Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)

It was not me, the Technical Group or Fianna Fáil that got it. Anyway, that is another matter.

I have concerns over the selection and appointment of members of the authority. There are numerous instances in which ministerial approval or consent is required, or in which ministerial involvement is provided for. It is all about the Minister. I wish him well in his office and wish him good health and longevity. What is being put in place is very serious. This type of model is unprecedented in any other country in so far as we have been able to ascertain. Why is this the case? This problem has been researched by the Bar Council, not me. Why are we so different from other countries? While we all accept there must be job creation, this is staggering.

The comparison with the appointment of judges by the Government is misplaced. This point was made by legal people, not me. There are concerns over the number of staff who will be employed, salaries, pensions and expenses that members of the profession will have to pay. Who will pay the staff? I do not know whether they will come under the Croke Park agreement, the Minister's agreement or otherwise. Regardless, they will have to be paid salaries and pensions, and PRSI contributions will have to be paid also.

The powers and functions of the authority give rise to fundamental concerns, including in respect of the authority's obligation to come up with proposals to advance issues such as the unification of the two branches of the profession. I refer to how and whether that should happen. I question the position on partnerships, including multidisciplinary partnerships, as referred to by my colleague from Sinn Féin. I have an excellent relationship with my solicitor, whom I know and trust. Most people have this experience. I compliment the vast majority of solicitors, who are beyond reproach. One can make an appointment with a solicitor locally but this could be very difficult if all legal practitioners were in big conglomerates. Will the legislation prevent people from gaining access to a solicitor rather than make it easier?

The document refers to direct access to barristers regarding contentious issues and the question of whether and how this could happen. The authors state they do not believe it would be in the interest of clients or in the public interest. We must all have recourse to barristers uaireanta. One's solicitor will give one a list of two or three and give advice, and that is how it should be. Irrespective of whether the issues concerned are contentious or straightforward, the provision will make the system very unhelpful for clients. Rather than going through one's solicitor, one will have to approach a bigger group and take who one is offered. The client may not be happy with this arrangement as he would normally take the solicitor's word on who is best to deal with the case in question, as the Minister knows. On being recommended a barrister by one's solicitor, one has an initial consultation and proceeds from there. One does one's best with the advice available. It is costly advice but it is worth it in the long run. Most of the practitioners are good.

The document states that notwithstanding the recommendations of the Competition Authority, no regulatory impact assessment appears to have been carried out which might demonstrate the cost benefit of the proposed new system. This is very telling. Why the undue haste? While the Minister made a commitment in the programme for Government, he made many more that never saw the light of day and probably never well. The abolition of the Seanad was one such commitment but I believe there have been changes of opinion in this regard in recent days.

See this speech in context