I thank you, Sir, for allowing me to raise this issue. I would like to share my time with Senator Manning.
Adjournment Matters. - Incorporated Law Society Courses.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I want to ask about the policy of the Incorporated Law Society for admitting students to its vocational courses and I ask the Minister to make representations to the Law Society to allow students who are completing their studies this year and those who have entered its degree courses prior to the court decision to be allowed to start them. I refer here to the High Court decision of Miss Justice Laffoy on 2 September regarding the admission of the Law Society. The Law Society sought to rectify the effect of this High Court ruling by modifying its regulations to validate retrospectively law degrees obtained on or before 22 September 1990. By a notice placed in the national newspapers on 3 November last, the Law Society invited applications from persons seeking to be exempted from the requirements to sit the final examination, first part. This notice stipulated, however, that a person must be a law graduate before 1 March 1996, thus excluding present law students from applying.
The Law Society policy in this regard was reinforced before Christmas when a snippet appeared in the national newspapers stating that the Law Society would not grant present law students exemptions. These decisions have caused much grief and distress to present students who have put great effort, time and money into their studies to find that all they will receive when they graduate is a piece of paper. After spending approximately £2,000 per annum on fees alone, law students now find themselves in the same position as non-law graduates. Many students do not have the money to spend on private crammer courses in law to prepare to sit the final examination, first part.
The students' arguments are as follows. They should be treated in the same manner as persons who graduated before 1 March 1996 by being given exemption status. When students embarked on their legal studies they had a legitimate expectation that they would be granted exemptions once they completed their degrees. This exemption should be honoured by the Law Society. The present students are being discriminated against in the sense that, even though the High Court judge ruled that in so far as a law degree is a yard-stick by which one can measure the state of knowledge of substantive law of a person to whom it is awarded, Queen's University LLB degree reflects an inferior state of knowledge in this jurisdiction. She added that Queen's University law students are not taught constitutional law, treaty law, post-1932 statute law or, with some exemptions, post-1922 case law of this jurisdiction.
The students argue that they have a superior state of knowledge of the substantive law of this jurisdiction and should be given their exemptions. Many students have already passed the required eight subjects for their final examination, first part before the decision of 22 September 1990 was delivered. To be exempted all they need do is graduate. The cannot do so until June 1996 and are caught by the Law Society's decision to exclude persons who have not graduated before 1 March 1996 — a matter of just three months.
The students argue that the Law Society's policy to exclude them from exemptions is designed to restrict access to the profession of solicitor. The Law Society argues that there are no jobs for solicitors. This is a fallacy and operates on the assumption of a fixed pie. It is a crippling anti-competitive assumption which ignores the following facts. Many solicitors are self-employed. Newly qualified solicitors may not wish to practice in the Republic but rather in Europe or elsewhere. The profession provides service to the public. Thus, competition is healthy, our economy is continually expanding and can cope with an increase in the number of solicitors. The students cannot expect the Law Society to look at their position in an objective and impartial manner because the Law Society is controlled by its members, who are solicitors.
Acting Chairman
The Senator's time share will be under pressure.
I ask the Minister to make representations to the Law Society to reflect on what we are saying and to change their minds on the issue.
My part of the time share was agreed. First, I thank Senator Neville for allowing me to speak on this matter this evening. Senator Neville has made a case for a number of students who entered a course of studies in good faith and have found themselves through no fault of their own caught up in a catch 22 situation which is not of their making. This matter has not been resolved. The students have been left hanging. They do not know what the resolution of the situation will be. Any fair-minded person who examines the plight in which they find themselves will see that their questions have not been answered and right is on their side. It is not good enough for one body after the other simply to wash its hands of the situation and allow the students to wait in the apparent hope of the authorities that this problem will go away.
I join with Senator Michael Howard, who would have liked to have spoken on the matter had there been time, in expressing our strong support for the case made by Senator Dan Neville. I hope a speedy resolution in the interest of the students based on equity can be arrived at as soon as possible because these people should not be left hanging around waiting for a decision.
I thank Senators for raising this issue. It gives me an opportunity to respond on behalf of the Minister for Justice. However, I will have to keep my comments brief as the matter is the subject of two separate sets of High Court proceedings.
First, the Minister for Justice is very well aware of the concerns of university law undergraduates about the outcome of what has become known as the "Bloomer" case and the decisions taken by the Law Society arising from that litigation. I think it would be useful to set out the background to the present situation which was well illustrated by the Senators.
In 1994 a number of law students from Queen's University, Belfast, took an action in the High Court against the Law Society, Ireland, and the Attorney General arising from certain regulations made by the Law Society under the provisions of the Solicitors Acts. The plaintiffs were seeking a declaration that law graduates of Queen's University, Belfast, were entitled to similar exemptions from the society's entrance examination as those enjoyed by university law graduates in the State, that the society was guilty of wrongful discrimination as regards Queen's University, Belfast, law graduates and damages against the Law Society. The High Court, which delivered its judgment on 22 September 1995, did not grant any of these reliefs. However, the High Court held that the relevant regulation made by the society was invalid having regard to European law and toppled the society's exemptions regime.
The law students appealed to the Supreme Court against the decision of the High Court and the appeal was heard by the Supreme Court on the 6th February last. The Supreme Court granted a declaration that the relevant regulation was invalid. In effect, it upheld the decision of the High Court.
Following the High Court decision of 22 September 1995, the Law Society decided to allow those university law graduates who had obtained their degrees in the five years before the date of the High Court decision to apply before 1 March 1996 for exemptions from the entrance examination to the law school. The Law Society also decided to grant these exemption arrangements to law graduates from Queen's University, Belfast, who had obtained their degrees in the five years before 22 September 1995.
Under the Solicitors Acts, it is a matter for the Law Society to make regulations in regard to the education and training of solicitors. The role of the Minister for Justice is limited to concurring or not concurring with any regulations submitted to her. In effect, she has a power of veto. She does not have the power to initiate regulations herself.
I understand that last February the Minister asked the chairperson of the Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Training to consider the implications of the Supreme Court decision and to make such recommendations on the matter as it sees fit. That committee is chaired by Mr Justice Ronan Keane and includes representatives of the King's Inns, the Law Society, the universities, the Higher Education Authority, the Union of Students in Ireland, ICTU, IBEC and my Department. The functions of the committee include examining all matters concerning Irish legal education, including academic legal education and professional legal education. It may make recommendations to the relevant bodies and may advise those bodies as to the manner in which such recommendations may most practically be put into effect.
However, in view of the new legal proceedings to which I referred at the outset, it has not been possible for ACLET to consider the matter. The position is that since the Minister asked the committee to consider the implications of the "Bloomer" decision, two further sets of High Court proceedings have issued arising from that case and the decisions of the Law Society. One of the actions is being taken by the University of Wales, Portobello College, Dublin, and graduates of that college. I understand that the other proceedings, which are by way of judicial review, have been issued by more than 800 persons who are pursuing undergraduate courses for law degrees in universities in the State.
In the circumstances I have outlined and having regard to the fact that proceedings are before the High Court, I hope Senators agree it would not be appropriate for the Minister for Justice to comment in any detail about the matter until the proceedings have concluded. I hope Senators will understand.