Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)

I too welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. We in Fianna Fáil welcome significant parts of the Bill, including the provisions on transparency and those that make it easier for young people to qualify as either barristers or solicitors by ending the monopolies of the Law Society and the King's Inns. There are, however, areas in which we have grave concerns. Concerns have been expressed about certain provisions by many members of the public and of the legal profession.

Before I speak about these, however, I would like to follow up on a point that Deputy Browne made. When Fine Gael and the Labour Party came to power, they promised they would cull quangos. Fine Gael pledged to abolish 145 quangos in its document Reinventing Government. The programme for Government also committed to reducing the number of State bodies. Notwithstanding this, the Minister is proposing to establish two new quangos, the first of which is the legal services regulatory authority, which will be required to regulate the whole legal profession in this country. Such a quango will be large and costly, and in order to carry out the functions of the Law Society and the Bar Council it will be heavily staffed. The Minister has indicated that this body will be paid for by the legal professions themselves, but the experience historically is that most costs such as this are passed on to customers. The second quango is the legal practitioners' disciplinary tribunal, a quasi-judicial body which will preside over alleged cases of misconduct referred to it by the legal services regulatory authority. I question the need for two more quangos. The creation of this tribunal renders obsolete the Legal Services Ombudsman Act 2009, which was introduced by the then Government with the aim of having a single statutory independent body to deal with complaints. This Act was similar to the UK regulatory model, which has been also rejected by the Government in its creation of a legal services regulatory authority rather than an oversight body.

One of the greatest achievements of the Irish judicial system is that it is recognised internationally as being fully independent. As Deputy Browne said, many of the new eastern European countries sought to base their legal systems on the one operating in Ireland.

The fundamental issue is the separation of powers and the independence of our legal system. In that context, I wish to quote from a number of letters I received from various constituents about the Legal Services Regulation Bill. One letter states:

Firstly, might I say that there are many provisions in the Bill that I would welcome, however, in its current format I am extremely concerned that the Bill represents a most serious undermining of the independence of the legal profession. Such independence is essential to protect the rights of citizens and this independence is alarmingly threatened by the Regulatory model proposed by the Minister in this Bill.

Whilst the vast majority of the legal profession have no objection whatsoever to Independent Regulation of the profession, what is proposed by the Bill is in fact regulation by the Minister!

That is, in turn, regulation by the Government. While I do not in any way question the integrity of the current Minister, this legislation will be in place long after he departs office. The legislation will be implemented by future Ministers, so it is important that it is not open to interpretation. My correspondent goes on to state:

To emphasise my point I set out hereunder the proposed powers of the Minister/Government in relation to the intended Regulatory Authority.

1. The Government will appoint/remove members of the Authority [seven of the 11 members will be Government nominees]

2. The Government will determine the terms of office remuneration and expenses of the members of the Authority (Section 8)

3. The Minister is to be kept informed by the Authority of developments in relation to the provision of legal services by Lawyers and the Authority assist the Minister "in coordinating and developing policy in this regard" (Section 9);

4. The Minister approves appointment of Consultants or Advisors by the Authority. The Minister (with consent of Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform) approves the fees to be paid to Committee members, Consultants and Advisors (Sections 12 &13);

5. The Authority's three year strategic plan must be approved by the Minister and must "comply with any directions issued from time to time by the Minister in respect of the form and manner of plans preparation" (Section 16).

6. The Minister can direct the content and form of the annual report by the Authority to the Minister and the Oireachtas Committee on Justice (Section 17).

7. The Minister can request the Authority to prepare or approve a code of practice or professional code and the Authority "shall" do so. The Authority "shall" submit the draft code of practice or professional code to the Minister for consent to its publicationor approval .... with or without modifications. (Section 18). The Minister's consent required for Authority to amend, revoke or withdraw approval for a code of practice for professional conduct (Section 18).

8. The Minister appoints a CEO of the Authority on recommendation of the Public Appointments Service for such a period of office not exceeding five years.....

9. The Minister appoints the staff of the Authority and determines their grades, remuneration, terms and conditions (Section 20).

10. All estimates, financial information and accounts of the Authority are subject to approval of the Minister. The Minister can appoint any person to examine the accounts of the Authority (Section 22).

The letter continues in that vein. The recurrent theme is the involvement of the Minister. I do not question the integrity of the current Minister but this legislation will be in place long after he leaves his position. The letter continues:

You will probably already have noted the concerns expressed in relation to the Bill separately by the three international legal bodies describing the Bill as "one of the most extensive and far reaching attempts by a Government to control the legal profession". These concerns are expressed by the incoming President of the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE) who described the independence of the legal profession as "a fundamental value of European Law" and it is also a widely held view that any breach of that principle (such as enunciated in the current Bill) will most probably lead to litigation before the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights.

I could read another few pages from the letter I received but no doubt the Minister has received, heard and hopefully listened to the concerns outlined by the legal profession. Undoubtedly, he has met its representatives. I hope he will listen to the concerns that will be expressed in the amendments that will be brought forward on Committee Stage.

It is important that anything we do in this area makes it as affordable as possible for people to access legal services. As Deputy Browne said, some people cannot afford to go to court to clear their good name. To conclude on a positive note, an element of the Bill we welcome is the cessation of the monopoly on legal training of the Law Society and King's Inns. It will open a new avenue for people to enter the profession. I hope the Minister will take on board the concerns outlined in the House today as well as the concerns of members of the public and of the legal profession when the Bill progresses to Committee Stage.

See this speech in context