Noel Harrington (Cork South West, Fine Gael)

I welcome the fact the Minister is in attendance for this debate. I compliment him on his resolve in introducing the legislation, particularly in light of his background and the resistance with which he has been obliged to deal. The legal profession is quite intense in nature and it has been the subject of comment within this State and, more recently, from the troika. The troika does not see it in a very favourable light.

I welcome the introduction of the Bill in principle. Does it go far enough? The main reason for its introduction relates to public concern in respect of the costs which apply to legal services provided by solicitors and barristers. It would be fair to describe it as a legal costs Bill. Let us consider circumstances where a legal counsel could charge €20,000 for five hours spent in court. I accept that there might be a great deal of work involved but the figure to which I refer is twice the amount people receive annually in the form of the State pension. It is an enormous sum. We need greater scrutiny and competition when it comes to legal costs.

The Bill sets out new procedures and rules and establishes new bodies for those involved in the legal profession, which consists of barristers and solicitors, and the many others who work in the legal area. In that context, it gives effect to one of the main provisions in the programme for Government and is aimed at establishing independent regulation of the legal profession to improve access and competition, making legal costs more transparent and ensuring adequate procedures for addressing complaints. The Bill meets part of the State's commitments under the EU-IMF-ECB programme of financial support for Ireland. Not all of its provisions are regressive from the point of view of citizens. The Bill before the House is a positive development for the country and its people.

Almost all citizens will be involved in some form of transaction with the legal industry during their lifetime. The most common of these transactions would relate to the purchase or sale of a family home or other property. Other transactions would involve drawing up wills and dealing with probate issues. We should encourage more people to make wills. Most citizens will be lucky enough never to be obliged to deal with barristers. People who have dealings with barristers fall into two separate categories, namely, those who become involved in civil cases and those who become involved in criminal ones. An increasing number of cases relate to financial transactions. I understand the Minister will soon introduce another Bill to deal with this issue. In drafting the Bill, will the Minister consider whether there is a need for senior and junior counsel to represent financial institutions when the case involves a lack of funds? This increases the debts of a person who already does not have the capability to pay back the debts. I accept the need for a barrister when a legal point is in dispute and I note in recent judgments on such matters that the judge has refused to award costs where a client has been co-operative with the financial institution.

With regard to criminal cases, will the Minister consider the amount of adjournments sought by State counsel and or defence counsel which add to the costs borne by the taxpayer? Will he consider where both sides are agreed a case is not ready to proceed allowing them to arrange with the court clerk to set back the date? One has only to spend the first hour in any court to see the amount of witness, court and prison staff time wasted, with the costs borne by the taxpayer. This is our responsibility and we should note it and take account of it. This is why we are here.

The explanatory memorandum states, "Together, these provisions are intended to promote competition and transparency in the organisation and provision of legal services in the State and in relation to legal costs." This is welcome. In stating its aim is to reduce legal costs, this includes the State's legal costs, as the State is the biggest customer of legal services in the country. Ultimately, this comes back to the taxpayer. We have a joint role here. Not only are we drafting legislation, we are also making our best efforts to minimise the impact of legal costs on the taxpayer, as the State is the greatest contractor of legal services. The State, that is, the taxpayer, pays at least half the costs of all prosecutions. Far too often when costs are settled and agreed, the scrutiny is less than it should be. Again, this exposes the taxpayer to needless costs.

The State, through the Departments and their agencies, has a reputation of rarely settling cases until reaching the steps of the court or after the hearing of the case has started. Perhaps the Government could examine the greater use of mediation and arbitration facilities. This would save the taxpayer considerable funds. With this in mind I would like to see every Minister appoint a delegated person in the Department to be a mediation or arbitration officer to examine the possibility of avoiding these legal costs, if possible.

Recently I read a report about a family seeking approximately €25,000 damages for the death of their son while on active service for the State. Obviously I am not qualified to judge the merits of the case but I am sure the legal costs of trying the case will be much greater than the amount claimed and there may be a role for mediation or arbitration in this. We must consider the taxpayer and State funding.

Penalty points involve an administrative system of sanction which frees up the courts. I would welcome the expansion of this scheme to many other areas of criminal prosecution where the legal profession seems hell bent on furthering its own boundaries and where administrative sanctions simply administered would effectively punish wrongdoing and save State funds. It would also be less traumatic for victims and those accused. In most cases, a person will really feel the heat and take note if one hurts him or her in the pocket. Often, the gardaí prosecuting a case where there is no administrative sanction find the person in question is home before they are back at the station, even where a sentence is imposed. This is unfortunate and is an unnecessary expense for the State.

I know I am deviating from the legislation before the House, but will the Minister examine with his colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, the case for using administrative sanctions for very minor sea fisheries offences where the minimum penalty is a hearing before the Circuit Criminal Court? This is a matter of close to my heart. It crushes a nut with a sledgehammer and administrative sanctions might be more appropriate in such a case.

The State, which is the biggest customer of legal services in the country, is the taxpayer, and any efforts to reduce its costs should be welcomed by everyone in the Chamber and in the State. The institutions must be prudent in their expenditure on legal costs and, in doing, so we must ensure the courts work in the most efficient way. Therefore, I welcome the creation of a body to represent judges. I hope we will be able to start a debate on court procedures and practices.

I recognise that while changes have been made in the operation of conveyancing through the digitisation of the property register, the fact that when a property is bought solicitors on both sides must search back centuries to ensure title is correct creates cost. I would welcome any efforts to reform this in the legislation. These records and certificates should be incorporated and digitally recorded in order that when the property is sold again, the only search that needs to take place is during the period since the previous sale. It does not make any sense that when a property is transferred or conveyed, one must go through an entire search when one should only have to go back as far as the most recent transaction. It defies logic, adds needless work to the legal profession, takes up its time and also causes expense to the taxpayer and the client.

Our legal system is very protected and expensive. We must welcome any legislation that would encourage transparency and any effort to bring scrutiny and accountancy, in a legislative framework, to the legal profession.

With regard to personal guarantees and an abuse of a position of trust, we have seen positions of trust being abused, not only legal profession but also in many professional trades including, the political profession. This should be a criminal act where great moneys have been expended, and this is the case in other countries. In the United States, people are leaving the prison system at present after serving time for crimes committed in the past ten years for failed Ponzi or pyramid investment schemes. We are very poor in this regard and seem to give people a free hand. We should tighten up on white collar crime and the legal system should be encouraged to assist in this.

Inflicting unnecessary cost on the taxpayer should be cited as a crime if it could be proved. This would be very difficult and perhaps many politicians could be charged with it. We saw it in previous regimes and perhaps this regime may be the same ultimately. If one blatantly inflicts unnecessary costs on the taxpayer, one should be sanctioned in some way through legislation. The phrase "my word is my bond" is thrown out very casually in transactions, and we do it ourselves. Unfortunately, all it is is one's word, and often after a transaction goes pear-shaped there is no sanction, and this should be dealt with. The 98% of citizens who are honest and good people have paid unfairly for this principle and we must deal with it.

With regard to the Priory Hall debacle, there were legal people involved in that as well as the architects, builders, developers and planners. Some politicians might have been involved in it also. More sanctions must be imposed in that regard to avoid situations arising such as those that happened in Priory Hall, although many more of those may come to the surface. It all stems from a lack of scrutiny, regulation or examination of services and, more importantly, a lack of sanction.

The practice of joint accounts of solicitors is worrying also. How far does one go in that regard? Everyone accepts that 95% or 98% of solicitors firms, legal operatives and barristers are honest, but there is this source of temptation and there may be a better way of dealing with funds through the solicitor's office.

Regarding individual advice to a client, I highlight a case that may not be fair to the legal profession but is worth noting. I came across a case recently in my constituency of Cork South-West, specifically in Castletownbere, where a claimant who had lived in the United Kingdom sought legal advice from a solicitor on pension rights and was advised that they had no entitlement to a pension from this State. The matter came through the political system, as it were, for a second opinion and it was found subsequently that they had entitlements to a pension but, unfortunately, they lost out on four or five years of entitlements because of the legal advice they had received, which was wrong, and they had no way of seeking any redress from that office. That is unfortunate, and legislation should address that.

The complaints procedures available to the citizens of the State appear to be used only in very serious or significant cases against legal firms, but there is a myriad of individual small issues involving citizens who, rightly or wrongly, feel aggrieved or dissatisfied with the legal advice they have received. In some cases the advice they were given may have been in regard to a crime. I would like to see a system whereby if a firm or a solicitor had a bank of small complaints, for example, a trend could be followed whereby they would indicate that there may be a problem. It might not be a significant case or a headline maker for the press but, in a particular field or regarding an issue, a reasoned claim could be made that a firm or a solicitor is either doing the work incorrectly, is incompetent or may need to be dealt with by a board. If such a system was in place, it would give greater credibility to the legal system, the individual solicitor or the firm, greater assurance to the client and, ultimately, to the citizen.

We are all aware of the way legal professionals deal with charges. They have a computer logging system to record every minute of the work done for the client in the case. Those records should be available to an adjudicator. We hear much anecdotal evidence, and much of it might be incorrect, about a solicitor coming in to a case, thinking of a number and trebling it and charging that as the fee. They might also assess the client's situation and his or her background and decide on a fee appropriate to that client irrespective of the work they do, the expense the firm has taken on or the ultimate judgment. I am lending credence to it here but that kind of story is out there and this legislation must go a long way to deal with that and give an assurance to our citizens that we have a legal system we can depend on and that is ultimately beneficial for our country.

Costs arise outside the individual solicitors, firms and barristers but third party witnesses and experts giving testimony in courts seem to be an industry in themselves. Some of those issues might be addressed as part of this legislation in that the legal costs adjudicator or the Taxing Master could be given more teeth to assess those costs.

Ultimately, the main message is that the legal system has served us well but it is a very expensive profession. It is a protected profession. It has been recognised by the EU-IMF-ECB troika as something that must be dealt with. It is an issue that is adding to the costs for business and the individual and is one we must urgently address. I fully support the Minister in his efforts to reform that element of the legal services sector. Doing it from without and within is a difficult job and he should be commended on that. I commend the legislation and hope it will get broad support that will lend credence and give assurance both to legal service providers and the citizens of this country.

See this speech in context