Anne Ferris (Wicklow, Labour)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Legal Services Regulation Bill. This Bill will significantly reform our legal system, and the overall effects of its measures should be examined. The Bill has received criticism for being rushed through with little time for consultation. This is understandable given the timetable of the EU-IMF programme which required the introduction of the Bill in the third quarter of last year. I am satisfied we now have time to discuss the proposals in depth. These proposals will affect everything from how legal costs are decided to how barristers and solicitors conduct their business, and I am hopeful they will have a positive effect for consumers. There are, however, a number of issues that have not been addressed, including that of competitive tendering for State contracts, and others that require amendment. I know the Minister is open to constructive amendments and I welcome the process of engagement that is to occur on Committee Stage.

Legal services in this country are often perceived to operate in the form of a cartel, with excessive fees charged by a small elite group of barristers and dominant law firms that kill competition. This view was reinforced in the years of the Celtic tiger and the tribunals. In an age of austerity, however, people are less willing to accept the status quo, and this Bill challenges it. The changes proposed may be feared by those whose interests are threatened. Indeed, there are many who would do anything to ensure that nothing changed.

In seeking change, the interests of the public must be put to the forefront of debate. The needs of the consumer and of society are consistent with an independent legal system free from interference from Government and from the self-interest of those whom it is supposed to regulate. I highlighted previously the fact that up to last year, not one barrister had ever been discharged in the history of the State. This was a fact I found quite surprising. People simply do not have faith in the professions to regulate themselves. While I welcome the end of self-regulation, the mechanism that is to be put in its place must be consistent with independence. I know this is the Minister's intention and that, in ensuring this, certain amendments will be necessary for the sake of clarity. For instance, I welcome the removal of the Minister's consent requirement for a code of practice for the Bar Council. I would also welcome clarity on how the new regulatory authority is to be appointed, and I would certainly like to see the values of diversity and gender balance reflected in it. The process by which a person can be removed from the authority must also be examined. The Minister will consider these issues and I welcome that.

The Bill is quite strong on the issue of costs, as it should and must be. Justice, after all, has not always been blind. Her eyes have been open to manipulation, money and greed. For that reason I welcome the transparency to be brought to the costs structure. This issue comes to the fore all too often when one hears of the excessive fees charged to the State and to the private individual. Fees affect access to justice. The wealthy can hire whomever they please to attack or defend a position of interest; the same access is not necessarily afforded to the less well off.

Only last week I read about the National Consumer Agency's survey on solicitor's fees. The results were quite disappointing. The survey highlighted significant disparities in fee charges, vagueness as to what was included within a charge and an overall lack of clarity on the ability of a consumer to compare and contrast quotes on certain matters. I understand that the National Consumer Agency has called for more work to be carried out to enable people to make a fully informed decision before hiring a solicitor and I support this call. However, while I am very critical of many aspects of the profession, I certainly do not refer to all firms, solicitors and barristers. I am well aware of the great work carried out pro bono and of the support that organisations such as the free legal aid centres give to a wide variety of individuals. Unfortunately, when one reads about the Taxing Master having to reduce incredible fee charges, it becomes difficult to defend a system that allows this to happen. It is also a bit rich to hear certain barristers and solicitors speak on social justice and equity of access. Their "deep concern" for their fellow man is quite touching. I compliment them on their golden hearts and brazen necks.

The sheer volume of money that some lawyers make is quite obscene. If reduced fees were charged, perhaps more money could be made available for the courts system generally. Although this would not be a comprehensive answer to the question of properly resourcing the courts, I am sure it would help. The courts system needs to be properly resourced. In my constituency of Wicklow, family law cases are being significantly delayed and court buildings such as the Wicklow courthouse are not being used because they are in desperate need of refurbishment.

It is a symptom of a wider problem. A number of court registrar positions remain vacant and I note that a recommendation of the legal costs working group has not been included in this Bill. There has been failure to increase the civil jurisdictional limits since 1991 and that has led to a situation where more and more cases are unnecessarily heard in the higher courts, with attendant increased legal costs. However, this could be dealt with as a separate matter.

On the subject of the courts system, I welcome the Government's decision to introduce legislation this year on the establishment of a judicial council. I also call for the establishment of the permanent civil court of appeal that is promised in the programme for Government. In a reply to a parliamentary question from me, the Minister said he did not envisage a referendum on this issue taking place before the autumn of this year. He also stated that it was his intention to finalise examination of the detail and to progress the matter at the earliest suitable opportunity. Perhaps he would give us a more certain date as to when he expects to proceed on this matter.

Another issue that is strangely absent from this Bill is competitive tendering. This subject was examined by the Competition Authority but it does not appear to be addressed by this legislation. The State is the biggest customer of legal services. It spends almost €500 million on legal fees, according to studies from the legal costs working group and the Committee of Public Accounts. The bizarre situation has arisen whereby the State is not statutorily obliged to engage in competitive tendering for these lucrative contracts. While directions are issued by Departments within a circular, these do not have legally binding force. It is not clear why this was not included in the legislation. I understand that a reduction in the legal spend was achieved last year but, while this is welcome, it is not a reason for not introducing competitive tendering.

Furthermore, the European Commission has issued a proposal for a new EU public procurement directive. The results of the evaluation of the impact and effectiveness of EU public procurement legislation state that legal services ought to be included in the full application of the directive. It is strange therefore, given that this legislation will likely come into force in 2014, that this is not incorporated in the Bill. It would benefit the consumer and, perhaps, younger lawyers who might be able to avail of contracts therein.

While I have criticisms of the Bill and of areas outside its reference, I hope the matters I have raised will be dealt with comprehensively. The legal system is archaic and while its criers and ushers may now be part of the recent past, more needs to be done. In a submission to the justice, defence and equality committee, the Free Legal Advice Centres, FLAC, put forward its views on the Bill. I support some of its recommendations, including the changes it proposes on the objectives through the addition of the word "diverse" to the objective that looks to "encouraging an independent, strong and effective legal profession". I also support the incorporation of the UN's basic principles on the role of lawyers and the additional function for the proposed legal services regulatory authority of the promotion of understanding of law and the legal system.

I largely support the general principles outlined in the Bill but I am anxious that the scales of justice be rebalanced carefully so that the benefit to the public can be realised. Like other Deputies, I thank the Minister for being present to listen to all the contributions to the debate. I am very hopeful about the conclusions he will reach.

See this speech in context