Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

I thank Senator McDonald for sharing time and I promise reciprocity at the first opportunity. I welcome the removal of the legal services ombudsman provisions from the Bill, as they will be considered in separate legislation, because both solicitors and barristers should be governed by independent bodies and I hope the Department will give consideration to this. Self-regulation does not work effectively in most cases. We are told there is an oversupply of barristers, yet they defy all the laws of logic whereby supply and demand, which is generally good for competition, is totally devoid of any influence in the Bar Council. It looks as if a cartel is operating to maintain fees at exorbitant levels. In the interest of the ordinary person and if we value ourselves as a republic, people must have equal opportunity to access the law. We are getting to the stage where only the rich can afford to do that and that is unacceptable.

I am amazed that two chairmen of our most prominent tribunals assumed the role of shop steward on behalf of the barristers working in them in order that their fees would remain at almost €2,500 per day. That is scandalous but it also reflects on us in these Houses that we allowed that to happen and we allow it to continue, despite the former Minister for Finance, Charlie McCreevy, setting out his stall to reduce fees by more than half. That has not happened and it is unhealthy and unacceptable.

Section 23 provides that district justices will not have to keep a note of the evidence presented to them. I understand the practicality of this provision in that an appeal to a superior court does not refer to those notes but will that give rise to lesser accountability at District Court level? I hope legislation will be introduced soon to establish the judicial council that has been promised for some time. The remarks of a number of judges in court in respect of witnesses and gardaí on occasion have been outlandish and totally unacceptable. There was no excuse for a number of the remarks, as they denigrated witnesses who endeavoured to give evidence. Specific judges, who are easily identifiable, will do their best to embarrass gardaí who are doing their duty on behalf of the State. We need to be much more proactive in this area. Any body in society should be subject to independent control, particularly the Judiciary and the legal profession, and competition must be injected into the latter.

I welcome the provision of video-conferencing under section 24 and the amendment to business leases. It is impractical to limit business owners to leases of four years and nine months and it has created many difficulties for both landlords and tenants. Eminently sensible provisions have been inserted in the legislation.

I do not agree with the provisions on the standards in public office. They are not necessary for a member of the Judiciary. A chairman of one of the tribunals had tax difficulties. It is none of my business whether he had or whether his tax affairs are in order. The Revenue Commissioners are there and I do not think anybody would argue the Revenue Commissioners do not have adequate powers and penalties to pursue people in default of taxes. We should not have additional provisions in this Bill. It puts the status of tax compliance almost as a virtue above all others. People can be guilty of other far more serious offences about which they do not need to make statutory declarations. The same applies to ourselves. It is much more important in the appointment or election of people to specific offices that they have a degree of integrity and have the competence and commitment to do the job to which they are appointed or elected properly and effectively.

I wish to make a minor point on juries. We will have a change whereby when a jury is sequestered overnight the judge can separate the jurors. This could lead to a risk of intimidation. We have extremely serious criminal activities in the country and we have seen significant high-profile examples of the total disregard for law. I wonder about this provision. We must ensure that we do not place jurors in a situation whereby as a result of separation they find themselves intimidated during their consideration of the evidence prior to making their decision and returning to the court.