John Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)

Yes. I would like to share my time with Deputy Robert Troy. I welcome the Bill and this opportunity to say a few words about the legal profession. They are much maligned people and perhaps have been more maligned than politicians on occasions when criticised about their exorbitant fees and the money they have received for their work at the tribunals. I have held the view that the money paid to them by the tribunals was approved by the Government of the day. A good deal of unfair criticism has been levelled at the barristers who have worked on tribunals.

Fianna Fáil welcomes significant parts of the Bill, including those parts that introduce greater transparency and will make it easier for young people to qualify as either barristers or solicitors by ending the monopoly that the Law Society and King's Inns have on training both branches of the profession. The introduction of greater transparency is a welcome move that will allow the free information on costs that should help reduce costs and allow consumers to gauge value for money. However, these reforms give rise to a number of problems and a series of measurers are needed to strengthen them. Our amendments will reflect this. We intend to put forward a significant number of amendments on Committee Stage.

There is concern that the Bill will give rise to problems in that too much powers are being taken by the Minister unto himself. One of the great achievements of the Irish judicial system is that it is recognised internationally as being independent. Many of the new eastern European countries sought to base their new legal systems on the systems operating here.

A great benefit of the Irish legal system is that members of the public know that the State is not given any preferential treatment before the Irish courts. This is particularly important since the State is involved in many cases that come before the courts. Under the Minister, Deputy Shatter's proposals, there is a danger that the principle of independence of the Irish legal system could be questioned and this is not the image we want to portray at home or abroad.

The legal services regulatory authority quango will be made up of 11 members and, from what the Minister said, it appears that seven of these members will be appointed by the Minister. The new legal practitioners disciplinary tribunal quango will be composed of 16 members nominated by the Minister for Justice and Equality, with three members to be nominated by the Law Society and three members to be nominated from the Bar Council. Thus, the majority of its members will be nominees of the Minister. In effect, the Minister for Justice and Equality and, by extension, the Government, will control the regulation of lawyers in Ireland. This is not a great prospect. I ask the Minister to clarify this when he replies at the end of the debate.

Multinational companies that base themselves in Ireland do so in part because they know any dispute they have with the Irish State can be determined fairly before the Irish courts. If it is the case that every lawyer in Ireland will now be regulated by the Government, there inevitably will be a question mark over the independence of Irish lawyers taking cases on behalf of multinationals against the Government. A message may go out internationally that since Irish lawyers are regulated by the Government of the day, it may be preferable for multinational litigants before the Irish courts to avail of the services of English or other European lawyers. The Minister needs to consider how future Ministers for justice may abuse the enormous power conferred upon them. I have no great problem with the ability of the current Minister to deal with this - I have every faith in him - but it may cause problems down the road. The Minister should reconsider this whole area and perhaps not take so many powers onto himself but instead have a more independent basis for regulating the legal system.

The central problem with the Irish legal system is that it is too costly. It is unacceptable that citizens who wish to have their rights vindicated are prevented from doing so because of the appalling financial consequences they may face should they lose the proceedings. The Acting Chairman knows, as do people on all sides of the House, that because of the high costs involved, people are not prepared to go to the courts and they are certainly not prepared to take on Government bodies. I have seen this in my own county when local authorities and VECs make decisions against members of the public who are not in a position financially to do anything about it. The costs of such bodies are usually borne by the taxpayer or the ratepayer, but the ordinary Joe Soap is not in a position to take court cases because of the high costs.

The Minister says his Bill will fully spell out the principles that guide the assessment of legal costs, which I welcome. He also said that the key principle is that of reasonable costs for appropriate work done. However, what the Minister has not clarified is whether lawyers and their clients will be able to contract out of the requirements of this legislation. If it is the case that a solicitor is able to agree with his client that the provisions of the new Bill will not apply, then the provisions are mere window dressing. Solicitors who encounter clients for the first time, invariably when they are in a very vulnerable position, will be able to seek to persuade them to sign a separate agreement on costs. Unless the facility to contract out of the provisions of the Bill is removed, it will have a limited impact on legal costs, and I fear that people will still not be in a position to avail of legal services, as is the Minister's intention.

A major concern is that the cost of paying for this vast new quango, which is being imposed upon the legal profession by the Minister, will result in an increase in legal costs. The quangos are to be funded by the legal people themselves and, as the Minister and I both know, these costs are usually not borne by such people but are passed on to the customer. This is something the Minister needs to re-examine. Why do we need such a large number of people on these quangos, and why are the costs involved so high? The Minister should clarify how he intends to make sure the costs are not passed on to the consumer. If the cost of running the two bodies he is talking about setting up are passed on to the consumer, the whole purpose of the Bill - that is, to reduce legal costs - will be lost. The Minister needs to provide clarity on this.

I welcome the provisions of the Bill which deal with education. The Law Society and the King's Inns currently hold a monopoly on training for entry to the solicitor and barrister professions, respectively. I must declare my interest in this regard, as I have a son who is a barrister. He had to go about becoming a barrister in a roundabout way because none of the family was involved in that area, and many roadblocks were put in his way, but eventually he did qualify and is now one of the people who is making some money in this area. He is not overly happy with the Bill, but I take a different view, because the costs of barristers and solicitors are far too high at present. I felt at that time that both of the bodies I mentioned had a strong monopoly. I welcome the fact that the Minister has now decided, although different Ministers have talked about it for many years, to remove this.

The opening up of education provision will be a step towards reducing costs and ultimately broadening access to the legal professions in general. The long route to becoming a solicitor - or, in particular, a barrister - eliminates the possibility, for many people, of choosing it as a viable career. It is a welcome change.

Fianna Fáil will put forward a number of amendments that have been already outlined by Deputy Calleary. I am sure the Minister will listen to the amendments and, if they are sound and will stand up to legal challenge, include some of them in the Bill. Overall, we welcome the Bill, but there are certainly some changes required. The Fine Gael-Labour Party coalition talked about getting rid of around 140 quangos, but now the Minister is intending to set up two more. This will be very costly, and my major concern is that the costs will be passed on to the consumer.

See this speech in context