David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 88:

In page 41, line 27, after "appropriate" to insert the following:

"without prejudice to the forgoing the Minister may in consultation with the Chairman of the Labour Court make such regulations relating to representatives of a complainant or a respondent to include the terms of engagement but not limited to contingency fees or percentage fees, evidence of indemnity insurance of a minimum figure as specified by the Minister per complainant or respondent represented and as to the standard of conduct of such representative or representatives in cases before an adjudication officer or the Labour Court and such other matters as he or she in consultation with the Chairman of the Labour Court considers appropriate".

While it is already the case that accountants and solicitors are regulated by a regulatory body and will in the future be regulated under the legal services Bill, representatives for gain are unregulated. They are entitled to charge percentage and contingency fees and engage in champerty, which is illegal for a solicitor. There is, therefore, a clear difference between those who are regulated and those who are not. The former have specified charges, whereas the latter can charge whatever they like. They do not have to have indemnity insurance, but many will advertise that they provide legal services. It is important that these entities are regulated. There are many non-legal entities, by which is meant non-solicitors, counsel, trade unions or employee representative bodies with a negotiating licence that provide an excellent service. Many do not claim to be legally qualified or to provide legal services and will have insurance. In order to have a world-class service, there is a requirement that those providing services for gain be in some way regulated in order that minimum standards can be expected. This is a protection for employers and employees. If people pay for representation services, the representative should have to meet certain minimum standards.

Again, I am talking about the creation of a level playing field. If one group of professional, competent people is regulated, why is there free determination for people who are not regulated, not qualified and not professionally engaged? I have no problem with them engaging for hire, but it is inappropriate for them not to be regulated. It is fair to both employers and employees for there to be a degree of control in order that people who avail of the services of such persons know what they are getting, thus ensuring their rights are protected under law and that they are not left open to cowboys. This does not mean that all of the people in the unregulated category are cowboys, but some may be and I have tabled this amendment to address the point.