Michael McNamara (Clare, Labour) | Oireachtas source

That is welcome, but I have several questions. The roll will be a public document that I imagine will be available on a website and certain details will be published of all barristers. The details will further the objectives specified in section 9(4) which include informing the public of available legal services and maintaining competition. I have no objection to any of this information being provided in respect of barriers, but I wonder whether additional information might also be useful. Clearly, it is useful to know whether a barrister is a member of the Law Library or in the full-time service of the State, but I fear a consumer might think all barristers who are not in the full-time service of the State are available to act against the State. On Second Stage I raised the issue that the Department of Justice and Equality requires undertakings not to act against the Minister in areas such as immigration and asylum. I disagree with this policy because it offends the principle of an independent Bar, but the Bar Council has acquiesced to, if not agreed with, it. Barristers will also be employed by banks and other companies to provide legal services. It is not reasonable to think such individuals would be available to act against their employers. It might be useful to note on the roll whether an individual is specifically employed to provide legal services. A significant number of members of the Law Library are precluded from acting against the Minister. It would be useful to include that information on the roll because it would be vital for consumers.

Some barristers will be available to be instructed by persons who are not solicitors. This will be limited to non-contentious issues for the time being but not every barrister would wish to be approached by non-solicitors. It would also be useful for the public to specify this on the roll.

There may be a misapprehension that only barristers who are members of the Law Library are independent barristers who can take instruction from solicitors in villages and towns. It might be useful to specify whether barristers are available to be instructed in contentious matters. I do not refer to contentious matters for solicitors because I do not want to pre-empt the public consultation process envisaged in amendment No. 171. Barristers who are employed or in the service of the State will not wish to be engaged or instructed in contentious matters. I tabled the amendments in this context because I have to do so in order to submit them on Report Stage.