Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

I had to rush here from a foreign affairs committee meeting and, unfortunately, will have to rush back again shortly. I will be brief.

I referred earlier to the costs of the tribunals to the taxpayer and the necessity to re-examine the way we do things and the manner in which such costs seem to accumulate. As Deputy Alex White said, it gives the legal profession a bad name and creates an impression in the minds of the people that a judicial inquiry into these issues should never again be held. That is a sad reflection on our society and the way matters have progressed.

Reference was made to the multi-disciplinary proposals and the setting up of such enterprises. I do not know the answer to that question. I do not know whether it is a good idea to have people such as auctioneers, property developers or many other people within a particular practice. They might create a conflict of interest that would not necessarily be beneficial to the public good or to the interest of the taxpayer. The Minister might comment on that issue because it has arisen. For instance, all Departments have legal advisers and sometimes the legal advice is in consort with the legal advise sought outside Departments. Sometimes the advice offered within Departments is correct and soundly based and sometimes it is not, as we are all well aware, with obvious consequential costs to the State and the State agencies. That is an area we must carefully examine to make sure we do not enable something to occur that might be the last thing we had intended.

Legal costs generally is an issue that arises frequently, not only generally but in individual cases. As a non-legal person, it is embarrassing from time to time to go through some of the Bills that come from different legal firms under different headings. Suffice to say that in the times in which we live the general public have great difficulty understanding how these situations arise. Similarly, they have great difficulty understanding how, in many cases, the resolution of a particular case comes to virtually the sum total of any award that might accrue. That is extraordinary. A week does not pass that we do not see some evidence to that effect. That suggests one of two things. It could suggest there is no sense going the legal route to resolve certain issues, in which case the rights of the individual are secondary and no longer protected in the State. That is a serious situation. In the context of this legislation it is incumbent on us as legislators to ensure that does not occur, in other words, that the result of attempting to achieve one's rights through the courts should lead to a situation where the cost is such that the entire exercise was null and void or of no benefit to the complainant in the final analysis. It is a serious issue and one that must be dealt with. I know that everybody involved will be anxious to do that.

Similarly, I am aware the law society and the Bar Council of Ireland have expressed considerable concerns about the Bill. That of its nature would be normal but it is important for those organisations to carefully examine the extent to which change is necessary and the degree to which they can lend their approval because there is no sense in the State and eminent organisations like the law society and the Bar Council of Ireland to be at loggerheads. That is important in a country where the separation of powers is enshrined in our Constitution. It is of particular importance now that on all sides we recognise each other's position and the need to ensure fair play, transparency and accountability is part and parcel of the legislation we are discussing.

On the issue of arbitration in regard to fees, I do not know the answer. No matter what happens, one side or the other will feel aggrieved. A question that seems to arise is the unfairness of the level of fees charged in certain quarters in particular situations. That should not be the case. It should not transpire that to achieve one's rights or entitlements under the law one should have to forego them in terms of potential future income or whatever the case may be. The matter should not be the sole preserve of a legal firm setting out a bill for legal costs for the individual concerned, and it is not, as there is the provision for taxing and so on. Such provision is made in this legislation. Due regard should be had for reason. We have read about cases where the degree to which the arbitration of fees or taxing in that respect takes place seems to vary dramatically from case to case. In some cases it appears a senior counsel is called upon to do very menial work by way of reference to the itemised accounts. To reiterate the standing the legal profession needs to have in this kind of situation, to which Deputy White referred earlier, it is important for it to be recognised that it is not possible simply to think of a figure off the top of one's head and charge it to the client regardless of the costs involved.

I am sure Members will be pleased to hear about an interesting incident that occurred. Many years ago when I was first elected a Member of this House a constituent came to me to complain about the manner in which he had been treated by a legal firm. I could not name the firm in these hallowed surroundings but I found a way to probe the matter and I sent a gentle reminder to the legal firm in question and received a profound and offended response two or three months later suggesting it was outrageous that I should have raised the matter in this fashion and demanding that I recant and apologise. Whether the legal firm had a mischievous legal secretary or there was a hidden message, or it was a mistake I will never know but enclosed with the letter was an opinion from senior counsel indicating that the firm in question was seriously at odds with the procedures and had left itself wide open to serious action being taken by the client on whose behalf I raised the case. I thought it was a interesting incident. It reflected the outrage on the part of the person who had been accused of doing a wrong and I am not saying this applies particularly to the legal profession. It is interesting how it happened that the senior counsel's opinion was in the same envelope and no reference was made to it but it turned the other argument on its head.

We all receive complaints about conflicts of interest, particularly in regard to conveyancing, where an unfortunate solicitor decides to oblige everybody by dealing with the two sides, but that does not work out well. It is not a safe route to go. It is very dangerous. I have dealt with countless such cases, as I am sure other Members have.

When we introduced legislation to provide for legal separation and divorce, a proposal that was put forward, and to which we all agreed, was that it should be accessible to all sections of society, and the same applies to everything else. As time has progressed, we seem to have drifted further and further away from that concept. It is now only something that becomes available to those who are better off and they pay through the nose for it.

There is provision in the legislation to make changes in regard to legal aid service. I would question the effectiveness of that service following the passage of time. I am not sure it is as effective as it was intended to be. Many young practitioners get involved in it at an early stage and it is important and useful for them but for some unknown reason there are long delays, backlogs and waiting times. There is the notion that if a public representative makes an inquiry, nobody should attempt to give him or her information that would indicate by what year it might be possible for the unfortunate client to have his or her case brought before the family law courts or other courts.

I would like to go into greater detail on the issues of concern to me during the debate on the later Stages of the Bill.

See this speech in context