Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Several of the proposed amendments to section 8 are intended to increase the actual and perceived independence of the authority from the Government. When the Bill was published in 2011, concerns were raised about the issue of how the members of the new authority would be appointed and the independence of that process.

These concerns emanated largely from the fact that the Bill, as published, drew heavily from standard provisions relating to State bodies whereas the legal services regulatory authority is a different type of entity. Immediately after publication of the Bill, therefore, I made clear my intention to remove any unnecessary ministerial consents or involvements in the appointment or functioning of the new regulatory authority. This first amendment makes it a requirement that an Oireachtas resolution be passed prior to the formal appointment of members of the authority taking place. Those members of the authority are now to be nominated by independent bodies, as we will see in my later amendments.

The device of using Dáil and Seanad resolutions prior to the making of important appointments has other precedents on the Statute Book. For example, this is how the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission is appointed under section 65 of the Garda Act 2005. It acts as one of a suite of safeguards being proposed in today's amendments by me against the albeit unlikely scenario of any given Government of the day interfering with or arbitrarily interfering with the modalities of nomination and appointment to the new regulatory authority.

With regard to Government amendment No. 11, the original provision at section 8(3) provides that among those members to be appointed to the authority are persons who have expertise in regard to one or more of a range of matters, including the provision of legal services, the maintenance of standards in professions regulated by a statutory body and the needs of consumers of legal services. The proposed amendment to subsection (3) is a small but important one. It is based on an advisory counsel's opinion that more specific criteria in regard to eligibility for membership, such that all members must have some of the qualities identified at section 8(3), are required. The effect of the amendment is that not some but every member of the authority will have relevant expertise. This was always the intention, so it is a tidying up of that provision.

Government amendment No. 13 amends subsection (4). It belongs to a suite of amendments that are at the centre of what I would like to achieve here today as they bolster with legal clarity the independence of the authority from Government. The approach I wish to take has been influenced by written and verbal submissions from the Law Society, the Dublin Solicitors Bar Association, the Bar Council and several other key interested parties from whom we received submissions. It therefore meets most, if not all, of the concerns that lie behind the similar amendments being put forward by the Opposition today, which closely resemble those proposed by the Bar Council. We are in agreement, therefore, that a separate nominations process of selecting members to the authority is desirable. Such a process will allow the new body to be sufficiently independent while ensuring, under the criteria set out in the Bill, the members have the required and relevant experience and expertise.

Deputies will wish to note that, according to section 8(3), members of the authority should have expertise in regard to one or more of the following matters:

(a) the provision of legal services;
(b) legal education and legal training;
(c) competition law and policy;
(d) the maintenance of standards in professions regulated by a statutory body;
(e) dealing with complaints against members of professions regulated by a statutory body;
(f) business and commercial matters;
(g) the needs of consumers of legal services.

I kept these criteria in mind while selecting the nominating bodies I believe are best suited to the task of finding the right people for the authority.

There will still be only 11 members of the authority, six of whom will be lay persons and five of whom will be nominees of the legal professional bodies and their close affiliates. The bodies represent a balance between meeting the representative needs of legal professionals, the needs of consumers of legal services and the needs of an authority which will have both a dedicated research as well as a regulatory function or remit. The nominating bodies for the lay bodies represent the consumer, academia and the protection of civil, legal and human rights aspects of the authority's remit.

In terms of the non-lay members of the authority, I have borne in mind the fact that there are significantly more solicitors than barristers in the State - a factor of five to one. First, I have removed my ministerial entitlement to nominate a member of the authority. Then, rather than simply increase the number of nominees from the Law Society, I have chosen to designate the Legal Aid Board as an additional nominating body and to require it to nominate a solicitor. In addition, I have reduced the Bar Council's nominees from two to one but I have given the Honourable Society of King's Inns a nominee as a counterbalance, following representations from that body.

The proposed new subsections (5) and (6) are an attempt to ensure gender balance in the context of the new approach to nominations from the regulatory authority. They are partly based on statutory precedent in the Qualifications (Education and Training) Act 1999, which sets out the requirement for an appropriate gender balance for appointments to the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland.

Having addressed my amendments, I now want to address the Opposition amendments Nos. 7 to 9, inclusive, 12 and 14 to 17, inclusive. I am opposing these amendments on the basis that the issues they address are already being dealt with in the relevant Government amendments. I want to thank Deputy Mac Lochlainn for acknowledging that we are addressing this important issue of ensuring that no question mark can hang over the independence of the authority when it is up and running.

Practically all of the Opposition amendments have been previously considered as they were submitted pretty well verbatim by the Bar Council in its March 2012 document on proposed key amendments to sections of the Legal Services Regulation Bill 2011. I am satisfied the Government's amendments to section 8 put to rest the concerns raised on publication of the Bill regarding the actual and perceived independence of the authority from Government. I believe the nominating bodies chosen represent a balance between meeting the representative needs of the legal professionals, the needs of consumers of legal services and the needs of the authority. In addition, section 8 now provides that the members of the authority shall be appointed by Government, but only following a resolution approving such appointment being passed by both Dáil and Seanad Éireann.

The new section 9, entitled "Term of appointment of members of Authority" reproduces much of section 8(6) to subsection (15) in the published Bill. The disqualification for office of a member of the authority is now covered in a discrete section 10 and the provisions governing the removal of a member of the authority are now covered in section 11. In reality, with regard to these sections, there are only very slight differences between the Deputies' suggestions and the amendments that I have tabled. The drafters have, in preparing the new sections on these issues with my Department, given them renewed clarity of expression. I would, therefore, urge that the suite of Government amendments in regard to the appointment and other aspects of the new regulatory authority be supported in their entirety in meeting those concerns that have also largely informed the relevant Opposition amendments.

Having said all of that, I want to thank members of the Opposition for the amendments they tabled and for their very constructive engagement with Committee Stage and the manner in which they are approaching the issues.