Feargal Quinn (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Okay. The Bill before the House is worthy of support. It has taken a long time to get this far. I hope this legislation comes from the perspective of putting more regulation on the legal profession. It sounds from everything I have heard today that this is needed. It has been argued that this kind of regulation is necessary because the legal profession has not adequately regulated itself.

One of the other big arguments in favour of this Bill is that it will reduce customer costs. We are all well aware of the massive legal costs in this country. We heard today that Ireland and Britain have the highest legal costs in Europe. While the Government argues that costs will come down, some people in the legal profession argue that this legislation will not affect this aspect of the matter. I would like the Minister of State to tell us whether any cost analysis has been done to get exact figures on the savings the customer is likely to get. Such analyses are the norm in business. If this argument is to be supported, I would like to get some concrete figures on the savings. I would be interested if the Minister could provide such figures at this stage or later. I am asking for a general view on the likely savings for the customer.

I proposed the Construction Contracts Bill 2010, which subsequently became law as the Construction Contracts Act 2013, to reduce legal costs and the costs associated with going to court. It has not yet been enacted but it is very close to it. The adjudication process provided for in that legislation will mean that disputes among construction contractors can be resolved without lengthy and costly court processes. However, this Bill has still not been brought into operation. I suggest this is a clear example of something we can do to reduce the need to engage in legal proceedings. It presents a clear alternative dispute resolution mechanism. I hope the Construction Contracts Act can be enacted as soon as possible.

I would like to mention an idea that could be included in this Bill and would help to reduce the cost of legal proceedings. According to the World Bank, the introduction of electronic court filing platforms has been one of the commonest features of contract enforcement reform throughout the world over the past year. It claims:

These enable litigants to file initial complaints electronically - increasing transparency, expediting the filing and the service of process, limiting opportunities for corruption and preventing the loss, destruction or concealment of court records. In Singapore the judiciary launched an electronic litigation system designed to streamline the litigation process and improve access to justice. The system allows litigants to file their cases online - and it enables courts to keep litigants and lawyers informed about their cases through e-mail, text messages and text alerts; to manage hearing dates; and even to hold certain hearings through videoconference.

The benefits of electronic courts, or e-courts, include cost and space savings, increased security, greater transparency and expanded access to justice. The availability of 24-hour filing and remote access allows people to file documents without having to go to a particular building. The savings from the implementation of an e-court system could be substantial. I am reminded of the massive reduction in the use of paper that would be possible if companies could file contract complaints online. I have often spoken in this House about the use of paper when, in many cases, we could do without it.

The electronic filing of initial contract enforcement complaints has been introduced in other EU countries, including Greece and Lithuania, in the past year. Given that this Bill aims to improve the efficiency of the legal profession, which I am sure it will achieve, would the Minister be open to this particular measure which would help businesses? The introduction of e-courts, like the enactment of the Construction Contracts Act 2013, would help to speed up the resolution of disputes and give more protection to business. Crucially, it would also mean we would modernise the legal profession even further, which is a very clear aim of the Bill before the House. I would be very interested to hear whether we will be able to achieve that. I do not expect to get those answers today, but I certainly believe we will be able to develop these themes on Committee and Report Stages. I encourage the Minister of State to develop what we are achieving here. I know his heart is in the right place.