Michael D'Arcy (Wexford, Fine Gael)

I was given this job a few days ago when it became known that Deputy Flanagan could not be here. When I looked at the Bill, I discovered that it had began its life as the Legal Services Ombudsman Bill. Sections had been removed and we were left with bits and pieces, so to speak, of which there are not many. On the completion of almost the first full year of this Dáil, there has been little legislation. This is exactly what it states, a miscellaneous provisions Bill. There is very little in it.

I take issue with the section on apprentices. It is fine in Dublin city where there are a certain number of positions with the major firms, but there are smaller practices of one or two in the country, with people falling over one another to get into a practice. The Minister of State is giving the Law Society the power to investigate an apprentice. An apprentice is not an employee and the person in charge of the practice is effectively supervising his or her work and bringing him or her up to speed on the day-to-day workings.

I do not know whether providing that apprentices can be subject to disciplinary action by the Law Society is the best way to go. If the intention is to do this, I question why it was not in the Legal Services Ombudsman Bill 2008 so that it would be the legal service ombudsman, rather than the Law Society, who could investigate such matters.

I welcome the section that removes the age limit for jurors — it was an issue I pressed in my capacity as equality spokesperson for Fine Gael — so that a person has the opportunity to serve up to the age of 70. I also welcome that they are not obliged to do so, that there is a choice. If somebody chooses to be relieved, this is possible on the grounds of their age.

See this speech in context