Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

I thank Deputies on all sides of the House for their contributions to the Second Stage debate on this important Bill. The debate has provided us with an opportunity to consider the shape and content of the Bill in some detail, while taking account of the views of various stakeholders, including those of consumers and the legal profession as represented by the Law Society of Ireland and the Bar.

I regret some of the hysterical reaction to the Bill. I find it extraordinary that people should suggest it has any intent other than to provide for independent regulation of the legal profession and that it should be suggested that there is some secret Government plot to take over the legal profession. I practised as a lawyer for 35 years. I spent many of my early years in free legal advice centres. I was a director of the Crumlin centre and as chairman of the free legal advice centres campaigned for legal aid for civil cases when none existed. I come from a law practice that over the years has taken on a substantial amount of work pro bono, some of it from the free legal advice centres. Some of it resulted in constitutional actions or cases successfully taken against the State in the European Court. Consequently, I come from a background in which I greatly cherish and recognise the importance of having an independent legal profession and the role it plays within society. I also recognise the decency and honesty of the vast majority of members of the profession both within the solicitor's profession and at the Bar, while also recognising there are small numbers of individuals who have besmirched its name.

While this is from where I come, I also come from a position in which I believe the profession for many years has been in need of substantial reform, has been resistant to reform and used every means at its disposal to dissuade Governments from implementing any fundamental reform. The Administration is determined to introduce essential reform as part of the programme for Government. The legislation before Members today would have been introduced by the Government without the EU-IMF agreement. While the Government might have had an additional few weeks in which to prepare it, it would have been brought forward because, as Minister for Justice and Equality, I am determined that the legal profession be modernised, that we will move from self-regulation to independent regulation, that we will have greater transparency in legal costs and that the consumer will be central to how we proceed, not simply the vested interests of the individual professions. I make this point as a lawyer.

I do not know, when my term as Minister for Justice and Equality concludes, whether I will find myself back engaging in legal practice. While this is a matter I have not addressed, were I to do so, either as a rural or an urban solicitor, I would fear nothing contained in the Bill in the context of my independence in acting as a lawyer or with regard to the possibility of a legal practice being financially viable. It is important is to make this point because many strange things have been said both about Government motives and the impact the Bill may have. Somewhere along the route, some of those within the legal professions who have stridently opposed the Bill appear to have lost sight of the fact that self-interest does not always coincide with the public interest. This is a crucial point to make.

I have listened attentively to the contributions of Deputies and one certainly could not be in any doubt about the extent to which both legal professions have extensively lobbied Members of the House which is, of course, their right. Nonetheless, I find it disappointing that a large number of Second Stage interventions neglected to seek or reflect alternative views such as those relating to the protection of consumers and other constituents who have no vested interest and are not an organised group. Many of the speeches delivered were readily identifiable from the briefings widely distributed by the two professions to Members of the House. While individual Deputies, of course, were entitled to rely on such briefings, where was the consumer in their considerations? I refer to the consumer of legal services, the consumer who wishes to see greater competition, the consumer who seeks greater transparency in legal costs and the consumer who might benefit from a one-stop shop in which he or she could receive advice on a complex matter at a single location from perhaps his or her solicitor and accountant. The consumer has been substantially absent from many of the contributions heard in the House on the Bill. I state clearly this does not apply to all Deputies but an extraordinary number of Deputies entered the House, not having heard speeches delivered by other Members, and unknowingly repeated them from a brief that was readily identifiable to anyone who sat through the debate. The consumer is central to how the Government will proceed.

I was interested in comments made concerning another group which is central to the debate. Where do young lawyers stand in all of this? I refer to those newly qualified solicitors and barristers who do not have a background in the legal profession. They do not have daddies, mummies, uncles, aunts or cousins who are well known solicitors and barristers. Many such individuals have qualified in recent years and the options open to them to practice are so limited that after a few years of starving, they are leaving the profession. What consideration has been given by most Members of the House to the alternative mechanisms for delivering services the legislation will permit or the opportunities they provide for newly qualified young lawyers who, either themselves or their families, have spent large sums of money or may be in debt to qualify as legal practitioners but who currently have no outlet for their professional expertise?

It is also remarkable how little attention was paid to the views of the Competition Authority. While it was mentioned during the course of the debate today, it hardly featured outside otherwise. The Competition Authority has declared its general support for the substantial provisions of the Bill. It went to the trouble of making clear the reason it believed the Bill was in the interests of consumers. I note its views, not merely the view it has expressed on the Bill but through its reports dating back many years that have sought reform of the legal profession, have hardly featured in this debate. It is not its role to lobby Deputies and provide them with scripts; others clearly have done this. However, the authority made recommendations in the interests of consumers in the protection of the public interest. The Bill is focused on implementing those recommendations with merit, some of which had been studiously ignored by the legal profession, more particularly by the Bar than by the solicitors' profession which I acknowledge addressed a number of the issues raised by the authority.

The perspectives brought forward by Deputies have served to vindicate the fact that the Bill provides a balance between public and professional interests and strike that balance in an appropriate manner. The interests are iterated in the statutory objectives of the new legal services regulatory authority to be found in Part 2, section 9 of the Bill. For the first time in national legislation, these objectives commit to supporting the proper and effective administration of justice, encouraging an independent, strong and effective legal profession and promoting and maintaining adherence to what are described as the professional principles. Those who entered the Chamber to suggest the Bill threatened the independence of the legal profession appear to have missed the fact that this is the first legislation of which I am aware that gives statutory recognition to the importance of having an independent legal profession. This is the first time this value and importance attached to the legal system in our democracy are fully and properly recognised in a major statute.

Similarly, the Bill commits to promoting and protecting the public interest and the interests of consumers in the provision of legal services, while also promoting competition in the provision of these services. Members' discussion of the Bill has underscored the need to keep these objectives in balance. In that light, I will take account of the exchanges in the House in fine-tuning the Bill. I have never seen a Bill of this magnitude published by a Government and introduced to the House that did not require some fine-tuning and amendment. That is part of the democratic process and what makes meaningful debate in the House. I intend to bring forward timely and appropriate amendments on Committee Stage to address a number of issues.

In working towards an appropriate balance of the professional and public interests in the delivery of legal services I have been greatly encouraged by the decision taken by the council of the Law Society of Ireland on 20 January, namely, that the Law Society of Ireland recognises that "it would be in the best interests of the public and the profession" if complaints were no longer to be dealt with by the society but by the new legal services regulatory authority to be established under the Bill.

When it was first published, the Law Society of Ireland clearly opposed this very important reform. I commend it, having reconsidered its initial stance, for being willing to put aside the complaints procedures it has used and developed in the past 150 years in order that public perceptions of impartiality can be enhanced to the utmost degree. That is the value of debating issues, reflecting on initial stances and re-evaluating what is in the public interest. I thank the Law Society of Ireland and recognise that it has changed its perspective on the Bill. What it has done is a recognition of the public interest.

Unfortunately, I am not aware of the Bar Council of Ireland stating its position on this far-sighted step by the Law Society of Ireland, although it is my hope it will similarly embrace the independent complaints structures set out in the Bill. I remain confident that the council will ultimately recognise the obvious merits of an independent complaints procedure which is not merely in the public interest but also in the interest of the professions.

The independent complaints procedure will uphold the highest standards of professional conduct and it should apply equally to and be accepted by barristers as well as solicitors. Such an independent structure will enjoy a commensurate and the optimal level of confidence among the general public. The current Bar Council of Ireland complaints structure, although administratively compartmentalised, cannot achieve these attributes to the desired degree, as they are operative within the council's own domain. In their zeal to undermine the independence of the new legal services regulatory authority some have conveniently overlooked the reality that a representative body engaged in self-regulation tends not to be perceived as independent in carrying out its functions, as it essentially flies in the face of the well known legal principle, nemo iudex in sua causa , no one should be a judge in his or her own cause.

It is curious that a body which has sought to undermine the provisions of the Bill, by an allegation that the legal services regulatory authority will not be sufficiently independent, remains blind to the fact that the general public does not regard as independent the disciplinary structures run by that same body. That is why the debate which has taken place has been somewhat curious. When it came to regulation, the position of both the Law Society of Ireland and the Bar Council of Ireland was essentially one in which they wished to retain self-regulation and instead they attacked the Bill on the basis that the legal services regulatory authority would not be independent. They both seemed to lose sight of the fact that no one outside their hallowed corridors perceived their regulatory procedures to be independent.

I hope the wisdom of the Law Society of Ireland travels in the direction of the Bar Council of Ireland and that the council will recognise it is in public interest to have an independent complaints and disciplinary system in which there can be public confidence. There can be no perception that it is simply barristers adjudicating on barristers and solicitors adjudicating on solicitors when allegations of misconduct are made. I would have thought the principle nemo iudex in sua causa was widely recognised, understood and utilised by both legal professions when representing their clients in court cases. How they could be blind to the relevance of this principle with regard to their own complaints and disciplinary structure is difficult to fathom.

I will be bringing forward amendments to the complaints process, as outlined in Part 5 of the Bill, with a view to providing greater clarity in respect of the appointment of members to the complaints committee and the legal petitioners disciplinary tribunal, as well as the manner in which complaints will be dealt with by the authority, the complaints committee and the disciplinary tribunal. I see merit in having a greater role for the authority in settling complaints, as far as possible, by agreement between the parties or by mediation, particularly when the complaints do not relate to very serious matters but are clearly of concern to the complainant. It is important that this facility be available before the more formal processes of the complaints committee and the disciplinary tribunal come into play. This is in the public interest and the interests of those who believe their affairs have perhaps not been dealt with appropriately by a lawyer from whom they have sought assistance.

Having welcomed the deepening consensus on the Bill's independent complaints procedure in cases involving professional misconduct, it is worth recalling that the modernised legal costs regime provided for under Part 9 of the Bill has been welcomed by both the Law Society of Ireland and the Bar Council of Ireland. It has also met with the approval of Deputies across the House during the debate. The Bill has been welcomed by the Competition Authority, the National Competitiveness Council, consumer groups and a number of legal academics. When contributing to the debate in the House, I do not think a single Deputy made reference to the support expressed by the National Competitiveness Council, or by some legal academics, at least one of whom spoke at a conference organised to address issues relating to the Bill. Therefore, we already have a solid basis for a working consensus on the Bill and two of its key provisions, namely, the modernised legal costs regime and the independent public complaints procedures. I call on the Bar Council of Ireland to join in that consensus.

Having recognised the virtuous balance between professional and public interests already realisable under the Bill in terms of its respective legal costs and complaints provisions, I would like to turn to the concerns expressed by Deputies and the professional bodies about the Bill's potential impact on the independence of the legal professions. A number of these concerns have been directed at the impartiality of the new legal services regulatory authority and the modalities for its appointment, while others have been critical of the regulatory interface with the Government. It has been contended by some that the Bill could augur an era of improper interference with the independence of the two legal professions. As I mentioned at the outset of the debate, the objectives of the legal services regulatory authority are predicated, inter alia, on having "an independent, strong and effective legal profession" and adherence to "the professional principles" by legal practitioners who must act with independence and integrity, in the best interests of their clients and maintain proper standards of work. Moreover, they must comply with the duties rightfully owed to the court and, subject to professional obligations, keep the affairs of their clients confidential. These are all absolutes under the legislation. There can be no Government interference in that regard.

The legal services regulatory authority to be established under the Bill shall be "independent in the performance of its functions", having the necessary powers and functions to achieve this. Its independence will be protected under the Bill. This independence will be underpinned by the independent complaints regime and the independent legal practitioners' disciplinary tribunal. All of these entities will be beyond Government interference. Clearly, the guiding principles of independence permeate the Bill's key provisions, particularly those relating to the legal professions and the new regulatory architecture. The inclusion of these independence principles and their related objectives at various points in the Bill would not have made sense if there were a hidden or ulterior motive to usurp or undermine the independence and integrity of the legal professions.

Under this Bill, every lawyer will remain an officer of the court who is free to exercise independent judgment in the performance of his or her professional service, to provide legal services and to represent anyone in court proceedings in the absence of any executive control or pressure. All lawyers will remain completely free to champion fundamental rights under the Constitution and to sue the State before the courts without fear of executive disfavour, disadvantage or disapproval. They will also be free to sue the State in courts outside this jurisdiction such as, for example, the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice.

One of the criteria for promotion to the status of senior counsel under the Bill is a record of professional independence. What is interesting about the provision contained in the Bill in this regard is that not only will it implement a recommendation of the Competition Authority to facilitate the appointment of solicitors as senior counsel in the same way as solicitors in Northern Ireland and the remainder of the United Kingdom can be appointed Queen's counsel, it also - for the first time in statute - sets out a regulatory procedure for the appointment of senior counsel as opposed to having this based on something inherited from colonial times. The latter system emerged centuries ago under the guise of the lawyer central to providing advice to the King or Queen of England in particular matters. Essentially, there is nothing in the Bill which acts as a barrier of any description to a lawyer - be he or she a solicitor or barrister - representing an individual or a group of clients in respect of any matter relating to any legal issue.

I was interested to hear it suggested - this is reflected in the submission from the Bar Council - that the Bill creates some huge barrier to members of the Bar, in particular, undertaking pro bono work. The theory here is that barrister partnerships or multidisciplinary practices will not take on such work. The strange thing is that there are solicitors' practices throughout the entire country and the fact that solicitors can operate as partners has never acted as a barrier to their taking on pro bono work. It is difficult, therefore, to fathom the logic how barristers acting in partnership would be prohibited from taking on this work. If one is running a business and one wants to offer one's services free of charge to a person one believes to be in need and whom one feels one has an obligation to help, it is a simple matter of one making a decision to do so.

The independence of the Bar, the cab rank rule, etc., are all terribly important. If solicitors in a legal practice operating as partners can undertake pro bono work, I do not understand why allowing barristers to operate in the same way would create some unique barrier in the context of their also undertaking such work. Neither do I believe that the establishment of multidisciplinary practices will prevent people from taking on the type of work to which I refer. If those who are members of multidisciplinary work wish to take on pro bono work then, hey presto, they can do so. This is a voluntary thing and there is no mystery or magic attached to the fact of whether people are single practitioners.

The theory relating to the cab rank rule and members of the Bar being available to everyone, regardless of income, in respect of every type of legal case is interesting. However, it does not reflect the reality in some instances. The reality is that one cannot force people to take on cases if they do not wish to do so. There is also the fact that individuals receive things such as retainers. I have an abiding memory of what happened some years ago in respect of the tobacco industry when a number of litigants were considering suing that industry as a consequence of its concealing the dangers of developing cancer as a result of tobacco smoking. Substantial litigation in respect of this matter was entered into in the United States where, incidentally, lawyers are not separated into solicitors and barristers, and much of it was done on a pro bono basis in the hope that it would be successful. The fact that the lawyers involved were advocates and that they met their clients directly did not seem to inhibit them in the context of taking on pro bono work. That is just be way of an aside.

A great deal of the litigation pursued in the United States went extremely well. However, we have a different legal system here. Individuals were considering suing the tobacco companies here and the latter were in something of a panic about it all. I well remember being informed that a number of prominent senior counsel in the Bar Library had been paid very large fees by way of retainer in the event that their services should be required by the tobacco industry and also in order to take them off the park in the event that some individual suffering from cancer who alleged that his or her condition was the result of tobacco smoking wanted to instruct one of them. The cab rank rule does not quite dictate that every barrister in the Bar Library will be available to every litigant, regardless of his or her income. Let us not be under any illusions about that.

In my initial contribution to this debate on 16 December last, I reaffirmed that there is no hidden agenda in respect of ministerial functions or appointments under the Bill. I also invited constructive suggestions which might enhance the Bill's regulatory framework in this regard, within the Government's stated policy objective of independent regulation. I am more than happy to reiterate my invitation to all concerned to table constructive amendments, including in respect of the Bill's generic provision - based on legislative precedent - for a range of ministerial consents. In December I indicated that I would be removing the need for ministerial approval for any codes of practice which the legal services regulatory authority proposes to apply to the legal profession. I am actively considering other instances in the Bill where similar amendments might be made and where, having reflected on the contents of the Bill, I see no benefit or public interest in certain actions of the regulatory authority requiring ministerial consent.

I have also confirmed publicly that I am considering possible amendments in the context of creating an appropriately independent procedure for the appointment of members of the legal services regulatory authority. There are various models of reference by which this might be achieved. One of these is the possibility of advertising through the Public Appointments Service and another relates to the option of drawing from a pool of nominating bodies in respect of appointments to the new authority. I also intend to bring forward an amendment on Committee State in respect of section 8 in order to make provision to stagger the appointment of members of the authority. This would be similar to the provision contained in section 10(7) of the Property Services Regulation Act 2011. Such a measure would ensure continuity in the expertise and effectiveness of the authority, while safeguarding against the unilateral removal or roll-over of its entire membership in one sweep.

I am also considering other aspects of the regulatory authority and its governance. Although these aspects were made subject to standard legislative provisions on establishment, powers and functions in preparing the Bill, I am satisfied that they can be enhanced in order to allay any fears or perception regarding the possible imposition of any undue administrative, financial or other dependencies on the new regulatory authority. Similarly, staff appointments would be better made by the regulatory authority itself under a public competition carried out by the Public Appointments Service rather than under the process of ministerial appointment which applies to civil servants generally. The latter process would be inappropriate in this instance. There is a useful precedent in this regard in the context of appointments to the Human Rights Commission and this will be reflected in the legislation we will be publishing in respect of the amalgamation of that commission and the Equality Authority into a single human rights and equality commission. While I do not wish to downplay their current concerns about the future, it will be open to staff of the existing legal representative bodies - who would obviously possess the relevant skills and experience - to offer to apply for positions advertised by the new and independent legal services regulatory authority.

I am also persuaded by the view that the power to supervise and inspect compliance with the regulations relating to solicitors' accounts should remain vested in the Law Society. Under the Bill, the society will continue to have ultimate administrative and financial responsibility for the solicitors' compensation fund. This refinement of the Law Society's proposed functions with regard to the fund can better incentivise compliance by solicitors in public and professional interests while avoiding the imposition of any burden on public resources. If such work undertaken on behalf of the Law Society disclosed any misconduct this would be dealt with by the independent disciplinary system prescribed in the Bill. If at a future stage the legal services regulatory authority were to recommend direct access to barristers for contentious business the issue of inspecting barristers' accounts would need to be considered and addressed.

A number of arguments have been put forward on the potential costs of the new regulatory authority and their possible imposition on consumers as an additional burden, and quite a number of Deputies referred to this. Much of this argument has been fallacious in that it has studiously ignored the fact that legal practitioners already pay substantial fees in support of duplicative frameworks encompassing disciplinary committees and their attendant adjudication appeal and tribunal structures. These costs are already being levied on legal practitioners as well as being passed on to consumers. The Bill will transpose some existing supervisory and disciplinary structures, in the case of barristers for the first time in legislation.

The relevant regulatory costs should logically transfer from the existing structures to the new regulatory architecture. It seems many of the Deputies who contributed to the debate on this aspect of the matter were oblivious to the fact that it is estimated that €11.5 million is spent at present by the Law Society on its regulatory functions and this money is effectively levied from solicitors who no doubt have regard to it in determining levels of legal costs charged to their clients.

With regard to legal costs generally it should be remembered the mere existence of downward pressure on legal costs due to the current economic recession does not in itself represent sustainable structural reform of what the EU, IMF and some Deputies have described as the sheltered professions. The Bill recognises the need for a longer-term solution and puts the relevant change, transparency and redress measures in place so legal services can be provided in keeping with a modern, competitive, recovering and open economy.

The negative campaigning against the Bill conducted at international level has merely provided a platform for external lawyers or other parties to undermine Irish legal practice and its international reputation in a way discouraging to potential foreign investors. It is quite clear that some of those from outside the State who commented on the Bill have not carefully considered the full detail of the Bill prior to making the comments they made, nor have they managed to distinguish between the representative and regulatory functions exercised individually by the Law Society and the Bar Council.

I remain conscious of the need to achieve greater competitiveness in tendering and procurement of legal services whether by the State or private enterprise. This is an issue to which some Deputies correctly referred. We must prevent from occurring again situations such as that experienced under NAMA where a prohibitive €25 million turnover criterion was applied in the procurement of legal and financial advisory services to the exclusion of many viable prospective providers and the exclusion of the vast majority of solicitors' firms throughout the State. Such an approach was detrimental to the State and contrary to the public interest.

The tendering for legal services by State bodies is, as Deputies are aware, under active review by the Committee of Public Accounts and by my colleague the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin. These are matters to which I may return on Committee Stage subject to developments. Consideration was given in the preparation of the Bill to including express provisions to address the issue of tendering by the State and State bodies for legal services, and it is an issue that will be addressed in work being undertaken by me and the Minister, Deputy Howlin. It is merely a question of the appropriate legislative mechanism by which we address it and the further work being undertaken by the Committee of Public Accounts.

At the broader sectoral level, the Bill provides greater flexibility and opportunity for the provision and consumption of legal services. Therefore it can provide for legal partnerships as referred to earlier in which there is a mix of legal practitioners in a firm. It can also provide for multidisciplinary practices in which there is a mix of professional legal practitioners - barristers and solicitors - and others such as tax consultants or accountants. Such change is not something that can be rolled out instantly. The Government recognises that prudential safeguards will need to be put in place for professionals and consumers. Under section 75 of the Bill the authority will carry out a public consultation and evaluation process and then report to the Minister on the manner in which these models for delivery of legal services should be formed and operated. It is only when this process has been completed that the relevant provisions by way of regulation or codes of practice or otherwise can be framed.

I listened with great interest to what some Deputies stated about the threats posed by multidisciplinary practices. Such practices are now being established in other jurisdictions, where a great deal of work has been done on how one deals with regulatory matters and ethical issues with regard to such practices. No one in the legal profession should be threatened by the possibility of barrister partnerships, legal solicitor partnerships or multidisciplinary practices. As many at the Bar are well aware, in the legal profession are what I describe as virtual partnerships between some members of the Bar and solicitors whereby some members of the Bar regularly get work from one or two identifiable practices on whom they are dependent for their income, and solicitors regularly interact with a very small number of members of the Bar. This does not happen on all occasions.

A speaker today referred to the fact that not all members of the Bar are in the Law Library. Barristers operate in group practices in parts of rural Ireland. They cannot advertise that they do so, but to all intents and purposes they are partners save in name. They can share expenses but not income.

With regard to some young barristers who starve at the Bar, would their position not be far better secured, their economic future protected and the value of their education used in the public interest if they could be employed directly in a solicitors' firm or a barrister group practice which would give them a guaranteed income in a proper business model while ensuring through codes of practice and statute that everyone still had to comply with what we have described as the crucial principles applicable to the legal profession? I have received substantial support from newly qualified members of the Bar, some of whom are desperate to try to keep themselves together financially, from newly qualified solicitors and a number of individuals who see new opportunities to use their expertise in the provision of legal services which are not available to them at present.

A key point to be made about the legislation is that it does not prevent any solicitor operating a one-man or one-woman practice; it does not prevent members of the Bar continuing to operate as single practitioners out of the Law Library; and it does not prevent solicitors continuing to operate in partnerships. The Bill does not prescribe whether we have a very large or very small law firms. At present we have what are known as the big five solicitors' firms. We also have middle-range firms, small partnerships and individual solicitors throughout the country. They are consulted by clients and provide legal services. The Bill simply creates additional models through which legal services can be delivered to the benefit of the public. Ultimately they will benefit members of the legal profession, particularly those trying to find their way and earn a living, who do not have relations, parents or cousins who are members of the Bar or members of the profession. I am not at all convinced by the stark proposition that the new business structures to be enabled under the Bill will wipe out existing legal practices as a result of cherry-picking by well-placed legal practitioners or specialists, thereby leading to a diminution of access to justice. There are legal practitioners who would readily refute the contention that the current architecture of the legal profession is a flat paradigm, void of any circles of access or influence and with no dominating players in the field.

I emphasise that although the Bill introduces change and permits new business models, it does not impede the existing practice models applicable to barristers or solicitors. Barristers who wish to do so can continue to be self-employed and work from the Bar Library. What is being proposed is an alternative structure in which legal services can be provided using the innovative business technologies now in play, with greater competitiveness and the support of early national economic recovery. A substantial number of individual and partnered legal practices are already using these technologies, pushing out the traditional boundaries of the legal domain. Across the common law jurisdiction, new legal business technologies are being rolled out under new laws providing new legal commercial opportunities and career options. We in this country must respond to what is happening in the global environment. We cannot continue to operate legal services as they were operated in the 19th century, with no change. We cannot continue to be blind - as some would wish me to be - to developments that have taken place across the water in England against which law firms on this island are competing with regard to certain types of commercial work.

Our Second Stage debate has been useful in making up in part for the compressed timeframe in which this Bill has had to be promulgated by way of response to an acute economic crisis that is being addressed under the EU-IMF-ECB programme. I reiterate the Bill would have been published, addressing all the reforming measures without its being party to the programme, but it was the timeframe detailed within the programme that required it to be published at such speed, within a short time of this Government taking up office. The debate has also provided an opportunity to fine-tune our perspectives on the more generic legislative provisions which have been drawn from in preparing the Bill. As outlined, and in light of my Department's ongoing work on the Bill, there will be a number of constructive amendments that can be put in train for Committee Stage.

I also acknowledge and thank those bodies and individuals who furnished very detailed submissions to my Department with regard to possible amendments, changes and developments of the Bill to fine-tune its provisions, ensure we address all the important issues we wish to address, and ensure that when we establish the legal services authority, it will be competent and able to fulfil its duties, undertake its work and meet the onerous obligations imposed on it under the terms of the legislation.

As I signalled, there is an ongoing opportunity for Deputies to put forward constructive proposals, which I welcome. Although a preliminary regulatory impact assessment had been in preparation for the Bill, because of the prescribed timeframe from the EU-IMF, it did not prove possible to complete it for publication when the Bill was published for this debate. The development of that regulatory impact assessment is further advanced and will continue against the backdrop of the amendments I propose for the Bill. It will be made available for timely consideration in advance of Committee Stage. Deputies will be aware that the relevant guidelines specifically allow for regulatory impact assessment to follow a Bill in such exceptional circumstances as applied in this instance.

Substantial positive progress has already been made towards achieving an appropriate balance between the independence of the legal professions and the Government's stated policy objective of independent regulation. At this juncture we have reached a point where we can realise the key reforms to be delivered under the Legal Services Regulation Bill. Even though there is opposition from the professions to aspects of the Bill, it is interesting to note it now seems both the Law Society and the Bar accept independent regulation, as opposed to self-regulation. The only matter at issue appears to be the modalities for the appointment of individuals to the new legal services regulatory authority. The Bill provides for an independent legal services authority, an independent complaints framework and an independent legal practitioners disciplinary tribunal. These are being buttressed by the functions and powers of a modernised office of the legal costs adjudicator, with the support of transparent legal cost principles and procedures.

I welcome and appreciate the engagement on Second Stage of the Bill and I look forward to Committee Stage. I will make my proposed amendments to the Bill available to Deputies sufficiently in advance of Committee Stage to facilitate their due consideration. It is clear from our exchanges and from what I stated this morning that the Government is well on the road to facilitating a workable convergence of the relevant, professional, consumer and other interests in regard to the new legal services architecture. A number of key actors have chosen to reciprocate this approach, which remains open to all comers. There are no remaining obstacles to the perfection of this Bill and its timely reforms other than that of opposition to the very idea of independent regulation.

I welcome that the majority of speakers in this House, even when they had issues with aspects of the Bill, appeared to support the concept of independent regulation. This did not apply to all. Some of the contributions showed ambiguity as to whether the speakers supported independent regulation and simply wanted to copperfasten that independence or whether they were harking back to self-regulation and their arguments were more of a Trojan horse to undermine the Bill. The substantial majority support in this House was for the intent of the Bill.

I thank Deputies for the detailed consideration they gave to the Bill. I look forward to a constructive Committee Stage and hope we will see this legislation enacted during the course of this year, with the very important reforms that have been so badly needed for so many years in place, in the public interest, in the interest of consumers, and in the interests of the legal profession.

See this speech in context