the provision of education by the existing monopolies. The Bill also requires the Authority to draw up a report on legal training, but there is no obligation to follow up this report with action. This I feel is a mistake. The power to regulate the provision of legal education/training must be a fundamental part of the Authority's authority. We are leaving its role in this area unclear for years while reports and new legislation is drawn up (or indeed may never be drawn up). We should state in law right now that regulating/licencing legal training is a function of the Authority.
==============
There has been much comment about the independence of the new Authority from ministerial control. I understand the Dept.s desire to have a lay majority, but I must agree that the model proposed does seem to give a great deal of power to the Government of the day. It is not an insult to the present government to say that it is undesirable to give ministers too much control over the judicial system -there have been less scrupulous governments in the not very distant past that misused organs of state for their own ends (Phonetapping, intimidation etc)-it is not a good idea to give the Minister this level of control over the Authority, regardless of how trustworthy the current Minister is.
Instead, I would propose that only 4 members of the Authority be nominated by the Minister and the remaining 3 be appointed by some other power. Perhaps the Competition authority could have a seat at the authority. Personally, I would like to see the President send at least a couple of nominees to the authority -independence of the judicial system is after all a constitutional imperative and therefore a fit role for him to involve himself in. Furthermore, his national mandate and independence from Government would give this arrangement independence and legitimacy at the same time.
Likewise, the power under section 8(12)(d) to remove a member should be exercised jointly by the Minister and another power -perhaps an Oireachtas Committee or the Authority itself. Again, this is not a criticism of the current Minister, but it is prudent to prevent any one office having control over this authority.
==============
The Bill leaves the door open for further legislation to create a seperate legal profession of conveyancer. Given the problems related to conveyancing, in particular the accumulated cost of multiple malpractice cases, and the expensive insurance premia for practicing legal professionals, it is very imporant to get this right. Reducing the risk exposure of the profession to unscrupulous practitioners will reduce insurance costs and radically alter legal costs. A seperate profession of conveyancing would be of benefit, but I believe we should go one step further and create a clearing house for property. In financial markets, clearing houses are heavily regulated conduits of property between individuals. They transfer ownership and payment between the parties, and do so reliably, cheaply and safely. The same cannot be said for the practice of conveyancing in the property market by solicitors. The current system has seen several solicitors behave recklessly at the expense of clients or their fellow solicitors. If a clearing house for property could be established, then solicitors could carry out the due diligence/negotiating functions they currently perform, but then the actual transaction could occur through a central authority (perhaps attached to the Land Registry) which could be relied upon not to run a client account deficit. Of course, solicitors would lose out on the interest payments from handling client funds -but they would also benefit from reduced insurance premia. I believe this is an innovation that would dramatically improve conveyancing and legal costs while actually improving the exercise of property rights. It could also become a source of information to the Revenue.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Friday, December 16, 2011
Self-driving/Automated car
I strongly believe that the next great leap in productivity/industrialisation will come in the form of automated transportation (driverless vehicles). The technology for driverless vehicles already exists (though it's scarcely perfect at present), and though many people are sceptical or even scared, I am sure they will be on our roads within the next decade. The convenience, reliability, endurance and above all the cost of driverless vehicles is likely to prove irresistible.
Think of
-the convenience of having your car drive you to work, while you read the papers, then drive itself home to park until 5 o'clock.
-the safety of knowing that your car will never tire, daydream, speed or drink.
-the efficiency of a truck that can drive itself, without reststops, or a paid driver. Delivering goods quicker and cheaper.
-agricultural vehicles that can spray, spread, mow, harvest fields unattended, while the farmer attends to other work around the farm
-a rubbish truck that can drive/load/empty itself without a crew being exposed to the harmful waste
-a postal truck that collects, sorts and distributes post all day and night and at the weekends.
-busses that can run all night, cheaply, regularly and reliably
Indeed, once you start thinking about it, it's obvious that automated vehicles are such a boon to the economy and society that all apprehension about giving control over to the vehicle will be steamrolled once they gain a foothold in any particular area (probably agriculture).
Agriculture seems the most likely sector to adopt driverless vehicles first. The simple driving patterns, in open spaces with only infrequent obstacles seems perfect for automated vehicles to make a breakthrough. Once this happens, it will not take long for the technology to develop and freight and utility companies to adopt the technology.
I personally, don't expect them to become common in personal vehicles for a long time to come (although PSVs may be ahead of the curve). The cost of the technology is easily justified where it does the work of a paid driver cheaper and better, but in most family cars, automation will simply be liberating the driver from driving -desirable, but hardly worth the cost.
Think of
-the convenience of having your car drive you to work, while you read the papers, then drive itself home to park until 5 o'clock.
-the safety of knowing that your car will never tire, daydream, speed or drink.
-the efficiency of a truck that can drive itself, without reststops, or a paid driver. Delivering goods quicker and cheaper.
-agricultural vehicles that can spray, spread, mow, harvest fields unattended, while the farmer attends to other work around the farm
-a rubbish truck that can drive/load/empty itself without a crew being exposed to the harmful waste
-a postal truck that collects, sorts and distributes post all day and night and at the weekends.
-busses that can run all night, cheaply, regularly and reliably
Indeed, once you start thinking about it, it's obvious that automated vehicles are such a boon to the economy and society that all apprehension about giving control over to the vehicle will be steamrolled once they gain a foothold in any particular area (probably agriculture).
Agriculture seems the most likely sector to adopt driverless vehicles first. The simple driving patterns, in open spaces with only infrequent obstacles seems perfect for automated vehicles to make a breakthrough. Once this happens, it will not take long for the technology to develop and freight and utility companies to adopt the technology.
I personally, don't expect them to become common in personal vehicles for a long time to come (although PSVs may be ahead of the curve). The cost of the technology is easily justified where it does the work of a paid driver cheaper and better, but in most family cars, automation will simply be liberating the driver from driving -desirable, but hardly worth the cost.
Friday, December 9, 2011
It seems the ECB is as sceptical of the Council's plan as the rest of us
http://www.independent.ie/business/european/market-rout-as-ecb-dashes-bond-hopes-2959300.html
Mario Draghi's sensational comments from last night, pretty much explode the notion that the proposed Fiscal Union will be enough to entice the ECB to ease the monetary situation. Even though he delivered a rate cut last night, as well as promising liquidity to banks, it seems the ECB is far from opening up the flood gates of liquidity.
I cannot blame them for their scepticism. Even if this deal was agreed and followed, it does nothing to prevent private asset bubbles occuring in future and requiring further Central Bank interventions. They do not think this fiscal Union will prevent further crises and they are right.
Nonetheless, I think the ECB is interpreting their mandate extremely narrowly when they think they can simply stand idly by as the Euro literally crumbles in front of them. They may be charged with safeguarding price stability, but how true are they to their mandate if they cause the Euro to collapse?
Quantitative Easing is desperately needed in the Euro Area, and the sooner the ECB begins to take responsibility for maintaining the currency, rather than simply price stability -the better for everyone. Yes, this fiscal union is a farce -but how does that change anything?
Mario Draghi's sensational comments from last night, pretty much explode the notion that the proposed Fiscal Union will be enough to entice the ECB to ease the monetary situation. Even though he delivered a rate cut last night, as well as promising liquidity to banks, it seems the ECB is far from opening up the flood gates of liquidity.
I cannot blame them for their scepticism. Even if this deal was agreed and followed, it does nothing to prevent private asset bubbles occuring in future and requiring further Central Bank interventions. They do not think this fiscal Union will prevent further crises and they are right.
Nonetheless, I think the ECB is interpreting their mandate extremely narrowly when they think they can simply stand idly by as the Euro literally crumbles in front of them. They may be charged with safeguarding price stability, but how true are they to their mandate if they cause the Euro to collapse?
Quantitative Easing is desperately needed in the Euro Area, and the sooner the ECB begins to take responsibility for maintaining the currency, rather than simply price stability -the better for everyone. Yes, this fiscal union is a farce -but how does that change anything?
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Why neutrinos travel faster than light and the universal speed limit has been wrong for years.
The concept of a universal speed limit depends on the idea that massless particles can travel extremely fast without needing massive energy to move them. As energy and mass are relative and functions of a constant (E=MC2), there is a trade off between the two and all matter falls somewhere on a spectrum between being highly energetic with low mass, and being massive without energy. It has been assumed that light travels at the maximum possible speed as it is unburdened by mass.
However, it has been known for some time that light does indeed have a mass, it is effected by gravity (albeit only slightly). Furthermore, it can impart kinetic energy (the concept behind lightsails).
It therefore seems obvious to me that if light has a mass, it is not pure energy and cannot move at the universal speed limit. Perhaps nothing does, but if recent observations are anything to go by, seemingly neutrinos come closer than light.
However, it has been known for some time that light does indeed have a mass, it is effected by gravity (albeit only slightly). Furthermore, it can impart kinetic energy (the concept behind lightsails).
It therefore seems obvious to me that if light has a mass, it is not pure energy and cannot move at the universal speed limit. Perhaps nothing does, but if recent observations are anything to go by, seemingly neutrinos come closer than light.
The "crunch" Eurozone deal will destroy what little hope is left for saving our currency.
As I write, Europe's leaders are gathered in France and Belgium to agree fiscal restraints, in the hope that this will encourage the ECB to finally come to the rescue with sufficient liquidity to make a difference.
However, their plan is fatally flawed. I do not disagree with fiscal restraints in principle, but in the common currency Eurozone area they are going to end what chance the currency has of surviving. The Eurozone's problem is not that certain countries have been profligate, rather it was the wrong countries that were profligate. In the run up to the present crisis, those countries at the top of their economic cycle were running balance of payments deficits and those countries which which were struggling under economic adjustments were running balance of payments surpluses. This is a natural feature of human nature: when times are bad you want to work to improve your situation, when times are good, you feel confident to let things go a bit.
But imposing a fiscal straight jacket on EZ countries is not the solution, our members are locked into an inappropriate monetary policy and only have fiscal measures to compensate. The ability to borrow "appropriately" to stabilise economic cycles is not necessarily a bad thing.
The one size fits all monetary policy of the ECB meant that the boom countries could not rely on monetary policy to rein in their economies, just as the slower-growing countries wanted a more liberal monetary policy. We effectively removed a tool of economic adjustment. If we had been wise, we would have used fiscal policy to compensate for these stresses, but that's all history now. But now, we are proposing to impose restraints on our fiscal policys, limiting the only remaining tool for intervening in the economy. How this is supposed to make the Eurozone more stable is a mystery. This can only work if state profligacy was the problem all along. In some boom countries, state profligacy did occur, but it was the result of inappropriately loose monetary policy. Fiscal union is the correct solution for profligacy, but profligacy is not the problem. This plan is the answer of those who do not really understand what has happened.
In other peripheral countries, where fiscal profligacy was eschewed, the result was massive private borrowing, fuelling asset bubbles (such as Ireland and Spain). Public spending in these countries, was if anything more restrained than in the core countries that have come through this crisis best. By imposing rigorous fiscal rules on all EZ countries, we will avert future Greeces and Italys, but because we fail to address the real problem, we will spawn a series of Ireland's and Spains. This proposed plan will spell the end of the common currency within a generation.
This policy may serve a political purpose, but it does not fix the eurozone -nothing but a transfer union can fix the Euro. I personally don't want to see this and think we should seek to leave this currency at the first opportunity. Though I'm a europhile, I think it's time to kiss goodbye to a common currency.
However, their plan is fatally flawed. I do not disagree with fiscal restraints in principle, but in the common currency Eurozone area they are going to end what chance the currency has of surviving. The Eurozone's problem is not that certain countries have been profligate, rather it was the wrong countries that were profligate. In the run up to the present crisis, those countries at the top of their economic cycle were running balance of payments deficits and those countries which which were struggling under economic adjustments were running balance of payments surpluses. This is a natural feature of human nature: when times are bad you want to work to improve your situation, when times are good, you feel confident to let things go a bit.
But imposing a fiscal straight jacket on EZ countries is not the solution, our members are locked into an inappropriate monetary policy and only have fiscal measures to compensate. The ability to borrow "appropriately" to stabilise economic cycles is not necessarily a bad thing.
The one size fits all monetary policy of the ECB meant that the boom countries could not rely on monetary policy to rein in their economies, just as the slower-growing countries wanted a more liberal monetary policy. We effectively removed a tool of economic adjustment. If we had been wise, we would have used fiscal policy to compensate for these stresses, but that's all history now. But now, we are proposing to impose restraints on our fiscal policys, limiting the only remaining tool for intervening in the economy. How this is supposed to make the Eurozone more stable is a mystery. This can only work if state profligacy was the problem all along. In some boom countries, state profligacy did occur, but it was the result of inappropriately loose monetary policy. Fiscal union is the correct solution for profligacy, but profligacy is not the problem. This plan is the answer of those who do not really understand what has happened.
In other peripheral countries, where fiscal profligacy was eschewed, the result was massive private borrowing, fuelling asset bubbles (such as Ireland and Spain). Public spending in these countries, was if anything more restrained than in the core countries that have come through this crisis best. By imposing rigorous fiscal rules on all EZ countries, we will avert future Greeces and Italys, but because we fail to address the real problem, we will spawn a series of Ireland's and Spains. This proposed plan will spell the end of the common currency within a generation.
This policy may serve a political purpose, but it does not fix the eurozone -nothing but a transfer union can fix the Euro. I personally don't want to see this and think we should seek to leave this currency at the first opportunity. Though I'm a europhile, I think it's time to kiss goodbye to a common currency.
Friday, December 2, 2011
We are Church
In recent weeks, a new group has sprung up in Ireland. We are Church is a group of reform minded, lay catholics, present in several countries. They criticise aspects of church doctrine, but crucially they do this as practicing catholics.
http://we-are-church-ireland.org/
Though this can hardly be described as a revolution in people power, nonetheless this is a very positive form of criticism which the church would do well to listen to. These people are not doctrinally or ideologically opposed to catholicism, they are not intent on damaging the church -rather, they are committed to the church's wellbeing and are voicing concern about harmful aspects of current doctrine which are not rooted in fundamental tenets of catholicism, needlessly harming the church and its members.
Their fundamental aim is to involve the lay in decisionmaking, and to this end they have avoided defining their stance on many issues (it would make no sense to combat doctrine by creating a new doctrine for their members) -yet they have managed to agree broadly amongst all their members on a limited number of issues they intend to collectively campaign for.
1.The equality of all the baptised where decision making is actively shared by all, with appropriate structures for this.
2. Full participation of women in all aspects of church life, including priesthood.
3. Removal of the obligation of clerical celibacy.
4. A positive attitude toward sexuality and recognition of the primacy of an informed conscience.
5. An inclusive church, open and welcoming to all, which does not marginalise its own people i.e. divorced, in second relationships, those who are gay or lesbian.
Reading this list of very reasonable reforms, I can't help feeling that this group is very badly needed. None of these problems of life inside the catholic church is based in scripture -they are all inferred from a selective interpretation of the bible and an overreaching catechism that is based more on mortal opinions than divine will. These problems stem from mortal prejudice rather than divine intolerance.
That these problems can drift on unaddressed is an indictment of the way doctrine is made. Successive Ecumenical Councils have added more and more mortal norms to catholicism that have nothing to do with the religion left by Christ. Many of these mortal norms are now outdated and discredited, they damage the church but they drift on unaltered. The reason these problems have gone unaddressed is because nobody that counts is opposed to them. We are church could be the start of a forum to make the church authorities sit up and take notice that their followers are upset with their insistence on arcane rules that are not really related to the faith. I wish this new group all the best in their broad endeavour to claim back the catholic church for all the faithful. A simpler, narrower interpretation of christian living that is based exclusively on scripture, rather than ecumenical interpretation is the objective. The Beatitudes, the Gospels and to a lesser extent the wider new testament should be the only basis for doctrine.
Apostolic succession is probably the main obstacle to the success of a group such as We are Church. If catholics are to believe that the church authorities are appointed by divine will, then there is no scope for them to oppose church authorities. But if this notion is challenged (and implicitly this seems to be embedded in their first issue regarding the equality of all catholics in decisionmaking for the church), then the flood gates of reform could burst open. I wish them well, I wish the church well.
http://we-are-church-ireland.org/
Though this can hardly be described as a revolution in people power, nonetheless this is a very positive form of criticism which the church would do well to listen to. These people are not doctrinally or ideologically opposed to catholicism, they are not intent on damaging the church -rather, they are committed to the church's wellbeing and are voicing concern about harmful aspects of current doctrine which are not rooted in fundamental tenets of catholicism, needlessly harming the church and its members.
Their fundamental aim is to involve the lay in decisionmaking, and to this end they have avoided defining their stance on many issues (it would make no sense to combat doctrine by creating a new doctrine for their members) -yet they have managed to agree broadly amongst all their members on a limited number of issues they intend to collectively campaign for.
1.The equality of all the baptised where decision making is actively shared by all, with appropriate structures for this.
2. Full participation of women in all aspects of church life, including priesthood.
3. Removal of the obligation of clerical celibacy.
4. A positive attitude toward sexuality and recognition of the primacy of an informed conscience.
5. An inclusive church, open and welcoming to all, which does not marginalise its own people i.e. divorced, in second relationships, those who are gay or lesbian.
Reading this list of very reasonable reforms, I can't help feeling that this group is very badly needed. None of these problems of life inside the catholic church is based in scripture -they are all inferred from a selective interpretation of the bible and an overreaching catechism that is based more on mortal opinions than divine will. These problems stem from mortal prejudice rather than divine intolerance.
That these problems can drift on unaddressed is an indictment of the way doctrine is made. Successive Ecumenical Councils have added more and more mortal norms to catholicism that have nothing to do with the religion left by Christ. Many of these mortal norms are now outdated and discredited, they damage the church but they drift on unaltered. The reason these problems have gone unaddressed is because nobody that counts is opposed to them. We are church could be the start of a forum to make the church authorities sit up and take notice that their followers are upset with their insistence on arcane rules that are not really related to the faith. I wish this new group all the best in their broad endeavour to claim back the catholic church for all the faithful. A simpler, narrower interpretation of christian living that is based exclusively on scripture, rather than ecumenical interpretation is the objective. The Beatitudes, the Gospels and to a lesser extent the wider new testament should be the only basis for doctrine.
Apostolic succession is probably the main obstacle to the success of a group such as We are Church. If catholics are to believe that the church authorities are appointed by divine will, then there is no scope for them to oppose church authorities. But if this notion is challenged (and implicitly this seems to be embedded in their first issue regarding the equality of all catholics in decisionmaking for the church), then the flood gates of reform could burst open. I wish them well, I wish the church well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)