Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I am pleased to have another opportunity, by way of these amendments from the Seanad, to outline my perspective on the progress of this Bill since its introduction. I read with some intrigue the news reports in recent weeks, most of which entirely miss the point of what the legislation is about. Sometimes in these Houses we operate in something of a bubble and get caught up in policy and our own circular conversations. For citizens, the main issue they have with legal services is cost. People who find themselves in family law proceedings, civil law proceedings or whatever it may be, often through no fault of their own, are obliged to avail of legal services and then face a huge bill at the end of it. That adds to the stress they are already under. From the outset, this Bill has not done anywhere near enough to address that issue.

We have been a long time waiting for progress on the proposed mediation Bill. The Oireachtas justice committee considered a proposed scheme for that Bill several years ago, before my time as justice spokesperson for Sinn Féin. That legislation is vital and I have repeatedly asked when it will be brought forward. We need to introduce a culture in this State whereby citizens, rather than going down the road of adversarial confrontations in court rooms, go into mediation. The significant majority of family law and civil law matters could be resolved through the efforts of skilled mediators who would be accountable to the Mediators Institute of Ireland or an independent regulator. Proposals drawn up by way of this mediation process would then be presented to a judge. I am sure the Judiciary would be delighted to see such a system being introduced. Unfortunately, however, the mediation Bill has gone nowhere for a long time. It would have done more than the Bill before us today to address the issues that most affect citizens as they interact with legal services. Yet there has been hardly a mention of the mediation Bill in the media.

Journalists in this State need to have a look at themselves, because the narrative has been that the previous Minister, Deputy Alan Shatter, introduced this reforming piece of legislation and then, due to the lobbying efforts of the legal representative organisations, the current Minister caved in. It might surprise those watching today that I do not accept that narrative. I have followed this process for a number of years. The previous Minister would acknowledge, as he has today, that the initial legislation was rushed, under the demand of the troika. It was considerably flawed.

Having looked at the submissions made to the justice committee and from the interactions we, as Opposition spokespersons, had with the legal representative groups, their analysis, in the main, was sound and reasoned. They were not objecting to independent regulation of the legal fraternity. That is a very important point: they were not objecting to independent regulation. They felt the Law Society and the Bar Council had complaint handling procedures that were independent, but they accepted that there was an understandable perception among the public that they were not truly independent. The key benefit of this legislation is the introduction of the legal services regulatory authority, which is welcomed by everybody.

I just do not understand the narrative that was presented in the media. Far be it from me to defend the current Minister for Justice and Equality, but I do not accept the narrative. She listened to reasoned arguments and addressed them, and that is what we want Government to do. The Opposition's job is to hold Government to account. When it comes to legislation, our job is to engage with the relevant stakeholders. For example, we have serious criticisms of the International Protection Bill. My party has met with all the NGOs working on issues relating to refugees and asylum-seekers, as, I am sure, Fianna Fáil and others have. We have listened to their concerns and submitted amendments. That is what parties do in a democracy if they agree with the concerns raised. They try to hold Government to account and to strengthen the legislation and change it. That is what is done in the normal run of things. What has happened here is that we in the Opposition have listened to reasoned arguments from key stakeholders, people who have been dealing with complaints from citizens around legal services for many years and who made solid recommendations for amendments, which we submitted. I am glad to see that the previous Minister, Deputy Alan Shatter, and the current Minister, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, and her Department officials, have listened to those concerns. They have agreed that many of these concerns are sensible and that there is a need for change, and they have made this Bill better. I do not have any major criticism of the change in direction from the original Bill to what it is now.

I have concerns about multidisciplinary practices. They have been presented as a panacea, as a huge cost-saving intervention, and as radical reform of the way we do law in this State. The concern internationally has been that these multidisciplinary practices sucked the talents that were there, took them into the one building, where there are solicitors, barristers and accountants, hired by the wealthiest companies and corporations and retained by them, and that we would not have a level playing pitch. I am thinking here in an Irish context of citizens in places like Donegal, Limerick and Cork, rural areas where people go to their local solicitor to hire the services of a learned counsel who is specialised in a given area and they might find the best and brightest are under one building, hired by a corporation the client might have to take on. We did not see the benefit of that. The free legal advice centres also had serious criticism of this proposal. I do not think anybody could accuse them of being a vested interest, protecting the old ways. There were, therefore, considerable concerns about multidisciplinary practices, and we make no apologies for raising them again and again.

There is need for reform within the legal fraternity that is not dealt with in this Bill. People from less privileged backgrounds will struggle to make their way through as barristers. The whole devilling system needs to change. We need to have access for people from working class and other communities in this State to work their way through. This a really important, fundamental issue because our Judiciary is populated from those ranks. If we have a Judiciary that is from the wealthier, more privileged parts of our society, which may hold views that are more conservative than the average citizen, or may have an experience of life that does not reflect the experiences of most citizens, when these people are tasked with interpreting our Constitution in the Supreme Court at the highest level of the Judiciary, that is worrying. We need a Supreme Court that is populated not just by people learned in the law, but people who have experience, who understand the experiences of citizens, who understand the need for change, and who have a real-life approach to the people who find themselves in front of them in courtrooms across the land. These are real issues and there is much more work to be done than is addressed in this Bill.

I will conclude by reaffirming the following points. The key issue for most citizens who find themselves having to engage with legal services is cost. They find themselves with huge bills that add to the distress they already face. This Bill does not go far enough to address that key issue. That should have been the key challenge of the Bill. The independent legal regulatory authority is welcomed universally. It is important to reassure citizens who have had a bad experience with somebody in the legal fraternity that they have an independent avenue to go to that is beyond reproach.

It is too late for this Government, but whoever is in place in the next Government needs to take the mediation Bill down off the shelf, dust it off, engage with the stakeholders, and task the incoming Oireachtas justice committee with holding hearings, because that Bill, which will probably need more amendments and strengthening, has the potential to make a real impact for citizens and to change the culture. People instinctively go to a solicitor - it is their first port of call and they do not have the culture of mediation in their mind - but imagine a situation where the solicitor is obliged to advise them that they should avail of mediation and a judge would be able to say "Folks, why are you before me? These issues can be resolved by mediation. Go away and try to resolve them, then come back." If we get to that point, that will make the biggest contribution to a more thoughtful and reasoned approach to resolving disputes in this State and it would be much less costly. That would be in the best interest of citizens.

I have read all of the media analysis, throughout various publications, and they have missed the point. The point is not this idea of a reforming Minister, Deputy Alan Shatter, being undermined by a Minister caving in, which is not correct. The point is that this Bill has not achieved for citizens what it could have achieved. There is hardly any reference to the mediation Bill. Those journalists have an important role in our democracy, in looking at legislation, observing matters in this Oireachtas and looking at who lobbies for changes in legislation. I ask them to go back and look at what has happened with this legislation - to really look at it, not just have an almost lazy analysis. They should go back and look at the facts of what has happened throughout this process. They should look at the recommendations, at what we have ended up with, and the points of view of both sides. On multidisciplinary practices, they should listen to the point of view of the main advocate, the former Minister, Deputy Shatter, and others, and listen to the view of the free legal advice centres, of the Opposition and of critics of that proposal internationally. They should must listen to all points of view before they start to write their articles. I was taken aback by the universal analysis, across the media, by journalists I respect.

Talented, intelligent and capable journalists got this wrong. They missed the key point for the people they are speaking to out there, which is around costs, that this Bill missed. Hopefully, we can reflect on this matter. We are coming to the conclusion of this Bill. It is welcome that we finally got it over the line, but the next Government needs to bring in real reform.

See this speech in context