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

I am opposed to the Opposition amendments Nos. 21, 22, 25 to 28, inclusive, and 35. These amendments are proposals that have previously been considered, as they were included in the Bar Council's March 2012 submission. In essence, the amendments seek to provide for oversight of the legal professions rather than direct regulation of the legal professions - they are essentially designed to bring us back to the legislation relating to the legal ombudsman - which is the specific objective of the legislation and is central to this legislation.

These amendments run counter to Government policy as expressed in the Bill and its provisions for independent regulation of the legal professions. The Opposition amendments also fundamentally alter the functions of the authority while echoing others. It should be remembered that the programme for Government, entitled "Government for National Recovery 2011-2016", undertakes to "establish independent regulation of the legal professions to improve access and competition, make legal costs more transparent and ensure adequate procedures for addressing consumer complaints". These are shared commitments under the EU-IMF programme of financial support for Ireland, aimed at removing restrictions to trade and competition relating to the legal professions and legal costs, namely, to establish an independent regulator for the legal professions, to implement the recommendations of the legal costs working group and to implement the outstanding Competition Authority recommendations to reduce legal costs.

The Bill therefore provides for the independent regulation of the legal professions rather than the supervised self-regulation model that the Bar Council is anchored to and which the Opposition Deputies seem to prefer, notwithstanding the much higher confidence of the public in independent regulation. This is precisely why an early decision was taken by the Government not to implement the Legal Services Ombudsman Act 2009, which was built on the wrong model of supervised self-regulation. The point of departure from the policy perspective of this Government is therefore independent regulation and not supervised self-regulation.

At this point I reiterate the continued urgency in the advancement of this Bill. The updated memorandum of understanding on specific economic policy conditionality for Ireland of 3 June 2013 includes a specific undertaking under the title of legal services reform that once the relevant legislation has been enacted, the authorities would take appropriate measures to establish the legal services regulatory authority in an expedited fashion. The action is to be completed by the end of the fourth quarter of 2013 for the 13th review under the troika programme. The June 2013 staff report of the European Commission was critical of the delay and enactment of the Bill and gave the opinion that legal services costs have, for the most part, failed to adjust during the economic crisis, with legal services remaining "sheltered from competition and a drag on the economy's overall competitiveness".

The recent troika mission to Dublin again emphasised the need to realise the modernisation and reform measures contained in the Bill and the early establishment, on an "open for business" basis, of the new regulatory authority. The amendments tabled by the Deputy run entirely counter to that. The proposed Government amendment No. 29 to section 9(2)(a) is intended to allow the authority to make recommendations to the Minister following its review of the issues listed in that section rather than leave them gathering dust on a shelf. Matters such as the admission requirements to legal professional bodies and the availability and quality of education and training opportunities etc. will not be directly under the remit of the authority but will be monitored, and any action that needs to be taken to address any concerns of the authority may be flagged.

I oppose amendment No. 30. Keeping under review the admission requirements of the Law Society relating to the solicitor profession and that of the Bar Council relating to the barrister profession are important functions of the authority and I do not intend deleting them; otherwise we would be accused of having no measurement of any nature of the state of the legal professions in real time to inform the authority's regulatory functions.

Government amendment No. 31 is proposed with regard to section 9(2)(a)(ii), and it responds to a concern about the original drafting formulation voiced by the heads of the law schools and specifically the University College, Cork, faculty of law, which provided the proposed drafting solution. They were concerned that the provision might result in the authority overstepping the mark between it and aspects of both academic freedom and quality assurance that are enshrined in the Universities Act 1997. There was also some concern that universities were singled out for mention when there are many other types of education institutions providing legal qualifications. I am happy to support the amendment as it allays their concerns but does not detract from the authority's foreseen reviewing, in a very general sense, of the availability and quality of legal education. It is not intended to duplicate the existing academic standards regime with universities or colleges concerned.

Government amendment No. 32 is a minor technical amendment to correct a typographical error. Proposed Government amendments Nos. 33 and 34 are minor amendments designed to make the authority's monitoring function a little more meaningful by allowing the authority to make recommendations to the Minister. I draw the attention of Deputies to the importance of the full independence in the manner of operation in the regulatory authority, which is not simply an oversight body with the professions doing the matters themselves.

Deputies may note that the insolvency regulations published for personal insolvency practitioners detail the various professionals who might perform that role, as well as others, and the eligibility criteria, audit oversight mechanisms and issues surrounding indemnity insurance. With the regulations as published, both solicitors and barristers are among those included as individuals who can operate as personal insolvency practitioners, and their function in practical terms exists between debtors and creditors. Whatever differences exist between Deputy Niall Collins or Deputy Mac Lochlainn and me with this Bill, we can agree that the function is essentially to mediate between debtors and creditors to see if a debt settlement resolution is possible. I was surprised to note a report in one of our Sunday newspapers that the Bar Council might intend to block barristers from performing that function, which is contrary to competition and not in the public interest. If ever we needed an indication that there is a need for an independent regulatory authority to be confirmed, it was done in recent days and we must ensure proper competition in the area. In fairness to members of the legal profession - both solicitors and barristers - they have the facility to use their skill sets through constrained and limited different business models that currently exist.