John Halligan (Waterford, Independent)

I appreciate that this sector is in need of reform. For too long costs associated with the legal sector have been far above those in the rest of Europe, for instance. The State spends approximately €500 million a year on legal services and I accept that needs to be reduced. I believe, as I am sure does the Minister, that all citizens should have full access to legal services as they require them, as is their constitutional right. I welcome especially the provisions in the Bill which will make it easier for younger new entrants to qualify either as a barrister or a solicitor. I hope this Bill will make it easier for ordinary people to challenge costs they regard as unfair and unjustifiable by means of the new office of the legal costs adjudicator. However, the Bill makes sweeping changes that are not welcome, do not stand up to scrutiny and could have a negative impact on the ability of some people to access fair justice. A rights based approach must be at the centre of any reform of the legal system.

The scale, cost and power of the five new quangos, for instance, are too extensive, particularly given the lack of detail and absence of regular impact assessment, which is needed. That does not appear to be in the Bill. Currently, 71 people are involved in regulation in the law society and one assumes the new quangos, for instance, will need highly skilled and well paid staff. What budget does the Minister envisage will be needed to staff these new quangos?

I wonder whether the variety of functions to be undertaken by the legal services regulatory authority, the office of the legal costs adjudicator and the legal professions disciplinary tribunal could be undertaken by a single agency. Has much thought has gone into that? Although no cost assessment has been made public yet, it is clear that a large body of investigators will be required and this extensive set-up will be directly responsible for solicitors passing on their costs to their clients or leaving the profession.

Regarding its independence, the legal services regulatory authority is fundamentally different from the type of regulation recommended by the Competition Authority in its 2006 report. This type of regulation is unprecedented in the EU and North America. Furthermore, it was rejected after consideration by the authorities in England and Wales due to concerns about its impact on the independence of the profession and the costs involved. That the Minister will be responsible for the appointment of seven of the 11 members of the so-called independent regulatory authority is a cause of concern in terms of its independence. That is not a slight on the Minister, but that would be the general perception in terms of its independence projects itself. I am especially concerned that there is no specific criteria for appointment to this regulatory authority unlike appointments to the Medical Council, the Dental Council and other similar regulatory bodies. The Minister for Health does not control of the newly constituted Medical Council even though the role of that council parallels in many ways that of the proposed legal services authority.

The State or a Government is a litigant or a defendant in approximately 50% of all cases. People are entitled to have a lawyer or a barrister, who is independent and not concerned with what a Government body will have to do or say, who can act free from concern in defending a citizen's rights against an organisation. For instance, a Minister may at any time decide to challenge the authority or to change the powers of the authority by means of the seven ministerial appointments. The Minister might clarify if that is the position. If that is the case, I would not consider it to be a truly independent authority. If the Minister disagrees on this point, then we are not using the same standards of independence.

The Government has a policy of publicly advertising for appointments to be made but in this case the Minister is choosing to maintain a traditional role in the establishment of this body. A study conducted by the regulatory authority argued that direct access for advice would destroy the system of independent referral, which is in the public interest and promotes access to justice. Direct access would squeeze out the smaller practitioners, even small solicitors' practices who employ a staff of two or three in their offices. Will such small business get recognition for what they do? Direct access is contentious. It is not permitted in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Australia or New Zealand. I accept the need for reform in the area but I do not know why the position here should be so different. I would like to Minister to respond to that point.

Multidisciplinary partnerships may be advantageous to some in the bigger law firms but will they be detrimental to the ordinary person seeking free legal aid? Many people have asked about this. Currently, a legal aid client can get one of the best barristers in the country but the growth of multidisciplinary partnerships will severely hamper the ability of those who do not live in the capital to access the best barristers, as has become the norm in the United States of America. We need to debate this issue further.

The programme for Government undertakes to establish independent regulation of the legal profession to improve access and competition, to make legal costs more transparent and to ensure adequate procedures for addressing consumer complaints. In terms of consultation, the Bill was published in quite a rushed manner, although I understand this was due to the pressure of the ubiquitous troika, and we all know from where that came. No regulatory impact assessment appears to have been carried out and such an assessment might demonstrate the cost benefit of the proposed new system. The Minister might respond to that point. There was no assessment or briefing as to the costs, independence of means of operation and there is considerable speculation that costs are likely to increase considerably.

See this speech in context