Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (Dublin North Central, Labour)

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Bill and thank the Minister for being in attendance in order that he might take on board the points being raised.

Having a properly constituted legal profession is a must in any republic. People need to be confident that the Judiciary and the legal system are even-handed and representative of them and can be trusted. We did not need to be informed by the troika that there were problems with our legal services. I congratulate the Minister on his reforming zeal in this regard. Among those who do not come from legal backgrounds, there is a perception that the law is practised by an elite, the members of which attended certain schools, possess a particular mindset and flex their muscles when anyone suggests there is a need for reform in the way in which they do their business. This was brought into stark focus late last year when, approximately one week before a referendum on the holding of Oireachtas inquiries was due to take place, a letter was sent to The Irish Times by a number of former Attorneys General. The individuals in question became very excited about this matter and indicated that granting the powers being sought to the Oireachtas would interfere with the independence of the Judiciary.

If we in this republic are serious about reform, there cannot be any sacred cows. Everything must be tested and investigated and capable of being renewed or reformed. I hope the Judiciary and the legal profession will understand that what the Government is doing represents an attempt to bring the profession into the 21st century, make it more accountable and ensure it is more real to the people. The profession must be rooted in society and should not be the preserve of those who come from particular backgrounds or were educated in certain schools. Such individuals tend to dominate the corridors of the Four Courts and other courts throughout the country and are of the view that they are the only citizens who have authority in discussing these issues.

A previous speaker referred to the Northside Community Law Centre. Many Deputies have engaged in consultations on the Bill and a number of concerns have been expressed which I know the Minister will take on board. It is only reasonable that we should ensure that anything we enshrine into law in this House will not need to be corrected at a later date. The common criticism of any attempt to reform the legal profession relates to its independence. In that context, concerns have been expressed about the independence of the proposed new regulatory authority, the way in which members of the authority will be appointed and the control the Minister will have in respect of many of its functions. If there is a myth in this regard, it must be exposed because we do not want accusations, suggestions or arguments not based in reality to be made. There is a need to deal definitively with the position of the proposed regulatory authority which will have overarching responsibility in this area. If there are concerns, they must be dealt with. In addition, if there are questions on the independence of the authority, they must be addressed. We cannot be seen in introducing reforms to be creating further problems. There is certainly a need for further consideration of this matter.

Previous speakers referred to access to justice and the establishment of multidisciplinary practices. Concerns have been expressed to the effect that such practices will not lead to an opening up of the legal profession but will, in fact, result in it becoming even more closed off. Access to the law and justice and fair representation is crucial in any republic, as is the concept of citizens being considered equal under the law. If one walks into the Four Courts, essentially what one will see is people wearing pinstripe suits being responsible for individuals in tracksuits being sent down. The grotesque reality is that the greatest crime one can commit in the State is to be poor. Poverty is the only thing we ever seem to criminalise; the statistics from any of the major prisons bear this out. Statistics for literacy levels among those who inhabit penal institutions also underpin what I am saying. All that we ever seem to become excited about are crimes committed by those who come from certain backgrounds or who are in certain desperate situations. Access to law and legal representation is, therefore, key in the matters to which I refer.

I ask the Minister to re-examine the position on multidisciplinary practices to determine whether they will improve access for those of lesser means or of if they will create an unintentional barrier to such access. I do not believe there is an option in terms of waiting to see how it all works out. Access to the law and legal representation is so fragile that there is an acute perception among those in certain parts of society that they cannot obtain justice, that justice does not serve them and that this republic does not cater for their needs. If we are seen to introduce a new strand to the legal profession which, essentially, will compound that perception, the reform being attempted in the Bill will only make matters worse. As a result, people's views on their ability to obtain fair play will be completely undermined.

While I congratulate the Minister on what he is trying to do - he is certainly taking on certain vested interests which, as we have seen, do not like to be challenged - it is of paramount importance to ensure we do not do anything which could undermine the overall objective of the Bill. We must also ensure the independence of the proposed new regulatory authority cannot be questioned and that the multidisciplinary practices, if they are to be established, will be constituted in a way which will not inhibit access for those of lesser means to proper representation. That is the least anybody could expect in a modern republic.

See this speech in context