Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister to the House. Fianna Fáil accepts the broad thrust of the Bill. It is a long time in the making. It is like a slow Christmas cake in that it has been going on for some time. I understand there were various difficulties, but I must acknowledge that the last time the area of solicitors' partnerships and so on was seriously looked at was the 1890 Act, which was a Victorian piece of legislation from 130 years ago. I have some concerns about the Bill - if I did not, I would not be doing my job - but I broadly welcome it.

I am speaking as a solicitor, as I still have a practising certificate. Solicitors and the Law Society have totally bought into the idea of independent regulation. There is no way out of that - it is a must. However, while I accept the notion of independent regulation, it must be totally independent and must be independent of Government, regardless of who is in government. Otherwise, it may not be worthwhile.

One of the things the troika mentioned was solicitors' costs. From my experience in a small rural practice in west Cork, which would be typical of rural Ireland, if one takes out the four or five big practices that charge €450 an hour or so, in my home town and in many of the towns in Mayo and Clare, one would be lucky to get €125. It is the big heavyweights in the business who dictate the pace and the costs. Many of the small solicitors' offices are struggling. I met a man in Dublin last year or the year before who was a qualified solicitor but who drove a taxi part-time to survive because he was struggling. That is something that must be dealt with, because if one is dealing with the question of costs, hit the big sharks that are making massive money, but be careful not to destroy the small practices that are struggling to survive. In many of them, including those in Kerry or Donegal, there are three, four or five solicitors in the practice. The Minister should be very cúramach not to damage those. Otherwise, the Government will have done terrible damage to rural Ireland once more because of centralisation and so on.

Regarding multidisciplinary partnership, where solicitors might be in partnership with accountants, estate agents, actuaries or whatever, we have all had to contribute to the compensation element of the Law Society, which has had to bail out rogue solicitors for years. It is important that this sort of funding be ring-fenced to cover solicitors only. I am not sure of the mechanics of it, but there is no point having a solicitors' fund that bails out an auctioneer or an accountant in a multidisciplinary practice. It is a difficult one to concoct, but I want to fire a warning shot in this regard.

I agree fully with the whole area of professional conduct. We must have the highest standards. I came back from England in April 1981 and opened up a small sole practice in Bantry. I was one of the first rural solicitors, and on the advice of the Law Society then - I cannot even remember who the general secretary was - it cost me £750 to take out professional indemnity insurance. It is now a must, but it is a headache for many offices as it is quite dear - probably around €3,000 per solicitor now. It has to be there but we must find a way of making it fair across the system.

Another issue that the Law Society has probably discussed and which we must deal with in this Bill - there is no point in saying we will deal with it in another Bill - is the area of limited liability partnership for solicitors and limited liability company structures for solicitors. It is a long time in the making. I cannot speak for the Bar Association, although I met both groups. The Law Society has done a great deal of negotiating, both with the current Minister and with her predecessor, and its view on this, which I hear from my local bar association, is that a negotiated process with the Minister, her officials and the Department is better than amendments tabled by the likes of me or my colleagues in the Dáil, which the Minister may not accept. Some areas are still to be sorted out. We might deal with that by way of amendments. I hope the Minister will, during the passage of this Bill through the House, deal with amendments that we submit in good faith. At the end of the day, it is now the Minister's Bill. She will be rewarded or condemned on the eventual result of this Bill, which is important.

I will mention another aspect which, while it may not directly concern the Bill, certainly concerns the legal practices. The troika came in and said that legal expenses in Ireland are very severe. That is grand for the big firms in the cities. One of the things that happened was that free legal aid was reduced by 33%, the second day in court was brought down to €50 or €60 and travel expenses were reduced from 48 cent to 24 cent. In my area, five courts, in places such as Castletownbere, which is two hours from Cork city, Schull, Dunmanway, Kinsale and Glengarriff, have been closed. The least well off are being hit the hardest by these cuts. A friend of mine from another firm said that if a solicitor goes on a day out to Cork for a free legal aid case, just 24 cent a mile is given to him or her in travel expenses. Most of the day is gone, as one has up two hours driving each way from some areas and must pay for parking, so the solicitor will be at a loss. It was a knee-jerk reaction to cut this down to keep the troika happy. That is only fiddling at the edges. They are not the real costs at all. That will have to be recognised, because the people who get free legal aid are the most disadvantaged in society. We must not lose sight of that. It is critical.

Matters relating to the protection of clients of legal practitioners are mentioned in the Bill. It is, of course, extremely important that clients and their moneys are protected. In the second page of the Minister's speech, she mentions the six objectives.I have no difficulty with "protecting and promoting the public interest", and most would not. I would go along with "protecting and promoting the interests of consumers relating to the provision of legal services", subject to the point I made already about being careful not to wipe out the smaller fry - that is, solicitors in partnerships of two or three in rural areas. The Minister then stated the remaining three objectives support high standards in the provision of legal services, the first of which was "supporting the proper and effective administration of justice". I have no bother with that. It is good, and we should strive to emulate the highest standards in this regard. The second, "encouraging an independent, strong and effective legal profession", is not a bother. That is also important, as is "promoting and maintaining adherence to the professional principles." In my 35 years of experience as a practising solicitor, the vast majority of lawyers, both solicitors and barristers, strive to maintain the highest principles. Unfortunately, a few rotten apples have given us a bad name, and there were serious cases of fraud. It should be recognised that most solicitors give good service, and they seek to maintain the highest possible standards for the profession, which we must maintain and achieve.

Earlier I mentioned multidisciplinary partnerships, which are dealt with in sections 15 to 17, inclusive. Northern Ireland and Great Britain, Canada, the United States, Australia and all the Commonwealth countries have that type of limited partnership set-up. Ireland is the only country that does not, and it is important that we row in behind that. I am not saying we should be using that to get out of our responsibilities and diminish the standards that we should have for the public. In the case, for example, of a ten-person partnership in which, unknown to the others, a crooked solicitor brings down the ship, there should be some system to protect the other nine if they are innocent. There was one famous such case here in Dublin, in which the solicitor is not in the country. I will not name names. In that case, there were staff working with that person who were totally innocent and unaware of the mischief that was going on. That is something of which we must be careful.

The other point I will make in my limited time is that the Minister is setting up a new disciplinary tribunal. I do not really have a problem with that, but we must be careful that the outcome of the Bill is not the setting up of another quango or two that create problems. Obviously, we need discipline, independent monitoring and an independent regulatory body, but I would be afraid of ending up with a glorified quango.

I will give great credit to the Minister's predecessor, although sometimes I have been critical, in trying move this forward. It is a substantial piece of legislation. It is a brave step. Although it has been talked about for 20 or 30 years, it is the first time a Government came along, grasped the nettle, took the bull by the horns and took on the Law Society and the barristers' association. For many years, it was the tail wagging the dog. I appreciate that. Even though I might be a member of the Law Society, I have no qualms about saying that mistakes have been made. For decades, the powers that be within those bodies resisted change. They wanted things to go on as they were.

I hope the Bill will be passed into law before the year is out. The Minister stated that she hoped it would be up and running. It is such a substantial piece of legislation that we should be given adequate time on Committee and Report Stages. There is yet a long summer to the recess in the middle of July, and I would not like Committee Stage to be taken next week and Report Stage the following week. Without prolonging it, there should surely be a two-week gap in between to allow us to submit amendments and discuss them. The Minister also stated that she was amenable to amendments. It is important that the Bill, when finally cooked, is the best that the Oireachtas can produce. I wish the Minister well with it.