Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick, Fine Gael)

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the Second Stage debate on this Bill. Change in any industry, be it business, education, health, legal or otherwise will always generate a degree of controversy. Change does not come easily to any profession, including the legal profession which is one of the oldest professions. As such, this legislation has generated a great deal of concern. Like other Members, I, too, have concerns about this legislation. I am sure the Minister will take on board our concerns.

It is important that we differentiate between what is being provided and what we expect. It is easy to adopt the media line that legal practitioners are all on the take. Far from it. Given the collapse in the house construction sector and in the area of conveyancing, many legal practitioners are only scraping out an existence. Many rural practitioners who routinely contact me for advice and so on are experiencing difficulties. We all know that a few people have caused a great deal of damage to the reputation of the legal profession. In this regard, one need look no further than to some of our Sunday newspapers, some of which are referring to the Four Courts as the Four Goldmines. There was much discussion in this House on the recently held referendum on judges' pay. Rightly or wrongly, the perception is that justice is not available to people who cannot afford to access it, which is a serious indictment of the system. However, it is up to the legal profession to set the record straight from its point of view.

The issue of cost was referred to by previous speakers. It is important to bear in mind that the pursuit of justice can be a costly business. Much depends on the amount of investigation and work that must be undertaken by a legal practitioner. Unlike a mechanic, who can fix a particular price for repair of a car and so on, legal practitioners cannot fix a price for their services because they will not know the total outlay involved until a matter has been resolved. Many of the legal practitioners who have contacted me are concerned that this legislation will set what should be the cost of a particular legal service.

As regards the legal services regulatory authority, it is time such an independent body was put in place. I am aware that previous speakers have taken issue with what the Minister is doing. However, it is necessary to put in place a regulatory authority to set standards for professions be it in respect of education, medicine or civil engineering. Also, such regulatory authority must be accessible to the public who, in turn, must be confident that said authority is on their side and is monitoring those standards on behalf of consumers. While I do not wish to cast a cloud over the existing system, if it is perceived to encompass internal regulation and light touch regulation from within, a legitimate concern is whether it ultimately achieves results for the consumer.

It is unfortunate that, in common with a great deal of other legislation published since the Government took office, this legislation has been published in response to the contents of the memorandum of understanding between Ireland and the EU-IMF-ECB troika. As this probably constitutes the biggest change the legal profession will undergo within a lifetime, it is unfortunate the country has again been dragged, kicking and screaming into making a change of this nature. Such a change should have been undertaken and this debate should have been held. Moreover, there should have been greater interaction during the years. However, as I have stated in the Chamber previously, regardless of the troika's expectations regarding Ireland, the Minister for Justice and Equality has not been shy in bringing forward proposals needed, which I welcome.

One point of concern to me is that many younger people who are trying to enter the legal profession find it prohibitively expensive. Having completed one's undergraduate studies in law or another discipline in, say, the NUI, the costs associated with trying to get into Blackhall Place or the King's Inns are undoubtedly very high. Similarly, the costs are extremely high for many who try to gain access on a part-time basis. The price of books is high and many people returning to the profession may also be trying to hold down a job, have family commitments and so on. The very fact that such costs are high means that almost straightaway those whom one can expect to be solicitors or barristers are being taken from a certain stratum. One must question whether solicitors and barristers are truly reflective of Irish society and whether entrants are being drawn from all social strata. One must ask whether there is an issue of access for persons who may come from socially disadvantaged areas. Moreover, the concern is how can one induce people from the margins to enter the legal professions, become practitioners therein and perhaps ultimately go on to become judges.

My colleague and the previous speaker, Deputy Conlan, raised the issue of the perceived quangoisation of the legal profession. There is undoubtedly a concern about whether the Minister's proposed regulatory authority will become another quango. That said, the present set-up is not accessible per se and is perceived to be aloof. Consequently, to establish what is required by the troika and the public, the new set-up must be accessible, easily understood and uncomplicated in registering issues, complaints and so on. However, I agree with Deputy Conlan that it is important it not become a cranks' charter, whereby persistent complainers and cranks make life difficult for people on an individual basis. As public representatives, Members know only too well the types of people who seek to become serial objectors and complainers without legitimacy. The establishment of legitimacy in the lodging of a complaint must be taken on board.

I have referred to the educational aspects of the Minister's proposals and reiterate it is important that the system be perceived to be accessible to people from a variety of backgrounds, regardless of their means. The perception is that it is a very expensive process to qualify as either a solicitor or a barrister and in itself, this creates problems. I differ with Deputy Conlan in respect of his comments about the multidisciplinary aspect of the Bill's proposals because other jurisdictions have had a different experience from that to which the Deputy referred.

Ultimately, as I noted, change to the system will not come easily and obviously people will be anxious about its impact on the service user and the practitioner. The vast majority of practitioners are small-scale solicitors and barristers who are struggling. Consequently, Members should avoid overdoing the bureaucratic burden on those who are in danger of being squeezed even further.

I welcome the opportunity to speak to the legislation. There is an opportunity to engage further with consumers, practitioners and the Oireachtas. I understand there are time constraints on the legislation's enactment, but, ultimately, I welcome the opportunity for Members to have this debate and suggest the modernisation of an institution as old as the legal profession. I hope the Minister will take on board some of the points I have made.

See this speech in context