Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)

I welcome the opportunity to say a few words about this legislation, which I substantially welcome. It is overdue in the sense that a review of the structures under which the legal profession operates and under which citizens consume legal services is long overdue.

This Bill is not about the Minister for Justice and Equality or a future Minister. It is not really about solicitors or lawyers either or about judges. It is about consumers and citizens. By and large, the Bill, with the promised amendments to which the Minister alluded, will serve the citizens of this country better than they have been served to date by the current structures.

The rationale for the legislation is widely understood. There are commitments in the programme for Government about greater regulation of the profession, greater transparency with regard to costs, complaints, etc. That is logical enough and I will refer to that in more detail later. However, there is also a background in respect of the terms and conditions of the troika bailout and there was, previous to that, the reports of the Competition Authority and the legal costs working group about the affordability of legal services to consumers. In that sense, the Bill is understandable in its rationale and, clearly, is a welcome step with the amendments that the Minister has promised.

The truth, I suppose, for the legal profession today is that many practitioners at various levels, be they solicitors or barristers, like all other sectors of the economy are feeling the chill winds of the economic downturn. Many have seen their businesses collapse. There is an exodus from the profession and large numbers in the profession are unemployed.

I suppose, like in other areas of society, the profession is to some degree tarnished by the excessive greed of a minority of practitioners and by the criminality of some of the practitioners as well. In that area, the issue of regulation comes centre stage. I welcome the fact that the regulation of the profession in future will not be a self-regulatory model and that there will be in the new regulatory authority with a majority of non-legal persons. The point made by one of the previous speakers, Deputy John Paul Phelan, about the requirement for dealing with it at arms length and using the public appointments commission is something upon which the Minister might reflect. It would address some of the concerns about the excessive reach of the Minister for Justice and Equality and his capacity to interfere in the regulatory process. However, the Bill is overdue.

The point was made by previous speakers that in the history of the profession of barristers, not one has been debarred under their self-regulatory model. This strikes one as somewhat unusual in the history of the profession. All of us are familiar with complaints from constituents about feeling short-changed by the legal practitioners, and I welcome this model of regulation.

On the issue of competition, I hold the fundamental view that the surest way of guaranteeing real competition is for there to be easy access to the profession in terms of qualification. The current model is bedevilled by the fact that there are too many gatekeepers along the way. There is not an opportunity for seamless progression, from entry into studies to qualifying, as the case may be, as a solicitor or barrister without the good will of existing practitioners, be they solicitors' offices or barristers. That is something that needs to be addressed. Regrettably, it is not addressed in the Bill in its current format. That is a weakness we must explore on Committee Stage.

The colleges are packed with law students. There are thousands of qualified law graduates who, through no fault of their own, cannot proceed to practise law because they cannot get an apprenticeship. I understand the economic downturn and that if one takes on an apprentice, one must pay him or her, but that is a weakness in the training system that must be addressed. If we entice persons into pursuing a legal career by going to college to study law, we must be able to guarantee them a seamless progression from that date of entry to a point where they can practise law. That is not there at present. It is a significant weakness in terms of competition because real competition is guaranteed by new blood coming into the profession and, as I stated, there are too many gatekeepers in the profession at the moment.

I am conscious that I make this point in the presence of a barrister but I think the opportunity has been lost for real reform, to have a unitary profession and do away with what is, by and large, a self-serving distinction between solicitors and barristers. In essence, it is about speciality. One advocates well in court and the other, the solicitor, draws up a will or does conveyancing. It is a self-serving differentiation. By and large, they are similarly legally qualified in terms of their basic training. In terms of barristers, there are junior counsel and senior counsel, and I am not sure these archaic distinctions are worthy of continuance in a legislative proposal that seeks to be radical and reforming and to embrace changed circumstances in the country. In some respects, opportunities were lost in terms of where the legislation could go.

I get the distinct impression from engaging with the representative bodies that they are not entirely comfortable with the idea of debating and making their point with politicians. It strikes me as something of a superiority complex. I must comment on the discussion on this legislation in the Law Society Gazette, which bordered on hysteria, did a disservice to the national interest in terms of the critical economic times we are in and damaged the society's case, given it has some points which are worthy of consideration. However, the manner in which it flagged these issues to an international audience, and compared us with jurisdictions that have a tenuous grasp of democracy and of democratic legal systems, over-egged its case and reflects very poorly on the Law Society.

I have concerns about a number of specific aspects of the Bill. Coming from provincial Ireland as I do, I am concerned about the proposal to provide for multidisciplinary practices and legal partnerships. Although I may be subject to correction, provision for this was made previously but it was not enacted under existing legislation at the Minister's discretion, but it is proposed in this Bill to enable such multidisciplinary practices. What I understand from this is that the best legal firms in this city and the larger cities will have partnership arrangements with the best barristers. If I am a client seeking legal services in provincial Ireland, my home town solicitor may not be in a position to access the best advice on my behalf from a barrister because barristers will be tied by virtue of a commercial arrangement with other solicitors' practices. That is fundamentally uncompetitive in a Bill that talks about introducing greater competitiveness to the profession. It is an issue which causes me great concern and which I look forward to taking up with the Minister at a later stage.

I wish to raise two other issues which are not dealt with in the Bill but which are a cause of concern. I noted in recent media coverage that, notwithstanding the best efforts of this Minister and the previous Minister, it has proved to be virtually impossible to rein in the runaway costs of the legal aid system. I understand the constitutional requirement that everybody is entitled to legal representation and people of low income must have that provided for them by the legal aid system. That is as it should be. However, that system being abused by repeat offenders ad nauseam is grossly offensive to taxpayers. The Minister needs to address this issue, obviously in consultation with the Attorney General, because it is a runaway cost. I note from recent media coverage that the best efforts of the Minister have again been thwarted in respect of his endeavours to bring that cost under control. He might deal with this in his response.

A related matter is the State's own requirement for legal services and the fact a closed shop exists at present. When the State seeks legal services, we know automatically it will be one of three or four large solicitor practices in this city that will provide them. That is not as it should be in a competitive environment and in the context of legislation that is focused on greater value for money for the State and consumers and taking costs out of business. This matter needs to be addressed. There should be tendering for legal advice, perhaps involving a panel of practices which would pre-qualify. This area should be opened to greater competition, in particular competition outside of this city. There are many fine practitioners across the length and breadth of the country who would be equally capable of doing a good job for the State at a very competitive rate.

See this speech in context