Marc MacSharry (Sligo-Leitrim, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The positives are there. We are trying to quicken the process. Nobody is trying to reinvent the wheel. What we are doing in effect is changing the sequencing of what already happens. The biggest concern from the Law Library seems to be that they will have to pay themselves more money. In my experience, that is a matter exclusively for them. They feel that all of these queries are going to be front-loaded, even though they already are for a public auction and the online sales and I think Senator Davitt mentioned BidX1 as an example. This is already taking place, it is about sequencing and about putting together the information in advance. There will not be any additional costs. What the Law Society neglected to say, as its parliamentary legal adviser certainly will know, is that as a matter of routine, solicitors take cases for personal injury in advance and will be paid at the end of the process.

It could be many years in terms of things like medical negligence, for example. It seems okay in those instances. They might also take on the execution of a will. We heard extensively earlier about the issues that can arise with probate and so on, and as a matter of routine solicitors and barristers wait for their money until the end of the process. We are trying to speed up a process from an average of about 16 weeks now, and Senator Davitt alluded to Spain where you can turn it around in a month for most things. The term "red herring" was used quite a bit and I believe that is the case.

We had mention of caveat emptor, which absolutely remains. There is no conveyancing until a contract is signed so caveat emptorremains the case right up to and including the last second of the last day. In terms of auctions, and the paperwork being available to anybody who wants, queries come to the auctioneer 99 out of 100 times. An auction takes place, the highest bidder either withdraws and does a deal for a higher price or something is sold. I want to repeat this because I know some colleagues have returned to the Public Gallery. As a matter of routine, solicitors take public injury cases and will be paid at the end. As a matter of routine, solicitors take on the execution of a will and will be paid after probate. As a matter of routine, they take on any amount of litigation cases.

In terms of additional cost, I do not know why the Law Society would not be open to let the free market decide because I know many an unscrupulous solicitor who would be quite happy to wait for their pay at the end. Similarly, the additional cost base referred to in auctions typically refers to the rental of a room. It is the same price. I want to sell by auction, that is fine, my fee is 1% plus VAT. That is the end of the story. You will have to answer the questions once, then are we really saying it is going to be difficult to send an email to the auctioneer? The auctioneer can disseminate all the information that is required. Caveat emptor,as I said, is there until the end.

I know it was suggested that this would interfere with the rights of a person to sell and say you cannot sell unless you do or have this. We already do that in Ireland. You cannot sell without a building energy rating, BER. Are we really saying, and I know this will be for legal advice later and perhaps constitutionally, that there are issues around current auctions? Is there a constitutional issue about an auction? Is there a constitutional issue about an online sale? On interfering with people's rights, and it may come up in legal advice later on in that discussion, we already have a scenario where there are rent pressure zones where people are told "You will not get any more money than this". We already had eviction bans. What is the Attorney General's view on that? What is the advice?

This is not actually about the IPAV and I want to make it clearer. Senior counsel drafted this, having taken account of endless research and discussions, not just nationally but internationally, and put it into an Irish context. It is not there to annoy the Law Society. It is not there to gazump the Government or the Department of Justice who probably should have come up with this legislation themselves many years ago. It is there for the punters and the people. Ultimately, we want to help them and then auctioneers will make more money, they will turn over more property and so will solicitors in terms of legal fees. By the way, I am a licensed auctioneer, a member of the IPAV and I want to declare that interest, but I no longer practise as an auctioneer. I should have declared that at the outset.

The Law Society also mentioned a number of very serious issues they have, for example, with 42 local authorities having different ways of disseminating certain information. Let us get to work on the Local Government (Amendment) Act 1934 and sort that problem out. However, the idea that what is being said is very good here was also referred to. This is useful as part of the debate. Why is it that the legal profession must engage in such an administrative merry-go-round? Here is something we can tangibly do now. It does not solve all the problems but it can solve some.

In the engagement around this Bill and with the Department, there were speeches in the House that looked like a cut and paste from the Law Society's presentation here today and indeed previous presentations. That is unfortunate and I have begun to ask what is the problem. Is it because it was not their idea? It was not mine. I am here as a Teachta Dála, representative of the people, listening to IPAV and others saying "this is something that can tangibly help". The Law Society say "oh we will have to charge more money for that". No it will not. The fee is the fee and they will get paid at the end of the process or let the free market decide. Most people get paid at the end when a sale occurs. That is the practice at the moment.

It is not for the IPAV or the Law Society anymore. It is for this committee to determine whether are we prepared to put this into the House to Committee Stage and allow the Law Society and the IPAV and more important perhaps, the consumer organisations, to send in their amendments through parties, Deputies and Senators to make what the Law Society and everybody else seems to be saying, and we will have another discussion about legal advice later in private, is good and positive. Instead of making a positive contribution to the administrative merry go round and debate, let us bloody well do something for a change.