Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)

I do not come from a legal background, but certain aspects of the Bill are extremely controversial.

In the Programme for National Recovery the Government set out to reform the legal services market, establish independent regulation of the legal profession, improve access and competition, make legal costs more transparent and ensure adequate procedures for addressing consumer complaints and all of these are laudable. Like other Deputies, I have been contacted by members of the legal profession with their concerns. They feel many provisions of the Bill in its current form would be detrimental to the judicial system not only for those working in it but for those who avail of it before the courts. I am not sure so I come to this wondering how I will end up thinking about it in the long run.

The Bill proposes a regulatory model which is far more expensive than necessary. The Law Society points out that at a time of economic distress and when in excess of 1,000 solicitors are unemployed, the cost will inevitably be passed on to the client. It states that it will be deeply ironic if a legislative measure designed to reduce costs to the consumer actually increases them.

Criticism has also been made of the unacceptable level of control the Government would have. I know the Minister disagrees with this, but it is stated that Ireland would be unique in Europe. The proposed regulatory authority would be Government controlled, with Government control over entry, training and discipline, and there is a perception the authority would be subservient to the Government. There are also concerns that this measure is not democratic and will not contribute to democracy, and that there will be a negative impact on the rule of law in Ireland and the independence of the legal profession.

Opinions on the Bill vary from one extreme to the other. Dr. Mark Ellis has stated it is one of the most extensive and far-reaching attempts by a Government to control the legal profession, and that the Law Society and the Bar Council will find themselves no longer truly independent. In the article I read he examined international similarities with what has been proposed and referred to countries such as China, Iran, Gambia and Vietnam. All four countries appear to have a similar mechanism to the one proposed in the Bill. Essentially, their governments control the legal profession. He also comments on the unilateral and arbitrary exclusive discretionary authority the Minister for Justice and Equality has identified for himself and himself alone, and on the fact that the Minister's approval and consent would be needed for every aspect of the governance provided in the Bill.

Lawyers will tell us the Competition Authority's report failed to unearth any anti-competitive practices, so they claim the Bill and the model proposed in it is fundamentally different from that in the report. The Law Society states that the Bill constitutes a significant threat to its independence as the ultimate decision maker.

Does it go against the core principles of the European legal profession and international norms? I read what former Chief Justice, Mr. Ronan Keane, had to say. He welcomed many aspects of the Bill but expressed misgivings. He accepted the need for regulation but stated that it should not take a form that would damage the profession and be damaging to the interests of those availing of legal services. He also raised the question of how truly independent the authority will be in carrying out its work. The Bar Council claims consultation with it was very limited with no meaningful discussion with the Minister. The Minister says otherwise. Where do the requirements of the troika come in? Is it being used inappropriately as a big stick?

Reading through all of this makes it difficult to establish the truth. Other speakers mentioned perception and how lawyers and the legal profession are viewed in the country. Generally they are not held in high esteem. This is due to the obscene salaries a certain number of them receive from tribunals of inquiry. They also seem to speak a language different to that which we speak. Exorbitant rates are charged and cases are delayed which means more money. There is an aspect of looking at the profession almost as a necessary evil.

The roles of solicitors and barristers cause confusion. Having worked as a guidance counsellor I know how daunting it was for students working their way through the various entry processes, dealing with the changes that occurred over the years and the length of time before qualification. There is also the otherworldly air conveyed by the legal profession. Its members are seen as the high rollers of society. Unlike other professions only certain sections of society come in touch with them, whereas everybody will come in touch with a teacher. I am not maligning them; I am examining how they are viewed by many people in Ireland. We know there are people who have not been best served by the law or the legal profession.

I commend the work of the criminal legal aid scheme. These lawyers must be distinguished from those advising the Government or working for the likes of NAMA at very excessive salaries. I have been told the high fees attributed to individual legal aid solicitors are actually those earned by an entire firm and not an individual. The legal aid scheme is suffering and has experienced cuts of more than 30% over the past two years. There is a real danger, as has been expressed by people in the legal profession, that as with health a two tier system may evolve for those who can afford to pay and properly finance their defence and representation and those dependent on a shoestring legal aid budget. There has been a considerable increase in the demand for legal aid services due to the economic downturn. There is a greater need for them and there will be longer waiting times with additional costs. I commend New Beginning for the work it does and has offered to do for those in mortgage distress.

I have spoken to people at the lower end of the profession. They exist on a pittance and find it very difficult to continue with their training. These young trainees wait for hours hoping work will come their way and they certainly are not making vast sums of money. I hope their role and issues can be addressed.

I tabled a priority question on the community courts and I remember the answer given by the Minister. I still find it hard to get my head around the fact that funding will not be diverted towards a system of community courts which has been found to work and prevent the revolving door for certain sections of society and certain crimes. However funding still goes to a system which does not produce results and does not keep people out of courts and jail. Green Street Courthouse is sitting idle. I know the Minister agrees with the idea of restorative justice and he has spoken about it. Community service is in place and this is the last piece of the puzzle. I am not calling for extra funding but rather a diversion of funding from what does not work to a system that has been shown to work in other places.

To return to the independence issue, the legal profession accepts that it must be independently regulated. This means regulated independently of the profession and of the Government. Looking at it from the outside, it appears that what is being proposed is not strictly independent. It was described as one of the Minister's creatures; I do not know. The Government will be solely responsible for the appointment of the majority of the 11 members of the authority, at least seven, with no specific qualifications required for these seven. The Bar Council will nominate four which the Minister has discretion to accept.

See this speech in context