Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)

I listened with great interest to Deputy Michael McNamara's contribution. He gave a strong description of the role privilege plays within the legal profession and the difficulty for new entrants, particularly those not from a legal tradition, in breaking into the profession. The Deputy will have more understanding and appreciation of this than I given his work in the area. If even half of what he described of the culture of the legal sector is accurate, it offers a strong condemnation of the way in which this industry and section of society has developed and of the role of those involved in regulating it and making sure it operated in a transparent and fair manner. If, as stated by Deputy McNamara, privilege plays a role in determining the jobs and prospects of people in and trying to access the profession then the current system must be changed. Much of what is contained in this Bill aims to deliver this type of change.

Debate on the Bill has been over-heated and some of the commentary on it has been strong and expressed in a particularly definitive language. That the Competition Authority felt obliged to comment on the Bill as being reasonable legislation of the type normally introduced in a democratic society indicates its view of the debate which took place.

I will comment on some of the issues touched on by other Deputies. The Minister has already stated that he will bring forward amendments to the Bill during its passage through the Houses. When on the Opposition benches, the Minister, Deputy Shatter, had extraordinary success in terms of having his ideas taken on board by the Government of the day and implemented through legislation. I am sure he, as Minister, will show the same spirit having listened to what others have had to say on this Bill.

Concern has been expressed about the independence of the regulatory authority. I was disturbed to read in a newspaper report this week the allegation that the Government was required to contact the IMF to provide a statement in regard to protecting the future independence of legal bodies. I am certain that this Government would not bring forward a Bill which would seek to subvert that independence. There is ample opportunity in the process to allow for clarification of provisions in this regard or to make that point explicitly clear.

There is a clear difference between appointment of a person to a body and such person then being beholden to a Government. If the Government of the day is not entitled to appoint people to perform functions for it, then who is? What is the role of Government but to appoint people to perform functions which it believes are in the public interest and are set out in legislation. That said, the Minister has signalled his intent to discuss this matter further as the Bill progresses through the Houses. I am sure that where necessary, procedures and protocols in respect of how people are paid, appointed and can be dismissed, as required in the national interest, will be put in place.

I will comment on a point made by Deputy McNamara in regard to implementation of multi-disciplinary teams. As someone who spent 11 years working in such teams in other parts of our economy, I fail to understand why, if they work well in so many other different parts of our economy and society, they should be precluded from implementation in other areas. The pooling of expertise and knowledge across industries and services works. I cannot see why a similar model would not work in the legal profession. However, we must ensure this does not act as a barrier to entry. I acknowledge there is some weight in that concern. One of the benefits of a market that is allegedly perfect in economic theory, which I am sure this one is not, is that it in theory allows freedom of entry. Freedom of entry, even in theory, is of great benefit and should be protected and enhanced. What I would not like to see happen is movement towards a system which would further weaken the real freedom of entry which we hope people enjoy. I know, having worked in such teams for many years prior to my election to the Houses of the Oireachtas that they work well in many other parts of the economy. They deliver entry and allow people of merit and value to gain work. I am sure the same can happen in the legal profession. We also need diversity of practice in our legal services in the future. Alongside these multi-disciplinary teams we need to ensure there are, for want of a better phrase, sole traders who can provide a service to the State and citizens. We need to ensure this type of diversity of practice is protected.

On the cost of regulation here, there is no doubt but that the model of self regulation has not worked in crucial areas of our society. We now need to move away from this model in every respect. We also need to ensure that when that regulation is substantial, as will be the case in this regard, it does not generate an incentive for any cost to become an unreasonable cost which is then fed to the people in the industry who more often than not will pass it on to the those people availing of their services. Many people have welcomed the greater clarity, procedure and protocols being put in place in relation to cost, certainty of cost and the components thereof and ensuring all of this is done in a transparent manner. I am sure that the Minister would also want to ensure that as costs decrease and become more transparent there will not be an incentive for costs to increase further owing to implementation of regulation.

I heartily welcome this Bill. The Minister will address all issues of concern. The Minister and his officials must be complimented on the breadth of complex legislation which has emanated from the Department of Justice and Equality. Setting the complexity and ambition of this Bill against what is also proposed in the area of personal insolvency, it is clear the Government's commitment to examine if practices are restrictive and need to be changed is being delivered on. I look forward to further debate on this legislation.

See this speech in context