Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I have considered the proposed Opposition amendments, Nos. 7 to 11, relating to the modalities of the appointment of the new legal services regulatory authority. I think the Deputy will agree that these amendments remain pretty much as put forward before. They do not give due recognition to the enhancements made by the Government to the legislation and to the committee discussion at which these concerns were outlined. The relevant enhancements made on Committee Stage met the core concerns about the appointment procedures of the new authority which were on the table at that time - namely, how authority members would now be nominated independently of the Government. Authority members will now be nominated independently of the Government, and we are also setting out their terms and maximum duration of office, including the modalities of resignation, removal and disqualification, and the filling of temporary vacancies.

The election of a lay chair and the gender balance of the authority's overall membership have also been consolidated into the text, which has also been adjusted, for example, to take account of the destigmatisation of bankruptcy under the Government's insolvency reforms. The group of amendments being tabled does not adequately take into account the intervening developments of the Bill on Committee Stage in the Dáil, and they remain in essence as positioned by the Bar Council in its document of 12 March. Regarding the Opposition amendments, this is particularly the case for the duplicate amendments Nos. 7 and 8, which set out a series of similar criteria for the establishment and membership of the new legal services regulatory authority with some variations from what is provided for in the Bill under section 8.

Having reviewed the intervening development of the Bill and the key qualitative improvements made regarding the appointments to the new legal services regulatory authority, I do not believe there are any fundamental disparities remaining in how the Bill deals with the issues concerned. The safeguards in the Bill, and those reflected in today's reiterated Opposition amendments, therefore, reflect a series of common concerns which have been met substantially under the Bill as it stands. The reconfiguration of section 8 of the Bill on Committee Stage put to rest the initial concerns raised upon the publication of the Bill about the independence of the authority from ministerial or Government interference. There will be no Government appointments, lay, legal or official, to the authority, which makes it more robustly independent in this regard than it would be, for example, under today's Opposition amendment No. 9, which would allow the Government to appoint the lay members. The authority, as a statutory regulator, would also be independent of the Judiciary in its appointment, as befits the fact that under the Bill's independent professional conduct regime, proceedings may come before the High Court which retain key functions regarding the termination of matters of professional conduct by legal practitioners. Taking into account the obvious virtues of independence of the Government and Judiciary, I do not see merit in amendments Nos. 9 and 10.

Members of both Houses will welcome the fact that section 8 of the Bill provides that members of the authority shall be appointed only following the passing of a resolution approving such appointments by both the Dáil and the Seanad. This important model safeguard provision is consistent with the highest international standard. The proposed amendment No. 11 has been made redundant by the fact that the lay membership of the new regulatory authority is to be appointed by means of the external nominating bodies to which I have already referred. I have given consideration to the possible addition of further members to the new legal service regulatory authority, including in light of earlier discussions on Committee Stage.

The authority is to be a regulator of the provision of legal services in the State by legal practitioners and, therefore, is not an entity of the social partnership model. The authority is to have a membership of 11 members with a lay majority. The six lay nominees will be drawn from the Citizens' Information Board - which everybody will welcome - the Higher Education Authority, the Competition Authority, the recently merged Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, whose title under section 8(4) will be updated in the Seanad, the Institute of Legal Costs Accountants and the Consumers' Association of Ireland. It is very important that consumers have representation on the legal regulatory authority. If I were to add even more lay members, and a further two legal representatives, we would move towards a much more administratively cumbersome body of approximately 15 people. The balance of interest between the legal profession and the consumers of legal services at the levels of the individual community and enterprise can be met and regulated effectively and most efficiently under the current configuration of 11 members. I do not intend to enlarge the membership of the authority beyond this, in order to ensure that it will be an efficient body that gets on with the job that has to be done and makes decisions.

Great care has been taken in ensuring that the concerns that have been expressed since the publication of the Bill about the independence of the new regulatory regime in its appointment and functions have been addressed. Only a slight difference of emphasis remains between the proposals being put forward today and the Bill's current provisions regarding this area of the Bill, and I hope, in light of the points I have made and the considerable enhancements, including in particular the very important point about independence, that the Deputies will withdraw amendments Nos. 7 to 11, inclusive.

The first of the next group of amendments, tabled by Deputy Catherine Murphy, amendment No. 11a, seeks to preclude any person who is served with the Solicitor's Disciplinary Tribunal, the Barristers' Professional Conduct Tribunal or its appeals board from becoming a member of the authority. Similarly, amendment No. 49fseeks to preclude any barrister who has served on the Bar Council or any of its permanent or non-permanent committees from becoming a member of the committee being established under section 44 of the Bill to review complaints about inadequate services. Amendment No. 50aalso seeks to preclude any barrister who has served on the Bar Council or a Bar Council committee, the Barristers' Professional Conduct Tribunal or the Barristers' Professional Conduct Appeals Board from eligibility for the chairmanship of the new legal practitioners' disciplinary tribunal, as set out under the terms of section 63 of the Bill.

While I can see that the amendments seek to put maximum distance between the workings of the Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal and Bar Council and those of the new regulatory entities concerned, they would, by the same token, be likely to exclude many people with relevant experience. This is by virtue of the fact that the amendments, if implemented, would exclude a very large number of barristers and solicitors from participating in the capacities concerned, including some who would have relevant experience in the types of complaint and disciplinary procedure involved. Over the years, a large number of legal practitioners would have held office or served on such tribunals or committees, and it remains desirable that they could be drawn from to enable the new regulatory architecture to function effectively. This is acceptable. Under section 63 of the Bill, the chair of the legal practitioners' disciplinary tribunal may, under the specific criteria set out, be a lawyer or a non-lawyer. The chair, whether a lay person, a solicitor or a barrister, will be appointed by the President of the High Court for a five-year term, once renewable, from the list of persons nominated by the Minister for membership of the tribunal.

In light of these safeguards already in place and the very practical considerations that clearly arise regarding the availability of suitable candidates for membership of the committee and the position of chair of the disciplinary tribunal, I cannot accept amendments Nos. 11a, 49for 50a. I hope my detailed explanation, particularly regarding the first set of amendments, illustrates that we have taken on board and dealt with the concerns that were expressed on Committee Stage.

See this speech in context