Michael McNamara (Clare, Labour) | Oireachtas source

Subsection (6) provides for a separate commencement date. Logically, this section should commence with the establishment of the authority. Why is a separate commencement date envisaged?

The Minister referred to a levy in his introduction to the amendments under Part 8. I presume there will be a cost in being entered on the roll of barristers.

Will the cost be the same for all barristers, regardless of whether they are sole practitioners working in or outside of the Law Library, in the employ of the State, etc.? Will the Minister consider something similar to section 51 of the Legal Services Act 2007 in the UK, which provides that fees can be applied to certain permitted purposes and only to them? These are set out. As I explained when I raised this on Second Stage, my concern is that the great majority of barristers will practise in the Law Library while others will come together in various configurations outside it. However, to become a barrister, all of them must do a pupillage or devil for somebody in the same way all solicitors have to serve an apprenticeship. The reality is people will not do pupillages in the Minister's office or the Attorney General's office or in banks or in-house. If chambers are established, they may end up doing pupillages in them.

In fairness to the Bar Council and Law Library, they have made great efforts to ensure everybody from the King's Inns can do a pupillage and that maintains wide access to the profession, which is an important aspect of competition. I do not say pupils should be paid but they are not paid. Nevertheless they incur the costs of living and it would be detrimental if only those whose parents can afford to support them can do pupillages. It would be similarly unfair if members of the Law Library were to bear all the cost of pupillages, which are essential to accessing the profession. Those who benefit from the system would then go in-house. Perhaps there is room for a levy to be imposed on all practising barristers which would then be used to pay pupils. It is a proposition. I agree entirely with the Minister's proposals to open up the Bar but I am afraid of any unintended consequence. While the configurations in which people could practise will be more widespread, access to the profession could be narrowed because members of the Law Library would be the only ones bearing the cost of pupils.

The Minister also mentioned the anomaly regarding the UK firm which wished to established itself here and had a barrister lined up to employ. Perhaps I am misreading section 116(4) which states, "In this section employment includes part-time employment but does not include employment by a solicitor". Does that maintain the anomaly?

I refer to the issue of a representative body. The Bar Council, as it is entitled to do, has declined to register non-members of the Law Library. Perhaps it is not that straightforward because its constitution requires it to. The constitution also states the council represents the Bar of Ireland. The Bar of England and Wales represents all of the Bar of England and Wales whether people are sole practitioners, of which there are relatively few, in chambers or in the Crown Prosecution Service. A body to represent the entire profession is useful. Freedom of association means that the council can accept whichever members it wishes and dissociate itself from whomever it wishes. I am a little sceptical about having to quote "The Life of Brian" but it is like the Judean People's Liberation Front and the People's Liberation Front of Judea. It is useful to have one body to represent all barristers because the representation of those at the Bar is an important aspect of the administration of justice and the council is in a unique position to promote certain values, the rule of law, which it consistently maintains, human rights, etc. That is perhaps less an issue for the Minister than for the council itself.