Dara Murphy (Cork North Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

In respect of amendment No. 31, the ongoing concerns of Deputies and the professional bodies about the way in which provision is being made under the Bill relating to the disclosure of information are very much to the fore of ongoing consideration of the Bill. The challenge for us as legislators is to get an appropriate balance between the provisions of the Bill in section 17(1), which seek to prevent an unauthorised disclosure of information arising from the exercise of functions within the new regulatory authority and allowing for appropriate disclosure of information relating to "the commission of an indictable offence". These are issues about which we are in ongoing discussion with advisory and Parliamentary Counsel and which, as reflected in today's amendment, have given rise to concerns about infringements to client confidentiality and-or legal privilege. The concerns arise acutely in the context of section 17 of the Bill and under section 19, which it is intended to limit to periodic reporting only. I very much appreciate the need to secure an appropriate balance relating to all of these issues while also seeking to best serve the public interest relating to the possible disclosure of criminal acts with adequate protections for legal privilege or client confidentiality. The Minister will, therefore, be returning to these key issues in bringing forward possible amendments at a later Stage. I would very much appreciate, therefore, if Deputy Niall Collins, who has proposed the total deletion of section 17(3) of the Bill under amendment No. 31, could withdraw that amendment and allow time for the sensitive legal issues concerned to be resolved when we come to reconsider them in the Seanad.

Turning to amendments Nos. 32 to 35, inclusive, and 45 to 46, inclusive, we have given renewed consideration to the group of amendments which relate to the reporting channels of the new regulatory authority, for example, in respect of its annual, strategic or other reporting routines. I also understand that this aspect of the Bill has been raised and discussed previously.

Amendment No. 32 proposes that not only will a strategic plan of the regulatory authority be channelled to the Houses through the Minister but will also be channelled to the Houses only. However, I point out that section 18 as it currently stands also provides that the Minister shall cause a copy of such a plan to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas.

The Minister considers the public to be served well by this two-step process, whereby the Minister and both Houses of the Oireachtas can be vigilant in a way that is mutually reinforcing of the public interest. I do not, therefore, see the additional benefit that would be conferred by acceptance of the amendment. I see continued merit, however, in the new regulatory authority being able to report to the Minister by way of bringing key matters to his or her attention and, therefore, wish to retain this provision and to not accept amendment No. 34 as it would no longer facilitate this.

While the Opposition amendments highlight that there is a remaining role for the Minister in terms of some discrete reporting matters, this is solely to represent the public interest in the effective discharge by the regulatory authority and its functions. This includes any recommendations it may wish to make from time to time in regard to the effective regulation of the legal services sector and of legal costs. It also provides a means to monitor regulatory effectiveness and costs in that regard. It is intended that the Minister will solely act as the conduit of the reports concerned, without undue delay or any type of interference, including in their being laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas. I am unable to accept amendment No. 33 which seeks the deletion of existing section 19 from the Bill as this would dismantle and disrupt the annual and other reporting architecture of the proposed Bill.

Amendment No. 35 would be similarly disruptive and would not, in our view, add any obvious value to the reporting framework of the Bill beyond what has already been catered for. These proposed amendments also emanate from an overall self-regulatory approach to the legal professions under the Bill, which remains unacceptable for the reasons outlined earlier. For precisely the same reasons, we cannot accept the wholesale deletion of section 31 of the Bill which deals with annual reports on admission policies for the legal professions and of section 32 which deals with reports on specified matters, as proposed in amendments Nos. 45 and 46, respectively, for which I thank Deputy Niall Collins. The proposed deletion of the two sections in their entirety are an unacceptable carry-over from earlier reactions to the Bill, which been already considered.

Key areas of reform upon which public consultations and reports are provided for would be cast aside - for example, the creation of a profession of conveyancer, the unification of the professions of barrister and solicitor and the education and training for legal practitioners in the State and how this is provided for. We consider, therefore, that the current approach to the furnishing of the relevant reports via the Minister goes no further than to represent the public interest in regard to any of the issues that may be concerned, while also providing the dual safeguard of the reports being laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas. I see no additional benefit in accepting the amendments proposed and respectfully ask that the Deputy withdraw them.

Government amendments Nos. 47 and 48 pertain to two of the public consultation processes and subsequent reports that the authority will be obliged under section 33 to conduct and furnish to the Minister. In bringing forward these two amendments, I am responding to a number of concerns expressed, including by Deputies and the professional bodies, about the heavy workload that the Bill appears to impose on the new legal services regulatory authority from its date of establishment. Under the Bill as it stands, the new regulatory authority will have numerous reports to prepare immediately upon it becoming operational. These relate to legal professional education, the possible unification of the two legal professions, legal partners and multi-disciplinary practices and the establishment of a profession of conveyancer. In addition, the new regulatory authority will have to set up a new role of practising barristers, while also preparing regulations in regard to the key new areas of legal practice being introduced under this Bill.

Amendment No. 47 relates to the report on the education and training arrangements in the State for legal practitioners, including the manner in which such education and training is provided. The Bill currently provides that this report should be produced within one year of the establishment of the authority. The purpose of amendment No. 47 is to extend this timeframe to two years. This reflects the fact that the new authority can use a little more time to conduct its initial and baseline study.

Amendment No. 48 relates to the report of the consultation on the possible unification of the barrister and solicitor professions. The purpose of this amendment is to extend the timeframe in this regard from two years to four years. This will allow the new authority to report on more pressing matters earlier, while also recognising the fact that such unification is not immediately in prospect and that the new regulator will need to be firmly established if such a unification were to be recommended for implementation. These amendments are in response to concerns previously expressed in regard to the heavy workload that will be placed on the new authority. The re-sequencing of the timeframe in respect of the two reports concerned, as provided for in amendments Nos. 47 and 48, is a practical response to the concerns expressed.

See this speech in context