Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I will first turn to amendment No. 53a, as proposed by Deputy Murphy. This Bill does not discriminate against any type of barrister but recognises them all, including for levy purposes. I think the amendment is based on a misunderstanding of that. This amendment totally replaces section 79 of the Bill with a new text. From what I can see, the main thrust of the proposed replacement of the section is to disapply the levy being imposed to fund the new regulatory regime from non-Law Library barristers. While this could be a workable approach to take where all barristers, regardless of the business model through which they operate, would also be members of the Law Library, the reality could turn out to be different. Consequently, the approach we must take under the Bill for current purposes is to have the regulatory capacity to encapsulate a variety of models of legal practice. I am not, therefore, in a position to agree to the total replacement of section 79 in the manner proposed under amendment No. 53a.

Government amendment No. 56ahas been well flagged on Committee Stage. It is being tabled to set right an error in section 79(7), which is in Part 7 of the Bill and which provides, inter alia, for the imposition of a levy on solicitors and barristers. The policy intention is that those who intend to practise as solicitors and barristers in the State and will be regulated under the new legal services regulatory authority will be subject to a levy which will cover the cost of that regulatory regime. Clearly, only those solicitors or barristers who are actually practising the law should have to pay the levy. However, it has been drawn to my attention that section 79(7) currently provides that any solicitor whose name is on the “roll of solicitors”, whether practicing or not, would be subject to the levy. That is corrected by this amendment.

Amendment No. 59ais a further clarification that "practising solicitors" are those solicitors who hold a "practising certificate" in the financial year to which the expenses that are to be recouped under the levy relate. These are non-controversial amendments. They clarify an error in the earlier version of the Bill.

Under amendment No. 59b, it is proposed by Deputy Collins that the provisions found in section 80 of the Bill enabling the new regulatory authority to recover outstanding levy payments from non-Law Library barristers be deleted. Again, while I can see this is intended to remove reference to this discrete category of barrister from the Bill, it would, for reasons I have just outlined in relation to the earlier amendment, defeat the working approach of the Bill were we to omit non-Law Library barristers from the enforcement of the levy. This is about making sure that everybody has to pay that levy.

Regarding amendment No. 60, as Members will recall, Part 7 of the Bill deals with the raising of a regulatory levy on the legal professions in support of the operation of the new legal services and legal costs regulatory regimes. It provides that the Law Society will be responsible for paying to the authority the levy amount on behalf of all practising solicitors; the Bar Council will be responsible for paying the levy on behalf of its members who practise in the Law Library; and those barristers who are not members of the Law Library will be individually responsible for paying the levy directly to the authority. Section 80 of the Bill provides for the recoverability of the regulatory levy from the different categories of legal practitioner concerned. Amendment No. 60 proposes the relevant recoverability provision found in subsection 5 of section 80 in relation to the Bar Council should be deleted. However, because of the possibility that in the future non-Law Library barristers will not be taken under the wing of the Bar Council, it has been necessary in the Bill to distinguish for levy purposes between that category of practising barrister and those who do not fall within the Bar Council's preferred membership. It remains essential, therefore, to differentiate in the recovery provisions of the Bill relating to the levy between Law Library and non-Law Library barristers and I cannot, therefore, accept the deletion of that subsection. I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

I confirm that other concerns have been raised with me regarding the modalities of application of the levy on the legal professions in the Bill. I am giving those matters ongoing consideration and, if necessary, will introduce amendments relating to that at a future date.

See this speech in context