Alex White (Labour)

It is more of a courtesy and I accept it in terms of the protocol of the House.

In terms of what was stated on the legal profession and fees, I would welcome a debate on lawyers' fees. We could have it in this House and I would have no problem participating in it. It might be more interesting than the brickbats which go across the House on this subject. Let us ask whether it is right that our great friend, the market, should define legal fees. This is the case. Whether colleagues like it or not, legal fees are determined by a market. If Senators have ideas and proposals — I might share some of my own in due course — as to how this might change let us have them debated. It is not enough to rail against individual examples of high fees and the suggestion of a cartel among members of the profession. I am not aware of any such cartel in terms of setting legal fees or restricting competition within the profession. However, if there is such a cartel and if that allegation is to be made, let it be elaborated on and let us have the debate to see what people are talking about.

Again I remind Members that the fees in the tribunals were not set by the Bar Council but by the Attorney General. Let us be clear where the difficulty lies. If members of the Government are unhappy about the legal fees being paid to lawyers doing a professional job before the tribunals set up by these Houses, instead of railing against them and availing of 30 seconds to have a go at them in this House, let us have a real debate and ask why the Attorney General set fees for lawyers at the tribunals on a daily basis and in circumstances where it could be seen that the tribunals would go on for months and even years. Why did he do that or not change it subsequently? Let us have that debate and be clear about it. I am not here speaking on behalf of the profession or the Bar Council. I am a lawyer in practice but a certain amount of honesty and clarity about these issues would help all of us in such a debate whenever we have it.

I do not have the opportunity to go through some of the other issues in the Bill now but I might revisit them on Committee Stage if we believe it is appropriate to introduce amendments. One or two issues strike me in passing as welcome. For example, what the Bill proposes in respect of the management of the jury system, such as the empanelling and availability of persons for jury service, is very welcome. We often hear from people who serve on juries — I am not talking from a professional point of view but from an anecdotal one — that they must take two days or a week off work but that there is huge uncertainty surrounding the time required. There are exigencies in the legal system and it is not always clear when a case will be taken. However, perhaps we could look again at how we manage the system and how we can give people a little more clarity if they are empanelled for jury service. We should give them some indication on how long they will need to be available so they will be a little bit more prepared to co-operate.

The Minister of State will agree it is vitally important that a wide range of people are available to serve on juries. This issue has come up again and again. There is often a preponderance of people who are retired or people who are more available than, say, people in business and people working for themselves. Sometimes there is an imbalance in the availability of people to attend for jury service. We should always strive to ensure there is a proper range of citizens available to serve on juries. The Minister of State said there was a possibility of increasing the age limit to 70. While I do not have a difficulty with that, it again reflects the experience that there tends to be a preponderance of people in the older age bracket available to serve on juries which is a pity.

The Bill does away with censors and replaces them with classifiers. I do not know whether that is a product of the more careful and sensitive language of our era or whether it represents something of more substance than simply a change in the nomenclature. Perhaps it is good that we depart from the kind of Victorian idea of censorship and look at it in a more professional way and describe the censors as classifiers. However, it does not have the same ring, but that is for another day.

I agree with Senators Regan and Norris in respect of legal aid. I would like the opportunity to review this issue which one can do on Committee Stage with amendments. If I understand it, it seems the rationale the Minister has proffered for this change does not stand up. Perhaps the Minister of State will revisit it in his closing remarks if he gets the opportunity. I hope the Minister has had the opportunity to discuss this with the people involved in FLAC who raised it with me and others. Their view is that the amendment would have the effect of narrowing the number of cases where a waiver or a reduction in contribution would apply in the case of severe hardship. That is a view people involved in this field have formed on the basis of their experience. The definition of "severe hardship" must be looked at. What is severe hardship as opposed to hardship? If the effect of the Minister's amendment, which was passed by the other House, is to narrow the cases where a waiver or reduction would apply in cases of severe hardship, it would be wrong and would be a reduction in the level of legal aid available to persons who need it.

Placing a further onus on an applicant to demonstrate severe hardship introduces a new hoop through which people must jump. From the analysis of this provision I have read, it would appear to represent a weakening or a reduction in the level of legal aid rather than simply being a technical adjustment as appears to be suggested by the Minister. This could lead to further hardship and a contraction in the number of circumstances in which we would make legal aid available. Will the Minister of State clarify what precisely is the reason for this and reassure us that it will not have the effect FLAC and others state it will?