Brian O'Shea (Waterford, Labour)

I welcome amendment No. 3, which effectively addresses a major part of the issue I raised on Committee Stage. The only outstanding matter remaining is with regard to amendment No. 5 as we are moving from a compulsory examination to compulsory attendance at a course. The Labour Party is concerned about how this will be interpreted. Must one attend every lecture or 75% of the lectures? Will a roll-call take place or is another method to monitor attendance envisaged?

Attendance is a vague concept. What exactly constitutes attendance at this course? It is no longer voluntary. We have gone from a compulsory examination to compulsory attendance. Unfortunately, the legislation does not provide any indication as to what attendance means. The terminology in the Bill is "undertaking" a course.

The fact that an examination cannot be introduced under any guise is to be welcomed. However, we are concerned as to how the interpretation of attendance might be used as a means of putting a substantial obstacle in the way of students either at the King's Inns or the Law Society. As the Minister pointed out, the Law Society is somewhat different because the examination must be completed before one may enter for training as a solicitor. However, with regard to training as a barrister it comes at the end of the course.

See this speech in context