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

The combination of amendments proposed by Deputy Collins seeks to bring legal executives directly within the conduct, disciplinary and financial levy provisions of the Bill as a formally recognised and regulated profession. Amendment No. 50 does so in regard to the new complaints regime, while amendments Nos. 51 and 52 relate to striking-off referrals made through the High Court. Amendments Nos. 54 to 58 relate to the calculation of the levy, which will fund the new regulatory regime as it might be applied to legal executives. I have recently met the Irish Institute of Legal Executives and was impressed with the work so many of its members were doing and the case they made. While I am aware of the ongoing initiative of the Irish Institute of Legal Executives to achieve legislative recognition under the Legal Services Regulation Bill, and I have met it to discuss the detail of its proposals and concerns, the body's inclusion in the new regulatory regime is not, for reasons I will set out, something that I consider can be achieved by simple additions to the Legal Services Regulation Bill at this time. However, I am conscious that there are potential benefits and efficiencies to be found for consumers and for the legal services sector in a possibly more developed role for legal executives alongside other legitimate providers of legal services in the future. The time is not yet right to do this and the addition of an array of additional legal service providers would unduly encumber the timely enactment of the Bill. Having said that, the regulation of legal executives and other potentially more competitive providers of legal services is something I would consider appropriate for consideration by the new Legal Services Regulatory Authority at the appropriate time. Once the new regulatory authority has been bedded down with the initial buy-in and involvement of solicitors and barristers, and with the growing confidence of the public in the new regulatory authority, the wider circle of legal services providers can be taken into consideration.

The approach being taken in this regard under the Bill is to look at individual areas of law-related expertise, such as conveyancing, and to consider how best they might be given formal professional recognition, as recommended by the Competition Authority in 2006. This is different from the approach of allowing one particular legal functionary assume multiple functions through the statutory conferment of such a type of role. For example, under section 32 the Bill already provides for public consultations on the establishment of a profession of conveyancer. This will meet one area of long-standing concern to the Institute of Legal Executives, whose submissions will be welcomed in that regard. It will, also under section 32 of the Bill as it stands, be open to the new authority to hold public consultations to consider other aspects of legal service provision and to make recommendations on legislative changes that may arise.

The expansion of the regulatory remit of the Bill would be a substantial departure from its current scope and, if it were to be agreed as policy, would require extensive and detailed work while also incurring additional regulatory burdens and costs. There are also several other providers of legal services who are likely to need consideration in any expanded regulatory setting, such as notaries public, legal costs accountants, licensed conveyancers, patent attorneys, trademark attorneys and probate specialists.

I appreciate that the spirit in which the Deputy tabled the amendment. I am sympathetic to the concerns of the Irish Institute of Legal Executives that its members should be able to achieve professional recognition as a contribution to greater competition and choice in the provision of legal services. This is something that could dovetail with the regulatory framework of the Bill when it has been enacted and its regulatory and legal costs regimes have been established at an operational level. While my immediate objective must be to bring the Bill to enactment in its current form so that the core structural reforms, which the Deputy appreciates must be done, can be spearheaded by the new authority, the status of legal executives and of other legal service providers is appropriate for future consideration. However, it would be premature to do this immediately, for the reasons outlined, and I ask the Deputy to withdraw amendments Nos. 50 to 52, inclusive, and amendments Nos. 54 to 59, inclusive. I am impressed with the work being done and I see the registry authority as having a role in the future with regard to this group and the wider group of legal service providers. At this point, however, the focus must be on the establishment of the registry authority.

See this speech in context