Alan Farrell (Dublin North, Fine Gael)

At the outset, I wish to comment on the points made by Deputy Healy. He is absolutely correct in respect of this particular authority. A number of quangos have been targeted for abolition by the Government but this Bill proposes the establishment of a new authority. This is highly positive and I welcome the positive comments made by the Deputy.

I thank the Minister for introducing this Bill to the House.

Reforming our legal system is a hugely complicated task which is laden with responsibility. In recent decades, a number of issues relating to the reputation of the legal services have arisen primarily as a result of their involvement with, in particular, the tribunals.

This is possibly one of the most important items of non-financial legislation that will be passed by the Houses of the Oireachtas and it will form a significant part of the Government's legacy, perhaps to an even greater degree than we currently realise. I commend the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, on undertaking this difficult task and on his commitment to legal reform. I also commend him on ensuring that an appropriate amount of time has been set aside in order that the Bill might be debated in the House. Fine Gael emphasised the need for legal reform both before and during the general election campaign and indicated its intention to making legal representation more affordable and more accessible for every citizen. It is commendable that the Bill has been presented at such an early point in the lifetime of the 31st Dáil.

While seeking to reform our legal services, we must surely be aware that we must not reduce all argument for change to the lowest common denominator merely because we are experiencing a financial crisis. Many Deputies referred to the fact that the impact of any changes made as a result of the passing of this Bill will be felt for years to come. It is important, therefore, that the Bill should strike a balance in order to best serve our society and our country. We have been presented with a great opportunity to reform our legal services and we must not waste it. There is no doubt that history will judge us harshly if we squander the opportunity to which I refer.

There was much discussion regarding the Irish legal system in the weeks and months preceding this debate and a great deal of focus was placed on the complications surrounding the reform and regulation of the legal profession and the Government's involvement in that regulation. It is clear that the Bill has been drafted with reform, the public interest and greater accessibility to and competition in the legal sector in mind. In that context, it is important that we should strike a balance between these aspects and the need to ensure we have an independent legal profession. The vast majority of legal professionals have enormous respect for the law, justice and the reputation of their profession. To date, their activities have been overseen by their respective regulating bodies, namely, the Law Society and the Bar Council. The Bill proposes the establishment of a new regulatory authority for both legal professions.

I welcome the Minister's recent statements regarding his commitment to form a regulatory body that will be independent. The ratio of appointees - along with certain functions that will be conferred upon this body - has been exposed to robust debate from both national and international bodies. However, I believe that the make-up of the regulatory authority has been designed not only to take account of competition and consumer focus but also to ensure a fair and proportionate regulation of the professions. The authority will be an expert group that will advise on more than legal policies and it will also make recommendations on what is best for the consumer and the industry as a whole.

We have a lamentable history when it come to Government appointees to boards and authorities. While I acknowledge the Minister's bona fides in this regard are beyond reproach, I believe that the appointment of the members of the proposed legal regulatory authority is worthy of debate and, perhaps, alteration on Committee Stage. The vesting of certain powers with the Minister of the day - such as that to appoint or remove members if necessary - may leave a door open to old ways. That door should be firmly shut. There is no place for political interference in respect of authorities of this nature now or in the future, particularly if we want to ensure genuine reform.

While I believe the Minister has placed the relevant provisions in the Bill to ensure that the new authority will be held accountable in the context of ensuring proper reform and change, to whom will his successors in office be accountable in this regard? Those in government have been forced to introduce legislation on political reform as a result of the corruption and interference of their predecessors. I am concerned that while it might close one door, the Bill may open another. If that proves the case, we will not have learned from our own unfortunate history. In that context, I fully welcome the Minister's decision to reconsider his role in establishing codes of conduct. I am of the view that we can, through this Bill, set a precedent as to how the legal profession and the Government might strike a balance in other areas. I hope the Department of Justice and Equality will be able to assess a means by which a panel of possible experts will be nominated by both professions and that there will be equal debate and eventual agreement from the Government and the professions regarding who it might be appropriate to appoint to the authority. As a number of Deputies indicated, it might be opportune to discuss using nominating bodies as an alternative to the Minister directly appointing seven members.

Legal professionals have been open to reform for some time. Despite the appearance of some newspaper articles to the contrary, those professionals to whom I have spoken in recent weeks and months all stated that reform is required. Solicitors throughout the country are struggling to keep their heads above the water and many trainee solicitors cannot secure apprenticeships. Junior members of the Bar, particularly those who have been devilling or who are at the beginning of their careers, are struggling to survive financially. This must be taken into account in the context of any reform of the professions.

It must be borne in mind that there is a level of distrust in the legal profession on the part of the public. This is due, in part, to the mismanagement of tribunal process by successive Fianna Fáil Governments and other individuals both in the context of establishing the tribunals and in being the catalyst which gave rise to a need for their being established in the first instance. I hope the Bill will serve to restore the public's confidence in the legal profession. In attempting to legislate for full transparency, advertising and the opening up of the legal services market, we will see to it that individuals will have the security of mind to allow them to make informed decisions and that they will not be concerned with regard to being charged the unfair or extortionate prices that have been associated with the legal profession in the past. What is being done here will increase people's confidence in the legal profession.

I hope that by contributing to this debate I will ensure that while ensuring the passage of this Bill we will not lose sight of the fundamental importance of a proper functioning legal system which operates in the best interest of the country and its citizens. I hope the regulatory authority will consider the long-term implications of creating new business models when it comes to multidisciplinary practices to ensure that expertise will remain fairly available to every citizen who seeks it. We do not want to replace one elitist model with another in an effort to make the process more affordable in the short term.

It is true that a one-stop-shop approach can ensure a less intimidating process. However, we also know from experience that the success of large corporations comes at a cost, namely, losing small businesses, quality produce and specialised expertise. This approach might introduce a conflict of interest for barristers in the context of directly introducing the influence of the practices in which they operate. It could also give rise to the loss of the independence of the Bar, something which has long served consumers and their rights.

There are other economic benefits to having an independent Bar. It is a resource available to all solicitors and consequently to consumers. Any legislation which may undermine these practices should only be entered into if we can safely say that it will not lead either to a loss of proper independent legal representation or to further costs for consumers in the long term. For example, under the cab rank rule all solicitors have access to a range of expertise and their choice in respect of this will be dependent on past efficiency and budget. This rule results in a competitive and independent Bar, with some 2,300 barristers competing for business. If there are five leading barristers whose expertise is in the area of environmental law, they will be in competition with each other and a solicitor can access the best possible person to do the job at a competitive price.

Should we take three of these barristers out of the equation into the more attractive and lucrative area of commercial law, we will take valuable expertise from the consumer and reduce competition at the Bar while creating a monopoly of expertise in multidisciplinary partnerships. Further to this, these proposals were not set out by the IMF or in the Competition Authority report.

Therefore, I call on the Minister to commit to carrying out, as has already been called for, economic research in the field to produce evidence this transformation of the Bar will benefit the customer enough to justify the impact on the legal profession, and to revisit the decision to include it as legislation in the Bill, instead of introducing a further amendment at a later date to reduce the risk of making such distinctive changes for change's sake.

As I mentioned earlier, I have spoken to many legal professionals and law students about their opinions on the Bill and I am pleased to note the positivity on many levels, mainly about access to entering the profession itself. I look forward to the debate on Committee Stage relating to the proposed changes to the manner in which students may qualify as legal professionals.

I would like to quote an Irish judge of the 19th century, Sir James Mathew, who was born in 1830, who said, "In England, justice is open to all - like the Ritz Hotel." I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this topic and it is my hope the Bill will seek to make this comment completely untrue of the Irish legal system. I look forward to debating the issues raised in my speech, and many others, on Committee Stage to ensure such significant changes to our legal services serve the public while maintaining the independence of the legal professions.

See this speech in context