John Paul Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)

I wish to make a few points on this legislation. I agree with the previous speaker's comments on the jargon and terminology that is often used by lawyers, but it will be difficult to frame laws in terms that are not legal. There might be great difficulty in simplifying some of the terms used in legislation. I compliment the Minister for Justice and Equality on his handling of this debate. There has been plenty of time for discussion. He has been present in the Chamber for most if not all of the debate.

I am struck by the fact that many of the previous contributors have referred to the somewhat hysterical coverage in the legal press about the potential implications of this legislation. To say that some of it - in fact, most of it - is over the top would not be an exaggeration. This Bill, and the whole area of reform of legal services in this country, has been on the agenda for many years, and I commend the Minister on grasping the nettle and trying to introduce reform. The centre-piece of reform of the legal system must be concern for the people who consume legal services, those who need to contact a solicitor or barrister for whatever reason. That is at the core of what the Minister is trying to do. This legislation implements the Competition Authority report that was published at the end of 2006.

It is natural that the professions themselves are somewhat resistant to change. As somebody who aspires to be a member of one of those professions, I come across a number of people who are strongly resistant to change, but there are many legal practitioners, particularly of the younger variety, who are quite supportive of large tracts of this legislation, although they may not be in a position to express that support forcefully. I think it was Deputy Hayes and Deputy Twomey who spoke about the need in 2012 to ensure no profession is self-regulated. Both strands of the legal profession are self-regulated, but there can be no place for self-regulation as we progress.

Another criticism of the legislation is that somehow the Minister, or some future holder of that position, could manipulate the legal system and that he and his successors are not accountable. Not only is the Minister accountable to the Cabinet, but also any holder of that position is accountable, ultimately, to the electorate. He is far more accountable than any of the people who currently occupy positions of regulation within the legal professions.

The basis for the introduction of this new legislation is an attempt to reduce legal costs, which was part of the memorandum of understanding with the troika. Legal costs in this country are particularly high, and any legislation that seeks to reduce those costs is certainly to be welcomed.

I believe improvements can be made in a couple of areas of the legislation as it is currently drafted. The first of these is the appointment of the board of the regulatory authority. Considerable criticism has been voiced that too many of the appointments will be made directly by the Minister, whoever the Minister happens to be. There is a mechanism that exists at present - the Public Appointments Commission - to appoint board members and fill other positions in regulatory and State authorities. That mechanism should be used to appoint people to the board of the legal services regulatory authority.

I have spoken to the Minister and others about the issue of barristers' fees. I am quite friendly with many young, qualified barristers who find it hard to break into the profession and hard to make a living from it. This is one criticism I would level at the bodies that govern the legal profession at present. They correctly point out that there are no barriers to entry to the profession in that people can apply and be accepted, but there are real barriers when it comes to the practice of law. One of the fundamental barriers for newly qualified barristers is actually getting paid for the work they do. There is no shortage of work but there is certainly a shortage of pay, from what I can see. I ask the Minister whether it might be appropriate to insert a provision in the legislation to allow barristers to sue for their fees. A more suitable way of dealing with this might be to have the regulatory authority itself establish a mechanism whereby some sort of arbitration can be arranged between solicitors and barristers with regard to fees and the non-payment of fees. That might be a better way of handling it.

There is a concern, which I hope the Minister can address, that this legislation will introduce an additional layer of costs for practitioners. This could have a detrimental impact, particularly on small solicitors' practices in provincial Ireland, and ultimately those practices may have to pass on the costs to consumers or may not be in a position to continue trading. This is a fear that exists. I ask the Minister to address this issue when summing up.

On the whole, I thoroughly commend the Minister on the way he has engaged in this debate in the House. We have had plenty of time for discussion and he has been present for virtually all of it. He has made a good intervention in reforming the way our legal professions operate and how they will operate in the future, and I commend him on that.

See this speech in context