Peter Power (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)

I accept that we share a common objective, but how do we go about achieving it? As we all know, the existing legislative framework fails citizens dismally in that respect in that it places the obligation on the Chief Justice to make the judgment call as to who is competent to discharge their functions in court. That is wholly unsatisfactory. Effectively, what we had for many years was a fiction where thousands of solicitors were admitted to the roll seemingly competent to discharge their functions as Gaeilge in such a way as to allow people to vindicate their rights. Obviously, that did not work. We must recognise the failings of the current framework and see how best we can solve the problem. The framework set out in the Bill which provides for a smaller number but with enhanced capability is the way to proceed in this respect. That is why I say the issue is competency, not compulsion. It is about vindicating one's constitutional rights rather than whether it should be compulsory to have Irish. It is inconsistent to have a constitutional right and not to provide for an element of compulsion. The logical conclusion is that, ultimately, possibly many years down the line, there will be few, if any, who will be competent to discharge their functions. Therefore, there must be a provision to safeguards the rights of citizens.

While there are many points I would like to make on the Bill, I highlight one matter on which I agree with Deputy O'Shea and the Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív. It is vital that information on access to persons who are competent in this area is openly accessible. There should be a provision in the Bill, whereby the societies involved, whether it be the King's Inns or the Law Society, would have an obligation to promote the list and make it readily accessible to members of the public.

I will make one final point. I have not gone through the Bill in detail, but I wonder what oversight or audit there would be of the relevant institutions to ensure they are discharging their obligations under the Bill. I do not know whether this would amount to a statutory duty or merely a requirement on societies to provide such courses, but who would state they are run to a satisfactory standard?

Those are the issues we should be discussing. No doubt we will have plenty of opportunities to discuss them on Committee Stage. I commend the Bill to the House.

See this speech in context