Mr. Liam O'Daly:

We did, in 2011, enter discussions with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform because, obviously, we had to justify the present system. The discussions took place from the point of view of putting in processes that get value for money for the State. That is the criterion. Admittedly, things have moved on, but in 2011 the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform stated that it was satisfied with the process we had in place to ensure we engaged the right barristers for the purposes of the cases for the State. They were satisfied that the system produced savings and from that point of view, they were happy that we did not move. There were discussions about different methods of procurement in the sense of how it might work.

I totally acknowledge the arguments Deputy Nolan has made in the sense that in certain types of litigation, it would be my view that there is room for a different method, particularly in relation to what I would regard as process-driven type litigation whereby perhaps, without in any way demeaning a level of work, the level of legal expertise is not as high. However, in constitutional cases and in a large number of the very complicated cases we have, that just would not work because we need flexibility. If we had a rigid procurement process for each case, for example, there could be different models. It would not necessarily have to be for each case, we could have some form of tendering process for each panel as such. That is possible. In constitutional cases and for big cases - I am conscious that there are types of cases that involve other entities as well - the idea of not getting the best, and cost being the driver in that, is just not acceptable. I understand the Deputy's point that cost obviously has to be a factor - of course it is under the system that we have - but a pre-eminence is given to people's expertise.