Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)

I am sharing time with Deputy Tom Hayes. During the course of this debate some members of the Opposition have acted as advocates of the legal profession without really questioning what has been said to them by these practitioners. They should stand back for a while and ask themselves what the public perception of the legal profession is at this point. Phrases such as "too costly", "closed shop" and "not accountable enough" would have been said to them before this legislation was published. Members of the Opposition may become blinded when they want to attack the Minister and the Government and they take what is said to them as gospel. What this Government is constantly striving to achieve, and what people constantly look for in all aspects of public life, not only from the legal profession but in the health and education services and Government itself, is greater transparency and accountability, and better efficiencies. One must ask oneself whether these three cardinal points of what we are doing in government are blocked or in any way obstructed by what the Minister is doing in this legislation. Clearly, they are not. We should support this Bill.

I have heard words being thrown around by members of the legal profession to the effect that we are somehow obstructing constitutional freedoms. That is rubbish. We are not interfering in any way with people's constitutional rights in this legislation. I pose two questions. Are people confident right now that if they complain about a member of the legal profession they will get a fair hearing? Let us bear that in mind. Will the new legislation improve that confidence? That is difficult to answer. As both representatives of the people and as ordinary citizens these critics may believe they would get a fair hearing at present. Some people do not have much confidence in how the system works but they would like to give the Minister the benefit of the doubt in order to see whether the new system will improve matters. However, we know that members of this profession, like those in any profession, will say "No" to this legislation because there is a fear of change.

There is enormous resistance to change in any profession. I do not say this to have a go at the legal profession. In 2006 the Medical Practitioners Act was introduced to change the way the Medical Council worked, making it into a lay council rather than one dominated by the medical profession. All the arguments I now hear coming from the legal profession I heard five and six years ago coming from my own profession. There is the same muddying of the waters, attempting to link an independent judicial approach to self-regulation. We have had self-regulation in recent years but people still believe the system has not served them as well as it might have. For that reason we must ensure this legislation is as strong as possible in order to fulfil the cardinal rules by which we stand - transparency, accountability and efficiency.

I have read the same reports members of the Opposition mentioned. Most of what I heard quoted comes from the Law Society Gazette, arising from a conference that was held on this issue. It is disgraceful to have statements included that claim the Minister was "not accountable to any other". If members of the legal profession can state the Minister is accountable to nobody they clearly have no understanding of democracy. The Minister is accountable to the Cabinet and the Oireachtas. That makes him more accountable to the people of this country than many of those who speak of the so-called lack of accountability.

Prior to this, being self-regulating, the legal profession was accountable to itself. All the charges its members now make against the Minister might have been made against their own body during that time, namely, they would look after themselves, it was a closed shop, and all those other points. From the point of view of having openness, transparency and accountability this legislation will improve matters because the Minister cannot act like a dictator; he is accountable. Some of the charges I have read, made by contributors in the Law Society Gazette, claim that the constitutional checks and balances which characterise a democracy will be shut down because of this legislation. The writers claim the Minister will control education, licensing, rules of conduct and adequate practice of law. I ask those members of the legal profession, who controls all those issues now. They need to look in the mirror because it is they who control education, licensing, rules of conduct and adequate practice of law. Do they remark to themselves this is unconstitutional and undemocratic? Of course they do not. The Minister will not control these matters. He is setting up a new regulatory body that will take those responsibilities away from the current self-regulating regime and give them to a more democratic forum. That is the way to look at it.

The legal profession must be more open-minded about what is going on in this regard. I am disappointed in the way the attacks have been mounted and by some of the comments I have heard. I am surprised to hear members of the Opposition parrot many of these points freely in this Chamber without questioning what has been said to them. That is not what one would expect to happen in this democratic Chamber. The concerns, fears and anxieties expressed by the legal profession about constitutional checks and balances are exactly the same as those that were expressed by non-legal professionals. That is what we must deal with in this Chamber. I do not believe for a moment this is undemocratic. That being granted, in a debate in a Chamber such as this one can take on board what is being said and ask whether one can improve matters. That is the entire point of the way we deal with legislation.

For example, the Minister could make appointments to the board for a longer period, perhaps five or six years, because if people were to serve longer they might not be interested in serving twice or three times and might be more independent in how they operate. The Minister should place a report on the competency of the members of the regulatory body before the appropriate Oireachtas committee for consideration. There is no need to drag the actual individuals in but a report on their competency would be useful.

Other statements made in this Chamber were simply wrong. The Competition Authority did not state this legislation was wrong and we need to put that on record. A Member of the House stated the United Kingdom had looked at the same type of legislation and had rejected it. It did not. We may share the same system of common law but the UK has nine different regulatory bodies with an ombudsman to oversee all. What we propose is one regulatory body that would oversee all members of the legal profession in this country.

Members of the legal profession brought in experts from the United States, the UK and Europe but in their criticisms the experts do not make a case for their accusations. They state their opinions but do not give the background detail one would expect for the stand they make. That concerns me. It is a little like a doctor saying one has some problem but when one asks the reason one is told, "That is why". People expect a little more than that.

On multidisciplinary issues and groups coming together, this is happening in many other jurisdictions. Different groupings of the legal professions with different expertise come together and work in practices and this arrangement appears to work well in those countries. Even some of those who come from other jurisdictions who have criticised this legislation would recognise that access to the legal profession in their countries is difficult and expensive. The Minister has taken the right approach, and given what he has said all along, he will try to improve the transparency of the legislation. We are heading in the right direction to improve access to the profession.

Deputy Finian McGrath stated the multidisciplinary approach was wrong during the Celtic tiger era. The problem then, however, was that barristers and solicitors were representing both sides in cases. For example, solicitors acted for the sellers and buyers in the sale of houses. That is when things went wrong because due diligence was often not carried out. That has nothing to with the multidisciplinary concept provided for in the Bill. The Deputy has used the wrong argument to criticise the Minister. If Members think this approach will not work, they need to be specific about why they think that. I believe it will improve the law because many people do not understand the complexity of the law. It is a much better approach to get more complex legal issues dealt with in a one-stop-shop.

It is rubbish to suggest rural solicitors will be wiped off the map because they deal with simpler, run of the mill issues. The general practice of the legal profession is dealt with by them. People are confident in their local solicitors and the group practice approach will not affect that. The multidisciplinary approach could help people involved in business or those who need to undertake complex cases because they would prefer to access all the necessary expertise in the one location.

See this speech in context