Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)

This is an important Bill and many decisions will be made. The legal profession impacts on many people's lives. The cost element needs to be tackled. When the legal profession comes to mind, the first thought that occurs to people is that availing of it costs too much. Prices have fallen in the past while. I remember how it was impossible to get a barrister for my business for less than €2,000 per day. More recently, I have got barristers for €800 and €500. Prices are moving in the right direction. Costs still need to be controlled, but no element of control exists. Section 90 requires legal practitioners to set out the basis upon which costs are to be calculated. This is a good idea, but strict controls are necessary. In the construction industry, for example, a contractor might price a job well in advance and provide a breakdown, but it is frightening how often the final price will be much higher. To avoid such situations, there must be tight pricing controls.

The notion of fixed price bills seems more popular than the notion of hourly rates. Solicitors or barristers being allowed to charge a certain amount per day depending on the court involved is not workable, given that some cases require more preparation than others. The hourly rate idea is a good one, as people could compare like with like, especially if there was a maximum chargeable rate. If extra work was required during the preparation, lawyers would be able to invoice for it.

The merging of the professions seems contentious. I have spoken to a number of barristers and solicitors who are not convinced that a merger will lead to a better service for the consumer. Some large firms will garner most of the better barristers and it might prove difficult for some people to gain access to the best professionals. Currently, a small solicitor can access any barrister provided he or she can afford it. However, if barristers go to work for large firms, employing them will become more expensive because big firms are inclined to charge more.

If they have the best people, they will also garner the most work, including major commercial and Government business. Recently, we have seen how Governments have been keen to give a great deal of work to their favourite firms. For example, the amount of money that the likes of Arthur Cox receives from the State for work relating to the banking crisis has been pointed out numerous times. The 2008-11 figures are frightening. The firm received €1.6 million, €5.9 million, €4.8 million and €1.3 million in 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011, respectively. It did not even tender for some of the work at the initial stages. A blind eye has been turned to the fact that Arthur Cox advised both the former Government and Bank of Ireland during the banking crisis.

I am not sure that big is beautiful. We would have a more honest profession were there smaller groups. That banks were too big to fail was a global problem during the financial crisis. Likewise, I would hate to see legal firms growing so large as to be uncontrollable. The Government should spread its work out further and not give everything to the likes of Arthur Cox.

There is no doubt that action is required to safeguard the independence of the profession. Self-regulation is not the ideal system for legal professionals, no more than it was in the building industry. In the case of that industy, a system under which the consultant engineer and the architect signed off on work proved to be a disaster in cases such as Priory Hall. Likewise, in the case of the legal profession, the introduction of an independent body to oversee and regulate is a welcome change. Having said that, transferring the duty of regulation from the profession to complete Government control may not be the best solution. Given that the Minister's fingerprints will be all over the new regime, it would be better if the regulatory body were to include a greater number of representatives from various citizens' groups and non-governmental organisations. Even if the Minister adopts a completely healthy, honest and effective system, he is making laws for others to follow. We do not know whether he will even be in the same office next year. As such, he must legislate for the future. Putting so much power in the hands of one individual may not be the best idea in the world.

Another issue to consider is that some 50% of litigation involves the State, which has implications when considering what is encompassed by the notion of an "independent" body. The new authority amounts to yet another quango and will be expensive to administer. The Minister will argue that it must be paid for by the legal profession, but the dogs in the street know the cost will be passed on to the consumer. Moreover, such bodies can become a law unto themselves, as we have seen in the case of the Health Service Executive, the National Roads Authority and so on. There should be greater diversity in the membership of the boards of all such bodies, together with a reduction in the size of the board. Larger boards will involve larger costs and, as I have said, it will be consumers who ultimately face the bill.

A properly functioning society requires that the Government be held to account. As such, giving so much power to the Government in this instance is a cause for concern. The State already has a serious level of control over the judicial system in terms of its responsibility to appoint judges. We saw what happened in the United States some years ago when it was left to the Supreme Court to decide who had won the presidential election in Florida. Given that the Republican Party had nominated most of the judges, it was no great surprise when the court came down in favour of George W. Bush who went on to become President. Some 400 people in the State have applied to be appointed to seven or eight judicial vacancies. It will be interesting to see how that works out. The Judicial Appointments Advisory Board makes recommendations to the Government on such appointments, but there is a lack of transparency arising from the absence of criteria by which an applicant is deemed fit for appointment as a judge. While the board can make recommendations, the Government makes the ultimate decision and is thus in a position to appoint its friends. We have seen enough of this in the past and it is time to move away from it. There should be fewer Government appointees and more people appointed on merit rather than on who they know.

See this speech in context