Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)

That is no problem. Ná habair é. I am used to it.

There is no assessment or briefing as to the costs, independence or means of operation of the new system. As colleagues stated, we need much time to consider this legislation. I hope there will be no guillotine because we need to study it carefully. We need to proceed slowly and be able to table amendments and discuss them at the Select Committee on Justice, Equality and Defence. However, the Government has a huge majority on the committees.

Costs are likely to increase considerably. The cost of practising at the bar will amount to an obstacle to entering the profession, as if matters were not bad enough. I know young men and women who are finding studying for the bar extremely expensive and difficult. They are hanging on but the new legislation will make finding employment more difficult when they are qualified. While fees will be taken from solicitors and barristers, the clients will ultimately pick up the cost. Costs are likely to increase for clients because of the bureaucratic structures and quangos being created even though the provisions appear to be in the public interest.

Will legal studies be restricted to an elite? We are ruled by an elite that does not understand what is happening on the ground. That can also apply to judges, for whom refresher courses should be provided. Will there be refresher courses for the bodies created in the Bill? Will their work and value for money be assessed?

The Competition Authority did not recommend direct access to barristers on contentious matters. I have been critical of the Competition Authority but clearly it has studied these matters. The Minister is introducing reforms in areas it did not even examine. I hope he will consult further with the Bar Council, which is concerned about the proposal on direct access. A study conducted by a regulatory authority argued that direct access for advice would destroy the system of independent referral, which is in the public interest and promotes access to justice. Direct access will squeeze out the smaller practitioners. Even small solicitors' businesses employ two or three staff in their offices. Direct access on contentious matters is not permitted in Northern Ireland, Scotland, England, Wales, Australia or New Zealand. I accept the need for reform in this area but I do not know why we have to be so different.

In regard to the unification of two branches of the profession, we have spent a long time trying to unite different issues and parts of the country. This will not be an easy task. Do legal practitioners want their profession to be united? One can bring a horse to water but one cannot make it drink. There will be a lot of bucking and jumping before this is sorted out.

The Bar Council does not oppose peripheral measures in the Bill, such as making wigs and gowns optional. That is a light hearted but badly needed measure. However, it is concerned about more fundamental aspects of the Bill, not least the establishment of quangos. The Government promised to get rid of them.

We want to preserve local solicitors' offices because they pay rates, VAT, wages, light and heat and insurance. They are small businesses but they get recognition for what they do. We need them in our towns. I do not want to see more offices close or large companies intimidating people. The client-solicitor relationship is very important. Trust and ease of access are at the heart of this relationship. If solicitors are forced to amalgamate, the relationship will become more difficult for clients. There is no benefit to ordinary taxpayers who are at their limits in trying to survive.

I advise the Minister to make haste slowly on this Bill because serious issues arise. I know he is a wise man. It will not be easy and we need time to discuss the amendments to the Bill. We do not want to confine the system to the elites. Ordinary people who had to work their way through college should be allowed to join local practices to get experience before moving on to bigger firms. We do not have to throw out the baby with the bath water. The Bill makes sweeping changes that are not welcome and do not stand up to scrutiny.

There is no point in employing a CEO and staff in an organisation if it is not functional or does not benefit the public and the taxpayer. The Minister stated that the system carries a sense of mystique. We do not want any more mystique. We want transparency rather than three or four different bodies which meet behind closed doors. We have no clue what the new authority will cost or what it will be expected to do.

We need to go back to the drawing board and engage in further consultation. We should learn from the mistakes of the past rather than establish more quangos which have limited functions. I fear that we will be coming back to undo this legislation. That seldom happens. Commitments given in election manifestos can be changed but Acts are normally left on the Statute Book. We should listen to the Bar Council and practitioners around the country who have given a good service.

Litigation is a costly business. If one wants to take on a newspaper, as I did when I was a victim, it is prohibitive in the extreme. I could not believe the cost. When I inquired about it, the only answer I got was that it was a very difficult and serious area and was therefore very costly. In my case, I wanted an apology to restore my good name, but I also wanted the newspaper to make a donation to a charitable organisation. But no - all the money went one way. I did not see any of it. It went over my head, although, thankfully, the paper had to pay the costs. The amount the whole thing cost was phenomenal. Something could have been done for the public good; as well as clearing a person's name, the public interest should also be satisfied. I had demanded that a donation be made, but that was left outside the door. It was just the newspaper's own costs and boy, were they strong. There were no meetings, only phone calls and e-mails. The apology appeared in the newspaper, at huge expense to the paper - and rightly so - but the public interest would have been better served if it had made some kind of donation to charity in recognition of the grave miscarriage of justice that was the error that it printed.

This area needs to be examined as well, but I do not see any mention of it in the Bill. I know the Bill covers the wider brief of all law, but the specific area of defamation law is particularly costly and it is difficult to obtain justice. At present, one can get the barrister of one's choice, but this option will be taken away from people. Instead, there will be a list system, and a person may have to accept somebody he does not have a relationship with or is not easy with.

I wish the Ceann Comhairle a happy Christmas.

See this speech in context