Ivana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister to the House. Without prolonging things at this point - I am mindful that we have many amendments to get through - I wish to refer to some key issues. Clearly, colleagues believe in the need to make Second Stage speeches at this point. I remind colleagues that we had a full Second Stage on 13 May on the Bill that is before the House now. It was substantially amended in the Dáil, as Minister has said. My note indicates that only eight of us spoke. I was one of those eight. Certainly, I made a full speech in which I spoke about the need, as I saw it, for certain amendments and so on. I speak as a former member of the Bar and a practising barrister.I can say for sure, and Senator O'Donovan will acknowledge, that there are many members of both legal professions who are most unhappy about the reforms in this Bill. I refer to substantial reforms, particularly in the area of costs. I urge colleagues to examine the provisions on costs that are not being amended in any substantive way and that will provide for much greater transparency and provide for a duty to give advance notice on costs to clients. This is extremely significant for consumers.

To speak in broad terms, the other great change is the one to bring about an independent system of regulation for practitioners in both professions. Again, this is a significant change about which many practising lawyers are unhappy but, nonetheless, it is an important and welcome one that will provide for significant lay supervision.

Senator Barrett, in particular, spoke about who should be on the legal services regulatory authority. Section 8 of the Bill provides that lay members should be nominated by FLAC, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and others. There will be a really important input from those bodies with human rights expertise and so on. That is important.

People have been making issue about the transfer of staff but I believe there was general support for it in the Dáil. Senator Conway will remember that when the justice committee had hearings on this Bill some years ago, staff transfers comprised a significant issue. Reference was made to the need to ensure continuity of expertise and adequate competence in the new regulatory authority. If one examines the provision, one sees it is only giving the authority the option to transfer staff. It strikes the right balance.

I have two other points. On section 33, Senator Barrett mentioned university law schools. That is a subject close to my heart, of course, and I know that university law schools are looking at this with great interest. Section 33 will empower the authority, once it is established, to take soundings and examine the evidence basis for extending the provision of legal education to the universities and other entities, in addition to considering the unification of the legal profession, which I believe would be a welcome reform but for which we need to see the case. A good balance is struck between the necessary reforms that need to be carried out now on costs and independent regulation and setting up a basis for further reforms. This is the start of a reform of the legal profession that is long overdue.

Among the reforms that have been in place for many years now are those to allow solicitors rights of audience before all courts. Senator Barrett should note that solicitors do have rights of audience before all the courts, but very few solicitors choose to exercise them. In fact, the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Shatter, was one of the few practising solicitors who appeared quite regularly in the superior court. This is a matter that requires cultural shift. However, the sorts of changes being brought about in this Bill will certainly help to expedite the cultural shift that is needed urgently in the legal profession.

It is a contradiction to say we urgently need reform of the legal profession and then object to this Bill coming before us now, a few months after Second Stage. We need to get this Bill through. I am glad there is to be a review clause in it. There is a two-year review clause. It will ensure that we keep our eye on the ball in terms of the reform of the legal profession.