Ivana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

We can return to that.

On the amendments, I welcome the widening of eligibility for appointments to judicial office to include legal academics, which is an important and positive reform. In putting amendments forward, Senator Ó Donnghaile and I are trying to ensure the section works, that it is not too cumbersome and so on. Specific criteria for eligibility generally are also welcome, and I note what Senator McDowell said about the appointment of solicitors and so forth.

On amendment No. 72, I am grateful to the Minister for indicating he is willing to re-examine this, as am I. I indicated I will withdraw that amendment and resubmit it on Report Stage to see whether a better approach can be taken. It is too hasty to delete the provision as I had suggested in the amendment and, therefore, I will withdraw it.

On amendment No. 73, I take Senator Clifford-Lee's point, which is similar to my point about District Court practice. She is quite right about family court practice. I did a good deal of childcare work in the District Courts, in what used to be known as the health board or HSE courts, where complex legal issues are raised routinely. I also did much criminal work in the District Courts, where significant decisions are made daily about locking people up and detaining them in custody for some time. On reflection, I was wrong to limit academic appointments and to rule out the Circuit and District Courts. I do not intend, therefore, to move the amendment.

On amendment No. 75, I am again grateful to the Minister for stating his open mind to the question of continuous versus cumulative practice. This issue is more relevant to practising solicitors as it is easier to take time out without losing practice if one is employed by a solicitors' firm. Where one is working on a self-employed basis as a barrister, it is clear that a continuous period may be necessary to build up a practice. It depends on the nature of the practice, however, and someone could be abroad on sabbatical for a year and still pick up practice on his or her return. I stand by my point, therefore, that continuous practice might be too cumbersome and cumulative might be preferable, but I will not move that amendment on the basis that the Minister indicated he will consider the matter. I will also have to reconsider it because we should have tabled amendments, which refer to all the places in the text of section 33 where the word "continuous" is used rather than only one.

I do not intend to move amendment No. 76, which would make the requirement unduly restrictive. Nonetheless, it might be worth tabling a different amendment on Report Stage with a reference to postgraduate research, which might be significant. I will not move it in its current format because the intention is not to make it unduly restrictive for legal academics to seek judicial appointment.

I also do not intend to move amendment No. 77. I was wrong to remove a reference to King's Inns and the Law Society, and I am grateful to the Minister for making that point.

It is clear this legislation must be read alongside the 2015 Act and the changes to legal education envisaged in that. We must be mindful of that, and by "we", I mean those of us in opposition who are tabling amendments as well as those engaged in formulating the legislation. I have indicated what I will do with the amendments but I am conscious we have not come to each of them and that I will have to deal with them formally. I reserve my right on Report Stage to return to them, and I await the Minister's response to the point about in-house lawyers, which is a separate point to these amendments but which arises out of sections 33 and 35.