Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

Is trua liom nach féidir liom fáiltiú roimh an mBille seo, in ainneoin go mbínn ag lorg, thar na blianta, go mbéadh Bille den sort seo curtha os comhair na Dála agus go mbéadh athraithe curtha i bhfeidhm ar an gcóras dlí agus ar an chaoi a dhéanann abhchóidí agus dlíodóirí a ngnó féin a reachtáil agus go mbéadh an gnó sin níos oscailte agus níos soiléire don phobal i gcoitinne.

Tá rudaí maithe ins an mBille seo, agus molaim an t-Aire as an chuid sin de a thabhairt chun cinn. Ach is trua liom go bhfuil dáinséir laistigh den mBille a dhéanfaidh sé deacair don chóras uilig a bheith neamhspleách ar an Rialtas. Má achtófar an Bille mar atá sé faoi láthair tá an dáinséar ann - agus níl mé ag rá go ndéanfadh an t-Aire é seo - go gcuirfeadh Aire a ladar isteach níos mó ná ba chóir i gcóras atá in ainm is a bheith neamhspleách.

I have concerns about the Bill before us. I would love to be in a position to welcome legislation that set out to address fully the costs of the legal profession and the vested interests aspect of that profession. Although the Bill attempts to do this, it also provides for a degree of ministerial control over the legal professions that is not healthy and does not have any place in legislation. I hope on Committee Stage the Minister will address this concern, which has been raised by the legal professions and others, including those with an interest in human rights around the world. The control exerted by the Minister through the proposed appointments mechanism is a retrograde step. The Bill should reflect best practice. I hope, therefore, that this power will be removed on Committee Stage and the other measures in the legislation result in our legal profession becoming the best and most transparent in the world in terms of costs and the way in which it regulates itself. The legal profession should not be dictated to by a Minister and it would set a dangerous precedent to go down the route proposed in the Bill.

As I indicated, the legislation has some welcome features, including provisions requiring transparency in the area of costs. While we have the benefit of the Taxing Master, we still do not have a full understanding of how decisions are reached on costs because the system lacks openness. The most welcome feature of the legislation is the proposal to establish a chief legal costs adjudicator to assume the role currently performed by the Taxing Master.

Legal costs are falling, which may be a consequence of the economic crisis or greater competition in the various grades of legal practitioners. The number of solicitors and barristers practising law appears to have increased significantly in recent years and this may have created a degree of competition in the legal profession. We need to be careful, therefore, to ensure that nothing in the Bill reverses the downward trend in legal costs or makes access to the law more expensive. If an amended Bill is passed, I hope the mechanism of a chief legal costs adjudicator will ensure we obtain value for money from the legal system.

The bodies representing solicitors and barristers have expressed concern about the fee the Minister has provided for in the Bill to cover the costs of establishing the new legal services regulatory authority. The Bar Council and Law Society impose their own fees, some of which probably inhibit access to the legal profession for those seeking to enter it. At what level will be the fee or levy demanded for the new authority be set? Will it be higher than the fees currently paid by legal practitioners? If so, will it drive away some of those in the legal profession who are not managing to roll in the money? As we know, there is a perception that practising solicitors and barristers are rolling in money. One need only attend the courts to see that quite a number of people in the legal profession are struggling to make ends meet and have invested a lot of money in their practices and the overheads which go with that. Any additional costs for this profession, or for any profession, over and above what it is already paying must be questioned. What is the overall estimate, because I presume the Minister and his adviser have come up with an estimate of the levy which will be imposed on practitioners? Will it be more than the annual fees he or she currently pay to his or her respective associations?

Three new offices will be set up and, in some ways, it might be a good thing for all three to be separate. The legal services regulatory authority, the legal practitioners disciplinary tribunal and the office of the legal costs adjudicator are welcome but the Minister has much more power in terms of appointments and nominations. If one looks at the equivalent situation in other professions, it seems odd the Minister has decided to go down this route. For many years, we, in this House, have argued that rather than the Minister being the nominating person, at the very least, a committee of the House should appoint people to the likes of the three new offices which will be established. Even if a committee was to deal with it, it would still be reflective of Government. However, if there was an external nominating body and a committee of this House appointed people from a panel, it would be a more independent process than what is suggested in this legislation.

It is not my area of expertise but I have concerns about the business structure suggested in the Bill, and not from any belief that solicitors and barristers should not work together or with other professions in a multi-disciplinary setting. In my family, there is quite a number of rural solicitors in Limerick. They set up a business and served the town of Newcastle West well for many years, as have other solicitors in that town. If we create large law firms with barristers, solicitors and other experts, is there a danger we might force business away from the small towns into the larger ones where all the expertise is in a one-stop-shop? It is a concern I have, although I have not fully worked it out. I will try to elaborate further on it on Committee Stage. I have been lobbied by a number of small practices which are concerned that in the event of this happening, they will be forced to close or to amalgamate, which was not their intention in the first instance. They wanted to be sole traders and independent solicitors operating in, and serving, a community.

The overheads of large firms will be less which means they will be able to drive down the fees they will charge the public which will make it more attractive for the public to go to them, especially in the current climate. In the future, it might only be loyalty which will keep people with some of the smaller rural practices, although there is a number of small practices in cities and small towns and villages. If the market starts to be dominated by these multi-disciplinary teams, it would be a bad day for the legal services in Ireland.

I hope the Minister will address some of the concerns raised by Deputies on Committee Stage which is the advantage of that Stage. If the heads of this Bill had been published much earlier than the Bill itself and if the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality had hearings on the heads, we might have been able to have a more acceptable Bill at this Stage rather than have to do much of the work on Committee Stage. Given that this is such a substantial change to the regulation of our legal services, it is vital we get it right. It is not something to which we can keep coming back. We have one chance to get it right.

This involves listening to the practitioners, whether barristers or solicitors, and to the users, those who have complaints. There have been quite a number of complaints over the years about solicitors and barristers. Anybody who deals with the public on a regular basis in clinics and so on will know that quite a substantial number of complaints involve solicitors who did not represent people properly, did not take their advice or gave no reason for a charge. These are all valid points which are being addressed in this Bill but if there had been a hearing at committee, the public would have had a greater understanding of where this Bill is going. If it needed to be tweaked, it could have been done at an earlier stage.

Not only that, but we could have invited in international experts to give their tuppence worth to see whether this is in line with best practice elsewhere and to see where the UN and other bodies such as that want legal services in a country to go. The more independent legal practitioners and the legal system are of government, the better. That is a major concern I have that this Bill seems to undermine some of the independence which has been there. Perhaps that independence was abused by having a closed shop and vested interests but that does not mean the services need to be under the full control of a Minister. There is a half way house which is that we set up the regulatory bodies and have an outside body appoint the lay members or other board members rather than it being dominated by ministerial appointees, as is proposed.

See this speech in context