Amendments 10, 11 and 12 all cover the same points, with the exception that there is a proviso to amendment 10. Deputy O'Sullivan is not here at present. I was going to suggest that the first part of Deputy O'Sullivan's amendment No. 10 should be taken along with amendments 11 and 12 and dealt with first. Then we can deal with his proviso, which is a separate question, afterwards.
SECTION 3.
No person shall be admitted to the Degree of Barrister-at-Law unless before he is so admitted he satisfies the Chief Justice, by such evidence as the Chief Justice shall prescribe, that he possesses a competent knowledge of the Irish language.
Amendment 10.—Section 3, to delete the section and to substitute therefor the following section, that is:
3.—No person shall be called to the Bar of Saorstát Eireann by the Chief Justice unless such person, before he is so called, satisfies the Chief Justice by such evidence as the Chief Justice may prescribe that such person possesses a competent knowledge of the Irish language. Provided always that nothing in this section contained shall prevent the Chief Justice from calling to the Bar of Saorstát Eireann any member of three years' standing of any other Bar, who has been admitted to the Degree of Barrister-at-Law by the Benchers of the Honourable Society of King's Inns, Dublin, pursuant to a reciprocal arrangement whereby members of the Bar of Saorstát Eireann may be called to such other Bar.—(Gearoid O'Sullivan.)
Amendment 11.—Section 3, page 2, to delete in lines 21-22 the words " to the Degree of Barrister-at-Law " and to substitute therefor the words " by the Chief Justice to practise as a Barrister-at-Law in the Courts of Saorstát Eireann."—(Aire Airgid.)
Amendment 12.—Section 3, lines 21-22, to delete the words " admitted to the Degree of Barrister-at-Law," and on line 22 to delete the word " admitted," and to insert instead the words " called to the Bar " in each case respectively.—(P. J. Little.)
MINISTER for FINANCE
I can put in my particular amendment after Deputy Little's has been put in. I put it in because I was told that this particular form of words I have is regarded as the best. I do not know whether the phrase " being called to the Bar " is looked on as a colloquialism or not. " Admitted by the Chief Justice to practise as a Barrister-at-Law in the Courts of Saorstát Eireann " is the formula in amendment No. 11. The draftsman thought that was better than the words Deputy Little put in, " called to the Bar."
The first part of Deputy O'Sullivan's amendment substitutes " called to the Bar." The rest is the same.
Deputy WOLFE
There are two operations. You are admitted by Benchers, and then you are called to the Bar. Once you have the Degree you are all right.
It is agreed that the Minister's amendment No. 11 be accepted.
MINISTER for FINANCE
I think that is best.
Amendment No. 11 put and agreed to.
Amendment No. 11 is agreed to. Now as to amendments 10, 11 and 12, I was taking the first part of amendment No. 10 along with 11 and 12 and putting these as separate amendments. They are a matter of phraseology, and it is agreed that amendment No. 11 should be accepted as giving the same form.
Deputy WOLFE
In substitution for the first part of Section 3.
I am going to deal with the proviso of amendment 10 afterwards.
How exactly does Section 3 stand then?
It will then stand " No person shall be admitted by the Chief Justice to practise as a Barrister-at-Law in the Courts of Saorstát Eireann unless before he is so admitted he satisfies the Chief Justice by such evidence as the Chief Justice has prescribed that he possesses a competent knowledge of the Irish language." That is how it stands so far. There is a new sub-section suggested, and there is then a proviso. It is agreed that it is amended to that extent. Now we come to the proviso in amendment 10:—
" Provided always that nothing in this section contained shall prevent the Chief Justice from calling to the Bar of Saorstát Eireann any member of three years' standing of any other Bar who has been admitted to the Degree of Barrister-at-Law by the Benchers of the Honourable Society of King's Inn, Dublin, pursuant to a reciprocal arrangement whereby members of the Bar of Saorstát Eireann may be called to such other Bar."
Deputy O'SULLIVAN
In that connection you have accepted amendment No. 11. The words there are: " To practise as a Barrister-at-Law in the Courts of Saorstát Eireann " instead of the words I have, " called to the Bar." You will have to substitute that change in my proviso.
That change can now be made by consent.
Deputy O'SULLIVAN
Irish barristers practise in England. I presume that they will continue to do so, not so much because of appeals to the Privy Council and all that, but because of the Law School here and the training here. Very few English barristers come here. Under this proviso anybody who wants to practise here without learning Irish will have to practise for three years in England. I do not think that will happen. If it does arise, it is a matter that can be taken up. If, so to speak, the intention of the Act is avoided by this proviso, it can be taken up again.
MINISTER for FINANCE
Is the present arrangement one whereby members of the English Bar, though they never do so, or if they do, do so only very rarely, who come over here must have six years' experience, and members of the Irish Bar who go over to England have only to eat dinners?
Deputy O'SULLIVAN
I was told it was three years?
Deputy WOLFE
I think it is a little less.
Deputy O'SULLIVAN
I will find out about it.
Deputy WOLFE
Legal education in England is much better than we can afford here. It is good here on account of the assistance which the Universities give, having regard to the fact that you have already cut away from the King's Inns, to some extent, the barristers of Northern Ireland. If you do not pass this you will cut away all the Indian students. They would be an asset to the school. You cannot keep up an Inns if you have not students.
Did we not deal with that already by allowing Indians and others to take their Degree but not to practise?
MINISTER for FINANCE
I think this is dealing with the point of reciprocity. A barrister mentioned six to me, but he may have no particular information. The impression he left me under was that a man who practised six years here could be called to the English Bar by eating a number of dinners.
Deputy WOLFE
There was another short cut by which an English barrister could come across here, enter as a student, get certain exemptions, and get called in about a year.
MINISTER for FINANCE
There is an arrangement whereby the English barrister can come here, as I understood, after six years and be admitted. In fact, if we have a period like that, or a period like three years, it is not going to provide any loophole. A man who intends to practise here will not spend a number of years in England.
Deputy O'SULLIVAN
There is no reciprocity in Northern Ireland.
Deputy WOLFE
They refuse to take it.
It is a moot point whether reciprocity exists with Saorstát Eireann. It was with Ireland as a whole that it existed.
MINISTER for FINANCE
The Benchers here and in England operate on a customary basis and within limits they can do what they like.
Deputy O'SULLIVAN
That is a Bencher's amendment.
MINISTER for FINANCE
If the existing period is six, I would not like to put a lower period in.
Deputy O'SULLIVAN
There is one objection to that, and that is that from the Benchers' point of view I have an idea I must add something to that. If they desire that it should be five years——
Then you will have to withdraw the amendment and put it in on report.
Deputy O'SULLIVAN
No; this is a question of accepting the principle of reciprocity.
MINISTER for FINANCE
Do you think, Deputy O'Sullivan, that there is any value in this reciprocity business?
Deputy O'SULLIVAN
It is entirely valuable to our people. Any value is ours.
Deputy WOLFE
We tried it, but they were not having any. We, in return, suggested that we would give reciprocity, but they were not having any.
Deputy O'SULLIVAN
They said Irish solicitors were uncultured, uneducated and crude.
Deputy WOLFE
For the one they would send us we would be sending fifty-one.
Deputy O'SULLIVAN
I am satisfied about the three years, but I would like to go to the Library to get the exact thing.
Would it be possible that people would go over and practise for three years in England and then come over here?
Deputy O'SULLIVAN
It would.
MINISTER for FINANCE
There is a fear that a number might do it rather than make up Irish, if it took a man two years to make up Irish. Instead of doing that he might go over to the other side.
Deputy O'SULLIVAN
He must be 21 before he is called to any Bar. I would like to put in " any member not less than three years." As it stands at present it would deal with one of four years.
Is that agreed?
What about five years?
MINISTER for FINANCE
I would be satisfied with five years. I am afraid three years is a trifle short.
Deputy O'SULLIVAN
Going across is different, but people coming over here studying in the Inns of Court in Dublin have to go and study new laws entirely. Year by year, as these are enacted, it will be more severe than it is at present, and any man who is any good and who goes to England for three years is not going to come back here. If he is not a success in England he is not going to be a success here.
Deputy WOLFE
He would have five years, plus two years, plus three years.
Deputy O'SULLIVAN
I rely a good deal on the word " may."" Nothing shall prevent the Chief Justice." If the Chief Justice feels that it is a scandal, I believe the Benchers would not allow it. It would be entirely against the spirit of this Act.
It is only a permissive power to the Chief Justice with the proviso——
MINISTER for FINANCE
The custom is that when a person is admitted he is called. He would only be refused a call because he did not comply with the provisions of the Act. If he is virtually exempted from the Act, it would be a strong line for the Chief Justice to say: " In spite of the fact that the Benchers have admitted him, I nevertheless will withhold the call."
Deputy WOLFE
It will take five years to try that camouflage. No one will take two years now. He will go across to England, study the course there and get called to the English Bar. He will then have to practise three years more, that is six, and then come back to learn Irish law for two more years. No one is going to do that to camouflage Irish.
Another point is that men like that going over to England would settle down and never come back. Then we would lose their brains and it would be a great loss to us.
Deputy O'SULLIVAN
It would not be a loss to us. After all, we must face the fact that this must lose people to us. Persons who are anxious to go abroad have a perfect right to do so. This is a provision for reciprocity. Nobody abroad gets the advantage of it. They do not come here. The last one called was Mr. Alex Lynn. He was called to Grays Inn last week.
MINISTER for FINANCE
Very few go across. They would only go across if the standard of Irish were high, if a fellow thought he would lose two years in getting called to the Bar here. I suggest that Deputy O'Sullivan should find out whether it is three years or six years.
Deputy O'SULLIVAN
I have found out. Whose evidence will you take?
The Committee adjourned, and resumed at 7.15 p.m.
Deputy O'SULLIVAN
I was speaking to Mr. Justice Fitzgibbon and he told me that the arrangement in connection with reciprocity is that the Attorney-General certifies that the particular barrister was a member of that Bar and was a practising barrister for three years. " Practising for three years " is the point which I want to bring in.
" Any member of not less than three years' practice at any other Bar."
Deputy O'SULLIVAN
Knock out the word " of " and put in " who has practised for not less than three years." Then knock out the word " standing " and put in the words " at any other Bar."
" And who has been admitted to the degree of Barrister-at-Law by the Benchers of the Honourable Society of King's Inns, Dublin, pursuant to a reciprocal arrangement whereby members of the Bar of Saorstát Eireann may be called to such other Bar."
Deputy O'SULLIVAN
Would you change the word " call " so that it would read " may be admitted to practise at such other Bar?"
The altered amendment now reads: " No person shall be admitted to the Bar of Saorstát Eireann by the Chief Justice to practise as a Barrister-at-Law in the Courts of Saorstát Eireann unless before he is so admitted the satisfies the Chief Justice by such evidence as the Chief Justice may prescribe that such person possesses a competent knowledge of the Irish language."
The word " he " might refer to the Chief Justice.
MINISTER for FINANCE
I do not think that there is any ambiguity about it.
Deputy O'SULLIVAN
I spent three weeks considering this matter and could not get out the word " he."
MINISTER for FINANCE
I think as it stands it is perfectly clear. I think it is properly drafted.
The proviso would now read: " To add at the end of the section the following words:—
Provided always that nothing in this section contained shall prevent the Chief Justice from admitting to practise as a Barrister-at-Law in the Courts of Saorstát Eireann any member of any other Bar who has practised for not less than three years and who has been admitted to the degree of Barrister-at-Law by the Benchers of the Honourable Society of King's Inns, Dublin, pursuant to a reciprocal arrangement whereby members of the Bar of Saorstát Eireann may be admitted to practise at such other Bar."
May I take it that that proviso is agreed?
Agreed.
Now, we come to amendment 13.
I propose to add to Section 3 a new sub-section as follows:—
" Where the Chief Justice prescribes the evidence necessary to satisfy him for the purposes of this section and Section 5 of this Act he shall make an Order to be published in ‘ Iris Oifigiúil ' and any such Order may from time to time be amended or altered by an Order to be published in like manner."
This amendment is to prevent a Chief Justice from having a standard which might be changed according to his views, whereas if he publishes an order regarding the necessary evidence in " Iris Oifigiúil " it will be well known to the general public.
MINISTER for FINANCE
I do not know how the Chief Justice would like it, but the evidence he might prescribe would be, perhaps, an affidavit or certificate of somebody, for instance, Professor O Maille, of Galway University College, to the effect that he had examined the candidate and that he was satisfied that he had a sufficient knowledge of Irish to conduct business in court. It is really a question of evidence. It is a question of what evidence would satisfy the Chief Justice. I presume that he would have to make it known in some way so that the candidates would know what they would have to do.
If he published the evidence he requires in " Iris Oifigiúil " it would be published to all the profession, and everyone interested would know it.
Deputy WOLFE
There is nothing in the section declaring that the Chief Justice may put into his Order any evidence that would satisfy him for the purpose of the section.
Where the Chief Justice prescribes the evidence necessary to satisfy him for the purposes of this section it is stipulated that he shall have such Order published in " Iris Oifigiúil."
Deputy O'SULLIVAN
That is really the problem of the whole Bill; we are handing over the power to the Chief Justice. He can say who is and who is not competent in Irish. I think this amendment is entirely fatuous, because the Chief Justice can prescribe in his Order a standard required merely for the Preparatory Grade.
No; he would have an affidavit from a competent examiner and he could state the kind of people from whom he would accept affidavits of competency.
Deputy WOLFE
There is nothing in the section to that effect.
Is not this putting into the hands of the Chief Justice very arbitrary power?
That has already been done. You are now compelling him to define his powers.
It really limits his powers, because he will be subject to public opinion, as he will have to publish the information regarding the evidence he requires to the whole profession.
Deputy O'SULLIVAN
That is a point that I contest, because you are bringing the Chief Justice, so to speak, into the House.
I do not think so.
Deputy O'SULLIVAN
I thought that we might possibly bring in the Minister for Education or the Attorney-General, but there are difficulties in the way. We should, however, bring in somebody who would be responsible to the House in the matter of standard. If you cannot bring in such person you will have to leave it to the Chief Justice and see that he carries out the Act.
That does not quite meet the situation. It does not bring the matter into the House. This would not empower members to criticise the action of the Chief Justice.
Deputy O'SULLIVAN
Then it is no good.
It is because the profession and the public might not be in agreement with it. I presume that the Chief Justice is a sensible man.
MINISTER for FINANCE
The difficulty in which the Chief Justice might be, especially in the earlier stages when he would have no experience, is in publishing a satisfactory Order. He might publish a general Order, in which he would say that he would accept affidavits by persons as to whose competency to examine in Irish he is satisfied. He might easily be driven to put it in general terms in that way. If our University standards were higher, it might be possible to accept evidence of having passed the Matriculation or any other University examination, but even the getting of a degree in Celtic studies would not, unfortunately, be evidence that would comply with Section 1. I am afraid that the Chief Justice would be driven, in order to protect himself, to prescribe in such very general terms that you would not be carrying the matter any further.
Deputy O'SULLIVAN
I think that the Chief Justice is bound by the definition.
MINISTER for FINANCE
He is bound to get some evidence.
Deputy O'SULLIVAN
He is bound by Section 3.
MINISTER for FINANCE
He will have to make the declaration in some way. I think he is bound to get a very competent person, such as Professor Tomás O'Rahilly or Professor O Máille, to set out in the affidavit that the person is competent.
Very well. I will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question—" That Section 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill "—put and agreed to.