Séamus Healy (Tipperary South, Workers and Unemployed Action Group)

I welcome publication of this Bill which deals with legal services regulation, which is an important issue. There is no doubt that we need a roadmap for the future of legal services in this country. Regardless of whether one agrees with the Bill, it sets out at least one vision in that regard. We all know that reform of legal services is long overdue. We can no longer allow self-regulation in this area. There must be an independent system in this regard, as the current position undoubtedly is unacceptable and has gone on for too long. A number of features are required in a new dispensation, including independent regulation and an independent disciplinary procedure. Moreover, decreased costs and increased access to legal services for citizens are required. In addition, I refer to something that is not included in this Bill but which has been touched on a number of times by Deputy Clare Daly, namely, the availability of free legal aid for citizens. The current position in this regard is abysmal. There are huge delays and waiting lists for people who require such services. Apart from the initial interview, such people must wait for services for long periods of anything up to two years. For the public, it is crucial that this service be expanded. It must be properly staffed and resourced and must be available within a reasonable timeframe for those citizens who are faced with a problem. The position at present is that despite the best efforts of free legal aid staff, ordinary citizens simply have a highly inadequate system with huge in-built delays. This issue must feature to a much greater extent in this Bill.

All Members deal with the public in their clinics and have found there is grave public concern about the existing system. This relates in particular to costs, complaints and the question of self-regulation. I note the question of costs arises regularly. People believe the level of costs to individual clients excludes them from the system to a large extent. This obviously is a subject that must be addressed in a significant fashion. Moreover, the cost of activities such as inquiries and tribunals also has arisen regularly and continues to so do. Similarly, the huge costs paid by entities such as NAMA are another concern, as is the fact that many of the firms and individuals being paid significant fees by NAMA were part and parcel of the entire development bubble. However, such firms and individuals now are feeding off the recession as well and this is another concern for ordinary citizens.

One source of frustration to both the public and many Deputies is the entire question of complaints. Many members of the public who experience a difficulty find themselves in a position in which they can get absolutely no satisfaction. While one might argue there is a structure in place or whatever, most ordinary people who have a difficulty in respect of complaints find that despite their best efforts in approaching all the various agencies, they emerge on the other side having had a negative experience. They emerge without a solution to the complaint and, even worse, with the perception they were not listened to during the course of a complaints procedure. This obviously is an area that must be dealt with.

It is a pity there was not considerable additional consultation before this Bill was drafted. It is a pity that various organisations involved in this sphere, such as the free legal aid centres, the Law Society of Ireland, the Bar Council of Ireland or the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality were not involved in a much more thorough consultation on this Bill. Had this been the case, I believe Members would have had better legislation before them.

One area that has given rise to serious cause for concern is the question of the regulatory authority and the nomination of the majority of members thereon by the Minister. As I stated, various agencies already have raised issues in this regard on the separation of functions. I believe this is an important issue and do not believe the structure in place in the Bill is adequate. I believe there should and must be an alternative to that structure. One must have strong, proper and independent regulation in this regard and the current proposal as set out in the Bill is not satisfactory. The question of whether a legal ombudsman structure would be a better arrangement must be considered. In addition, other structures certainly must be examined because the current structure as proposed in the Bill tends to undermine the independence of the legal system and its separation from the Executive. The strong views that exist on this issue are not confined to the Bar Council of Ireland or the Law Society of Ireland but may be found among the public in general, in non-governmental organisations and the free legal aid centres. This issue is central to the Bill and must be resolved.

I note the word "quango" has been mentioned a number of times during this debate. There are quangos and quangos and if the legal profession is to be properly and independently regulated, a structure must be put in place to so do. It must do so effectively on behalf of the public and the citizens who require a legal service that is fair, adequate, accessible and affordable. Consequently, it is necessary to have in place some form of organisation. Simply to call it a quango and then dismiss it for that reason simply is not good enough. A structure and architecture must be put in place for this purpose and this will come at a cost. While I welcome aspects of the Bill, this particular section of the Bill must be re-examined. It is unacceptable in its present form and should be amended substantially during the course of the passage of this Bill.

See this speech in context