Paul Bradford (Renua Ireland) | Oireachtas source

Thank you very much, Acting Chairman. I wish you had not said that because it is unhelpful from my perspective. The Minister is welcome and I am sure we will have a substantive debate this afternoon and beyond. I concur with what was said previously to the effect that this is really a new or fresh start. To use the awful phrase, we are where we are.

I am unsure whether it was Peter Mandelson, when working for Tony Blair, or Mr. Emanuel, when working for President Obama, who coined the phrase that we should never waste a good crisis. I am mindful of that phrase because of the crisis that resulted in the economic meltdown of the country a few short years ago and the subsequent arrival into town of the IMF and the troika with their list of proposals, suggestions and demands, most of which have been enacted.

This brings me to reflect on the fact that one of the big-ticket issues as far as the troika was concerned, as recently as a fortnight ago, was the way law is practised in this country and the way it impinges on the cost of the legal provision for every citizen. Of course, it is not simply a question of every citizen or taxpayer in the country. Anyway, I heard Professor Kinsella being interviewed yesterday afternoon. He made a pertinent observation about the vast cost to the taxpayer of the legal bills for every Department and virtually every agency of State. If we fail or refuse to challenge legal costs, it is not only the so-called private citizen or householder who is affected. The taxpayer who is footing the legal bills for every Department and Government agency is being affected as well. Certainly, there was an expectation four short - or long - years ago when this Bill was introduced. I served briefly on the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality at that stage. There was an expectation that when the Bill was passed we would see a new regime in place and that the cost of the provision of legal services would be reduced. There appears to be no indication that we are going in that direction.

The Minister made certain remarks in her opening statement. It was useful that the Minister prefaced the debate with the remarks to the effect that she sees this as good news for consumers. I imagine the Minister believes that. Yet the only response of consumer champions or consumer associations to date has been one of regret and disappointment. They believe what they believe and the Minister believes what she believes. I call on the Minister to clarify why she believes it is good news for consumers.

The Minister also made what I deem to be a very honest statement, if she was quoted correctly. Of course, the Minister is not always quoted correctly. Anyway, yesterday a newspaper reported the Minister describing the Bill as a pragmatic solution in response to some of the criticisms. I did not hear the Minister say it, but she was quoted as pronouncing that this was a pragmatic solution. We experience great difficulties in the way we try to do political business and carry out reform in this State and in respect of the law. One of the reasons we often fail is that pragmatism wins. It is a neat, handy and short-term solution, but pragmatic solutions to big issues are not required in this case.

I agree with what Senator O'Donovan has said about the major variance in legal costs throughout the country. Let no one be in doubt: there are many barristers who are failing to eke out a living in this country and many solicitors likewise. Not every legal practice has a lottery machine in the back room of the premises. However, the general cost of legal services in this country is still extraordinarily high by European and world standards. When this almost new Bill is passed and these sections and amendments are all pushed through, we should ask ourselves honestly what will have changed and whether law be more accessible from a financial perspective to the citizen on the street. The answer is clearly going to be "No". We have substantial issues to take up with the Minister as we peruse this legislation. They relate to the concept of regulation, the independence of regulation and the new practices required. All these questions will have to be at the centre of the debate. It is difficult to accept that what is now before the House is in any way related to what was published in 2011. One particular route was taken at that stage but it appears to have been reversed.

The Minister rightly referred to legislation going back to the 1950s. Obviously there is a need for major updating. However, I believe we are in danger, following the changes proposed in recent weeks or months by the current Government, having waited for four years, of putting through changes to a reform Bill which will negate its entire purpose.

I look forward to the Minister's defence of her amendments. In fairness, the Minister had to present this legislation to her Cabinet colleagues. They now seem to be at one on the matter. The heavy hand of forces outside Government appears to have worked on this occasion. The consumer and the economy are the losers. So often the Taoiseach refers to building a modern, dynamic, creative and inventive economy. If we are to be the famous best small country in the world to do business, then issues such as the practice of law and the cost of same need to be dramatically reformed. They will not be fundamentally reformed arising from these amendments. I look forward to the Minister's observations on the amendments.

I do not believe it would be the end of the world, from a reform or a political perspective, if it were not possible to push this legislation through the Dáil and Seanad before the term of this Government ends, because we need to get it right. Maybe it is a question of only parliamentary days rather than weeks left. After all the waiting, consultation and submissions, there is a danger that we could pass legislation which, while bringing many improvements - in fairness, all legislation does - does not really push the buttons required of us and demanded of us, rightly, not only by the troika but by consumer champions in this country as well.