Alex White (Dublin South, Labour)

I was commenting on the provisions in the Bill on the independent regulatory authority. I know there is a willingness on the part of the Minister to examine reasonable suggestions on the manner in which the members of the authority should be appointed. There are reasonable suggestions in play in terms of this debate and it is important to recognise this. I commented on what I have regarded over the years as the slowness of the willingness to reform that has affected not only perhaps the professions and the Government; across the board in public life very often there is a sense that if something appears to be working why would one change it or address it. Not only for reasons of the troika intervention - if I can call it that - but for good public policy reasons it is important that these types of issues should be revisited, certainly once in every generation if not more often. It is quite fair that these issues should be addressed now.

Notwithstanding what I have said about the lethargy in attitude that one finds, there are now some very reasonable proposals, including from the professions, in respect of, for example, this question of the independent authority and how members might be appointed to it. I do not state the proposals from the professions should be taken lock, stock and barrel and adopted, or that the professions themselves would expect it, but close regard should be had to them. The Minister will be prepared to do this.

The Law Society has made a number of comments in recent days on the complaints procedure and I welcome this. I also welcome the engagement of the society in this discussion. I very much welcome the engagement of the Bar Council in this discussion. Looking at its document on alternative proposals in respect of the independent authority, it is not fair to state on any reasonable reading, that it is trying to avoid independent regulation. There are various views on the nature and type of independent regulation that should be put in place, but the proposals which have been brought forward by it and others on the independent regulatory authority are very reasonable and bear very close scrutiny. In many cases they might commend themselves to the Minister in terms of how we might proceed on that basis.

The one area of the Bill that has been universally welcomed, and rightly so, is the reforms proposed regarding costs, particularly in respect of the detailed proposals which will bring about greater transparency, supervision and scrutiny of the level of legal costs. That is a hugely important issue for public confidence in the system. People often say cynically or jokingly, particularly to lawyers, that the tribunals were the best thing that ever happened to the legal profession. I believe strongly that the tribunals were the worst thing that ever happened to the legal profession because the manner in which the fees were initially allocated and determined was damaging and wrong. In many cases the fees ended up being excessive, largely because they were based on a daily rate. That was a terrible mistake on the part of the State. The State has a very important role in the fixing of fees as a huge proportion of work is done, for example at the Bar, on behalf of the State. That was wrong, and it had a corrosive effect in terms of public confidence in the legal profession. A great deal of ground and confidence needs to be regained now by the professions in that regard. The level of fees set for the tribunals does not reflect the level of fees people earn at the Bar across the board. No one could suggest that. I accept there are a number of very-high-earning lawyers, and in many cases perhaps justifiably so, but it is not the norm by any stretch of the imagination. The issue must be addressed, and I very much welcome the principles and the provisions set out in this legislation in that regard.

I turn now to what is sometimes described as the changes contemplated in the so-called business structures in regard to the provision of legal services. Serious issues arise regarding what we as an Oireachtas and the Government should put in place in terms of the best way to have legal services provided throughout the State. We must examine that matter closely. There is provision in the Bill for a period of consultation. I hope there is not a settled position because my concern about it, whatever other people's intentions might be, is not about protection of the status quo. If it can be demonstrated that a change is in the best interests of the public and is in the public interest in terms of access to legal services, access to advice and access to court, regardless of whether the case is big or small, there is plenty of money involved or no money involved, it would be churlish and wrong to stand in the way of those changes but I do not believe that has been demonstrated and there remains a genuine concern that, for example, the more experienced practitioners, particularly at the Bar, will gravitate into specialised units, perhaps part of the existing big firms, that will undermine the current valuable access to barristers across the State.

I am in favour of the costs issue being addressed even more aggressively than is contemplated in the Bill. I do not hold any brief for most of the physical trappings of the Bar, whether they are to do with dress, address of the court or any of those issues. I have no problem with those issues being addressed but the system in place should ensure a quick level of access to expertise and that people do not have to rely on a system whereby they must go to the larger firms, and the implications in that regard for costs.

It cannot be assumed that we will reduce costs by introducing multi-disciplinary partnerships, MDPs. That has not been demonstrated. If we are talking about driving down costs that must be demonstrated. That is the reason a regulatory impact assessment is important if we are thinking about making this change. Nor do I believe that multi-disciplinary partnerships will necessarily work to the benefit of the younger, newer practitioners. A concern has been expressed rightly that we should spread the work at the Bar and the access to work across the profession. I do not see how multi-disciplinary partnerships will do that. A great deal of work must be done on it. If I have a regret about the manner in which it appears in the Bill it is that we are talking about a consultation process that is more about how we would introduce MDPs than whether we would introduce them, and the debate about whether to introduce them remains a live issue. The Competition Authority did not recommend it. A report in Northern Ireland has set its face against that. There is more work to be done on it.

I am not saying definitively that such MDPs would necessarily damage the system. I do not have the quote to hand but the Bar Council has said that if they were introduced they will damage and undermine the process. I will not go so far as to say that but it is necessary to have careful consultation with an open mind. I know the Minister would not want to see a two-tier system of legal services, and that there are other issues as well.

Whatever about the arguments about the nature of its oversight and so on, and it is a big infrastructure that is proposed and perhaps the level of insight should not be microscopic but a little more at arm's length. One of the great advantages of an authority will be that it will have the time, space and public credibility to examine all of these issues such as the desirability of multi-disciplinary practices, because they should be examined. There is no question about that but it cannot be definitively said that they are in the public interest.

See this speech in context