Sean Barrett (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 34:

In page 35, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:“(d) the right of direct access to a barrister other than through a solicitor;”.

This amendment deals with territory we have already been over in the context of the work programme of the new body. Education and training is first, followed by subsection (1)(b) on unification. Subsection (1)(c) deals with the creation of the new profession of conveyancer. We have discussed the urgency of that provision, given that some studies would indicate there are significant differences in the costs for that service between the United Kingdom and here. In that context, I suggest that this provision be moved up the list. My amendment proposes a new subsection (1)(d) which gives the consumer the right of direct access to a barrister other than through a solicitor. This issue has been mentioned by the Competition Authority as one of the restrictive practices in this area but it is not on the work programme of the body as outlined in section 33(1). Will the Minister consider this proposal to address one of the traditional restrictive practices identified in this area?The right of audience is currently very restricted. I gather we have a surplus of barristers who are available and have the necessary skills and qualifications. Why can people not approach them directly? Would that have a good impact on cost? That is the purpose of amendment No. 34.

Amendment No. 35 reflects the concern that, as legal services are developing, they are becoming increasingly oligopolistic, dominated by three or four firms. Senator O'Donovan has referred to that. It will damage the cost structure of the sector. It is a matter of increasing worry in respect of the economics of the professions. I gather that all but one company on the FTSE 100 are audited by the "big four" accountants. The concentration of a small number of legal firms, from three to five depending on how one measures them, should be a matter of concern to the authority as it sees how the sector is developing. Amendment No. 35 seeks to address this issue.

Amendment No. 36 is one we have discussed already. It covers the question of whether the work programme can be brought forward, earlier than in two years. As we have mentioned, the two-year period is specified to deal with the education of the legal profession.

Amendment No. 38 concerns "reports on the creation of a new professional conveyancer, including the conduct of conveyancing by other professions, the extent of monopolistic provision of legal services in the State and the right of direct access to a barrister", rather than through a solicitor. The reference in the amendment to "other than through a barrister" is a mistake on my part but what I am trying to say is implicit. Should the work programme that is envisaged have different priorities after Members of the Seanad and the wider public have expressed their views? Conveyancing is urgent, as is the right of audience. I found, in preparing for this debate, that there is concern over the increasingly monopolistic concentration ratio, as mentioned by Senator O'Donovan. I refer to the dominance of the sector by the big firms. There is concern in the National Competitiveness Council about the high cost of legal fees. Can we introduce more competition into conveyancing? The Minister referred to this earlier. Can we use the stock of barristers better by allowing people to approach them directly?