Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I will start by declaring an interest. I am a practising barrister and if this motion is passed, I will be regulated by the authority whose membership we are voting on today.

I welcome the fact that the Dáil is being given an opportunity, under section 9 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015, to vote on the membership of the Legal Services Regulatory Authority. Fianna Fáil will be supporting the membership that has been put before the Dáil today under the chairmanship of Dr. Thornhill. We believe it is a well-balanced board that will be suitable in terms of its important role as being the inaugural board to regulate on a statutory basis the solicitor and barrister professions in Ireland.

It is also important to look at the history and progress of the legislation as it went through the previous Dáil. There has been a protracted development of this legislation. Part of the reason for the protracted progress of the legislation was because of the initial plan that the previous Government put before the Dáil in terms of the first draft of the Legal Services Regulation Bill 2011. Under that Bill, it was proposed that there would be 11 members of the Legal Services Regulatory Authority but that seven of those members would be appointed directly by the Government. That proposal was met by shock by lawyers, not only in Ireland but internationally. Unfortunately, sometimes when lawyers speak out there is a belief that they do so solely out of self-interest. That was not the case in response to the initial proposal put forward by the previous Government. The reason it caused shock was because if the Government was in a position whereby it could appoint the majority of the members of the authority that would regulate lawyers in Ireland, it would hand inordinate power and control over the legal profession to the executive branch of the Oireachtas. The reason that is dangerous is because it would put pressure on lawyers to toe the line in respect of what Government wished. It is a sign of an effective and successful democracy that lawyers are able to take cases against individuals and against the State without having the fear that they may in some respect curry disfavour with the Government of the day.

This concern was not exclusively mentioned by lawyers in Ireland. It was also a concern voiced by the International Bar Association, the American Bar Association and the European bar and law societies. In fact, the head of the International Bar Association described the initial proposals put forward by the previous Government in respect of how it proposed to constitute the Legal Services Regulatory Authority as one of the most extensive and far-reaching attempts by an Executive to control the legal profession.

11 o’clock

He compared the original proposals to legal systems operating in China, Gambia and Vietnam. Fortunately, the previous Government saw the error of its ways and a new system of selecting the membership of the regulatory authority was established.

It is an innovative mechanism as under the statutory regime, certain nominating bodies are given the entitlement to nominate individuals through the board of the authority. The benefit is that although the Government ultimately appoints these individuals, we can see a process whereby they are appointed by nominating bodies. It means the Executive branch of government does not have control over the legal profession. It is bad for the Government to have control over the legal profession because it would interfere with and damage the rights of citizens who wish to take cases against the State. The State is a very significant defendant in cases, with citizens taking cases against the State either through judicial review, the criminal process or civil litigation.

It would be wrong if the impression was given to the Irish public that prior to the enactment of this legislation there was no regulation or soft-touch regulation in respect of lawyers in Ireland. That is not the case. The Law Society, presided over on a statutory basis by the President of the High Court, has a very vigorous supervisory and disciplining process, which has the effect of bringing solicitors who deviate from good practice to account. Similarly, the Bar Council disciplinary conduct tribunal, which has a majority of lay members, disciplines barristers. The reason there are more public complaints against solicitors is purely because they have access to client funds, something that barristers do not have. We support the motion before the House and we welcome the membership of the board. We wish the board well in its important future task.

See this speech in context