David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move:

That Dáil Éireann, noting that the Government agreed on 13 July 2016 to propose, for the approval of Dáil Éireann, the appointment of the persons concerned to be members of the Legal Services Regulatory Authority, and pursuant to section 9 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015, approves the appointment, with effect from the establishment day to be appointed by the Minister for Justice and Equality in accordance with section 7 of that Act, by the Government of the following persons to be members of the Legal Services Regulatory Authority, six of whom shall hold office for a period not exceeding four years from the date of his or her appointment as the Government shall determine and five of whom shall hold office for a period of three years from the date of their appointment in accordance with section 10(2) of that Act: Angela Black, Don Thornhill, Deirdre McHugh, Gerry Whyte, Stephen Fitzpatrick, Dermot Jewell, David Barniville, Joan Crawford, Nicholas Kearns, Geraldine Clarke and James MacGuill.

I am taking this on behalf of the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality who regrets she cannot be present due to other official commitments. In our consideration of the motion before us today, we are preparing the way for the coming into operation of the new legal services regulatory authority. This is the new body charged with the oversight of legal practitioners, legal services and a more transparent legal costs regime in the State as provided under the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015.

At its meeting of 13 July 2016, the Government agreed to propose, for consideration under today’s motion, the appointment of named persons to be members of the new authority.

Although the Government is the appointing authority for the members of the new regulatory authority under the Act, these appointments must first be approved by resolutions of both Dáil and Seanad. I am today, therefore, seeking the approval of this House for those persons being nominated under this motion to be appointed by the Government as the members of the new authority. The motion before the House today, therefore, follows the similarly required motion that was passed by the Seanad on 19 July.

The persons named under today's motion are the nominees of the nominating bodies which are set out by name in the Act. Indeed, this is the sole process whereby these names have been selected. The independence of the statutory nominating process set out in this reforming legislation will speak for itself, as I set it out before the House.

The Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality, earlier this week, signed a commencement order in respect of certain provisions of Part 1 and Part 2 of the 2015 Legal Services Regulation Act. This has been done as necessary to support the start-up of the new Legal Services Regulatory Authority, including the approval being sought from this House under today's motion.

Further parts of the Legal Services Regulation Act will be commenced on a phased basis in the autumn as the new authority gets up and running and ready to take over key areas such as inspections, public complaints and the new legal business models. The sequencing of these further commencements is being planned carefully. Great care will have to be taken to ensure that the various commencements are correctly executed, including in relation to each other, and that the replacement of existing regulatory regimes leaves no unintended gaps.

As Deputies will appreciate, the establishment of this new regulatory authority and the assumption by it of regulatory oversight of all legal practitioners in the State, including the handling of complaints against them, and the authority's responsibility to oversee the operation and opening up of the legal services market in Ireland, are historical structural reforms of the regulatory architecture in these areas.

Under today's motion it is also being proposed that the relevant appointments to the new Legal Services Regulatory Authority, once approved, will be with effect from the authority's establishment day. Under section 7 of the Legal Services Regulation Act, the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality will shortly make the required order to set 1 October 2016 as the establishment day of the Legal Services Regulatory Authority. The setting of 1 October 2016 as establishment day will give momentum to the establishment and coming into operation of the new Legal Services Regulatory Authority and will trigger a number of specific measures under the Act. It will provide greater focus and depth to the process of modernisation and change that the new regulatory regime is intended to deliver.

Rather than considering the nominees for approval under today's motion for appointment to the new regulatory authority in isolation, it is worth recalling the key levers of reform which are contained in the 2015 Act and which will come under its remit. These are a new and independent Legal Services Regulatory Authority with responsibility for oversight of both solicitors and barristers and an independent complaints system dealing with legal professional misconduct which will provide a first port of call for the public in making complaints independent of the legal professional bodies. There will also be a new and independent legal practitioners' disciplinary tribunal to adjudicate on serious misconduct in relation to both solicitors and barristers. Included also is an enhanced legal costs regime bolstered by a set of legal costs principles and which places more extensive obligations on both solicitors and barristers to keep clients informed about the details of their legal costs. Separately, the new Office of the Legal Costs Adjudicator will assume the role of the existing Office of the Taxing-Master and keep a public register of its legal costs determinations. There is also a framework for new legal business models. These new business structures will include public consultation and the early introduction of legal partnerships between barristers and solicitors or between barristers themselves. Provision is also made for the introduction of limited liability partnerships. Lawyers will now, as a matter of law, be able to avail of the new legal business models and to operate them freely. Of course, the more traditional forms of legal practice will remain available to practitioners but now as a matter of greater choice. A pathway is also provided under the 2015 Act for the introduction, on foot of formal research and public consultations, of multidisciplinary practices whereby services can be provided at a more competitive cost by legal and non-legal service providers together.

The new Act also opens up other aspects of legal practice. For example, it allows employed or corporate lawyers to act in proceedings on behalf of their employers and for direct access to barristers on non-contentious business. It also allows barristers sharing a premises to advertise themselves as such. These had all been prevented by existing codes. The aim of opening up these areas is that there will be greater choice in how legal services may be provided and in how they can be accessed by consumers while also on a more competitive basis for all concerned.

To underpin the independence of the new Legal Services Regulatory Authority, the members of the authority are nominated to the Government by ten nominating bodies specified in section 9 of the 2015 Act. These bodies have been purposely set in the legislation to represent a balance between the interests of lawyers and those of consumers and other stakeholders in our regulation of legal services and of legal costs. Membership is also staggered by the drawing of lots at the first meeting of the authority as a result of which there will be four-year members and three-year members. This ensures the continuity of expertise and functions of the new regulatory authority. The authority is to consist of 11 members of whom a majority, that is, six members, including the chairperson, are to be lay persons nominated by the six prescribed non-legal bodies. The remaining five members are nominated by the prescribed legal bodies.

Each prescribed body, with the exception of the Law Society which nominates two members, has nominated one person for appointment as members of the new authority. In the case of all the bodies except the Law Society, each body was also required to nominate a substitute nominee of the opposite gender to their primary nominee to facilitate gender balance. The authority must have no fewer than four members who are women and no fewer than four who are men. The Law Society has two nominees reflecting the fact that solicitors outnumber barristers being regulated under the 2015 Act by about five to one. There are around 10,000 practising solicitors compared with around 2,000 practising barristers.

The key requirement of the Legal Services Regulation Act is that the nominees must have knowledge and expertise in specified areas, for example, in the provision of legal services, competition, legal training and education, dealing with complaints against members of regulated professions, the needs of consumers of legal services, business and commercial matters and professional standards regulation. The nominees and their associated bodies are: Ms Angela Black, the Citizens Information Board; Dr. Don Thornhill, the Higher Education Authority; Ms Deirdre McHugh, the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission; Professor Gerry Whyte, the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission; Mr. Stephen Fitzpatrick, the Institute of Legal Costs Accountants; Mr. Dermot Jewell, the Consumers Association of Ireland; Mr. David Barniville, the Bar Council; Ms Joan Crawford, the Legal Aid Board; Mr. Justice Nicholas Kearns, the Honorable Society of King's Inns; and Ms Geraldine Clarke and Mr. James MacGuill, the Law Society.

The Government also agreed at its meeting of 13 July 2016 to appoint one of the nominees under today's motion, Dr Don Thornhill, to be chairperson of the new authority. The power is given to the Government under the 2015 Act to make that appointment but this is, of course, subject to the candidate having been first approved as a member of the authority by a motion of both Houses. Dr. Thornhill is a respected public figure who has successfully held several public leadership roles spanning different sectors. I am confident he will bring much experience, knowledge and clout to the role of chair. He has also led the National Competitiveness Council in its campaign to cut legal costs for consumers and enterprise. I think the House will agree that, with these qualities, he is well placed to provide the inaugural authority with the kind of direction and vision needed to be a successful and highly regarded independent regulator.

The nomination and appointment procedures for the regulatory authority, which include seeking the necessary approval under today's motion, are legislatively robust. This is no accident. It is a model that was introduced by Government amendment in direct response to independence concerns that were raised in 2011 on initial publication of the Legal Services Regulation Bill which had only used standard public appointment provisions. Something more was required in this instance. I am delighted that we have now been able to avail of a nominating process in the 2015 Act which draws from a group of prescribed nominating bodies representing the balance of stakeholders concerned. The nominating bodies have been able to put forward, as named for approval under today's motion, a competent team which can make a real contribution in real time to the work of the new Legal Services Regulatory Authority.

I commend the motion to the House and the thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for the extra time.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will start by declaring an interest. I am a practising barrister and if this motion is passed, I will be regulated by the authority whose membership we are voting on today.

I welcome the fact that the Dáil is being given an opportunity, under section 9 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015, to vote on the membership of the Legal Services Regulatory Authority. Fianna Fáil will be supporting the membership that has been put before the Dáil today under the chairmanship of Dr. Thornhill. We believe it is a well-balanced board that will be suitable in terms of its important role as being the inaugural board to regulate on a statutory basis the solicitor and barrister professions in Ireland.

It is also important to look at the history and progress of the legislation as it went through the previous Dáil. There has been a protracted development of this legislation. Part of the reason for the protracted progress of the legislation was because of the initial plan that the previous Government put before the Dáil in terms of the first draft of the Legal Services Regulation Bill 2011. Under that Bill, it was proposed that there would be 11 members of the Legal Services Regulatory Authority but that seven of those members would be appointed directly by the Government. That proposal was met by shock by lawyers, not only in Ireland but internationally. Unfortunately, sometimes when lawyers speak out there is a belief that they do so solely out of self-interest. That was not the case in response to the initial proposal put forward by the previous Government. The reason it caused shock was because if the Government was in a position whereby it could appoint the majority of the members of the authority that would regulate lawyers in Ireland, it would hand inordinate power and control over the legal profession to the executive branch of the Oireachtas. The reason that is dangerous is because it would put pressure on lawyers to toe the line in respect of what Government wished. It is a sign of an effective and successful democracy that lawyers are able to take cases against individuals and against the State without having the fear that they may in some respect curry disfavour with the Government of the day.

This concern was not exclusively mentioned by lawyers in Ireland. It was also a concern voiced by the International Bar Association, the American Bar Association and the European bar and law societies. In fact, the head of the International Bar Association described the initial proposals put forward by the previous Government in respect of how it proposed to constitute the Legal Services Regulatory Authority as one of the most extensive and far-reaching attempts by an Executive to control the legal profession.

11 o’clock

He compared the original proposals to legal systems operating in China, Gambia and Vietnam. Fortunately, the previous Government saw the error of its ways and a new system of selecting the membership of the regulatory authority was established.

It is an innovative mechanism as under the statutory regime, certain nominating bodies are given the entitlement to nominate individuals through the board of the authority. The benefit is that although the Government ultimately appoints these individuals, we can see a process whereby they are appointed by nominating bodies. It means the Executive branch of government does not have control over the legal profession. It is bad for the Government to have control over the legal profession because it would interfere with and damage the rights of citizens who wish to take cases against the State. The State is a very significant defendant in cases, with citizens taking cases against the State either through judicial review, the criminal process or civil litigation.

It would be wrong if the impression was given to the Irish public that prior to the enactment of this legislation there was no regulation or soft-touch regulation in respect of lawyers in Ireland. That is not the case. The Law Society, presided over on a statutory basis by the President of the High Court, has a very vigorous supervisory and disciplining process, which has the effect of bringing solicitors who deviate from good practice to account. Similarly, the Bar Council disciplinary conduct tribunal, which has a majority of lay members, disciplines barristers. The reason there are more public complaints against solicitors is purely because they have access to client funds, something that barristers do not have. We support the motion before the House and we welcome the membership of the board. We wish the board well in its important future task.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call Deputy Clare Daly, who has five minutes.

Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am just in the nick of time. After years of delay and fierce resistance from the bodies this legislation is supposed to regulate, and a rewriting of that legislation largely by the bodies, we have finally got to the point of appointing members to the board of the new legal services regulatory authority. Some change is desperately needed and I welcome that fact. To be honest, the role played by the Law Society over the past period has demonstrated it to be an organisation that is absolutely not fit for purpose. It is as bad, if not worse, as all the other organisations that have been set up to regulate and investigate themselves.

Even with the best people in the world, that type of system would not work but we know there is a litany of disaster when we consider the Law Society's history. The idea that the Law Society would operate as both a representative and a regulatory body for solicitors is dysfunctional and unacceptable. The new Act from which the body is being set up removes some of the regulatory functions from the Law Society but I argue it is certainly not enough. I am not happy with the amount of power that the Law Society is keeping because of its historic activity. I will deal with one or two cases, and I assure the Leas-Cheann Comhairle that where I mention names, they are in the public domain and have been the subject of court cases. They are beyond dispute.

People like Mr. Fergus Appelbe are well known. He is a former solicitor, currently practising under supervision, and he was the subject of two "Today Tonight" investigations in the late 1980s because of his conduct. He was ultimately convicted of fraud. The hole left in accounts by this individual and his various companies amount to somewhere between €100 million and €200 million, and that hole will probably have to be filled by the Irish taxpayer, as the Minister of State knows. He is not allowed to be a company director in the North but he has been allowed to continue to practice under supervision here. The Law Society failed utterly to investigate the large and countless claims against him. It protected him and appointed him to its conveyancing committee.

An individual who complained about this gentleman was Mr. Colm Murphy. Probably as a result of those complaints - in retaliation, in effect - a process was embarked upon, supported by the Law Society, which saw Mr. Murphy struck off, allegedly for breaching an undertaking he had given in the High Court. A solicitor for the Law Society, Ms Linda Kirwan, swore in an affidavit that she had witnessed him giving this undertaking. After Mr. Murphy was struck off, she acknowledged that she had not even been in court on the day in which the alleged undertaking was given. Not only that but there is no record of any such undertaking anyway. Nevertheless, Ms Kirwan is now head of complaints and client relations at the Law Society and was recently elected by the society to represent complaint handler members on the executive committee, despite her admitting to filing a false affidavit. That is incredibly worrying.

We also know the documentation relied upon to strike off Mr. Murphy was a forged document presented by an individual called Mr. Frank Fallon, who subsequently received a seven-year jail term for fraud and forgery. It was alleged and ultimately proven that the document presented in the Murphy case was a forgery and there is evidence to suggest the Law Society was well aware of this but pursued this individual anyway.

The point is in this case and others, the Law Society's barristers and external solicitors have deliberately misled the courts. I am not saying it lightly as these are facts. It was done to prevent this individual, Mr. Murphy, from getting a full hearing and redress in his case. Mr. Justice Nicholas Kearns in the case spoke about repeated "skullduggery" on the part of the Law Society. The problem I have is that the Law Society has been unaccountable and a law unto itself. It decided to go after this individual but it did not decide to go after many others whose actions will cost the taxpayer dear. The unchecked role of the Law Society is something that should have been challenged before now. I am not happy to say this goes far enough and I am not happy with the role of the nominees being put forward in the process. I am glad the new authority is finally being set up, although it is not as robust or independent as I would like.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Legal Services Bill lingered around both Houses for quite some time. It changed hands from one justice Minister to another and there were various controversies along the way. We are all well aware of many issues from the time. The process has not been straightforward and the appointment of the board comes at a critical time in its life stages.

In 2014, the European Commission wrote to Ireland via the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to notify us that Ireland was in breach of the law by virtue of current regulations regarding the advertising of solicitor and barrister services. In 2014, the Commission outlined in a very detailed list why we were in breach and our Government replied that it would fix the breach in the Legal Services Bill. According to Mr. Ken Murphy's piece in The Sunday Business Post, it transpires that the Law Society of Ireland was never informed that it was breaking the law, despite the Government being advised by the European Commission that this was the case. At a minimum we have had two full years where we have been in breach of the EU legislation. Significantly, the State did not remove consent from the Law Society for the current practices despite knowing about the breach. It is interesting that when it comes to other legislation or European directives there is hell fire and brimstone but this one was not addressed.

The illegal advertising regulations have stifled competition in the sector and stopped any realistic option to reduce legal costs, which is a significant factor in the inflated awards we see in the courts, thus driving insurance prices higher and having an impact on the cost of living. There is a direct impact on the individuals practising as solicitors and barristers but there is an indirect but major impact on so many other people in society.

It is interesting that the proposed chairperson was involved in the National Competitiveness Council.

One of the big issues is the breach, which has not been addressed. It is interesting to note that the EU Commission wrote in recent weeks to the State again about the breach. Is this why we are now seeing this back in the House and why the board is being appointed? Is this why there is a sudden rush to appoint the board? Has practical provision, for example, a premises for board meetings, been made or is that why the establishment date is in October?

While the State continues to hold the line until the Legal Services Regulation Act is commenced, all solicitors are in a position of being able to sue the State. More important, we have lost two valuable years during which increased competition in the market may well have driven down the cost of living, for example, insurance costs.

On foot of the letter from the Commission and the article inTheSunday Business Post, will the Minister of State immediately withdraw consent from the current legal regulations in order to promote enhanced competition and move towards compliance with EU regulation? Will the new board commit to acting upon the new regulations to ensure fairness in the market? Are there potential fines for being in breach? Has this methodology been worked through with the European Commission as a response to the letter received in terms of that breach?

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I, too, am delighted to avail of the opportunity to speak to this motion on the last day before we break. I have been asking on the Order of Business and during Question Time when this board would be set up because it is long overdue. I have a list of the names of those to be appointed and I am glad to see it is happening. For too long, we have not had any real regulation. There were promises but it has taken a long time for it to be set up since the legislation was passed through the House.

It is the same as many situations regarding the courts. I know there is a separation of duties but we must have some accountability. We had a referendum on the setting up of a Court of Appeal. I, for one, was not clear about what its functions were going to be at the time. It was just a new tier of judges with no indication as to the workload that would be involved or the number of cases to be held. We know there are massive backlogs in the courts and justice delayed is justice denied.

I welcome the setting up of this authority. I do not know how the people were selected. I am sure they are all eminent people but I do not see the names of lay people per seor, as I call them, ordinary folk. In many cases, they would have as much to offer and would bring a different perspective. The members need not all be former or serving public servants or people who held public office. It is important that we have a blend and balance on the board. It is also important that the board would be subject to timelines and have clearly laid out functions and accountability. Above all, it is important that the report to the Oireachtas would show that it is a functioning board and doing what it says on the tin. The need for it was there.

We know that because we do not seem to have any oversight of what goes on in the courts. With all due respect to my eminent colleague on my right - I am not barrister bashing - the courts are a difficult place for ordinary people to get justice. Yesterday, a Deputy asked about the special courts we are meant to set up to deal with the backlog in repossessions. Nothing is happening. There is a dangerous vibe out there and banks, receivers, sheriffs, repossession agents and, God knows, that whole army which has been set up are enjoying a lucrative business. I would also include some county registrars on that list. They are acting behind closed doors with no oversight and, in some cases, are acting appallingly against ordinary people. These are middle class people who tried to house themselves and paid their way. They paid for everything but ran into difficulties. All they want is fair play and respect, a bit of relief and to renegotiate terms. Some of them are dealing with vulture funds. Others are dealing with the so-called pillar banks, the banks we bailed out, but there is no redress. It is a daunting place and very hard for lay litigants to get access to justice in the courts.

I hope this new board will have teeth and will take up the cudgels for the ordinary, plain people of Ireland who pass by the Four Courts on the quays and do not know what goes on in there. I have been there and stood with a good few of them. I had to move up from the back of the courtroom by two, three, four or perhaps five or six rows. I could not hear a thing. I sat beside litigants who could not hear what was going on either. I do not know the meaning of that. It is difficult enough to understand the language but it is appalling if we cannot hear what is being said. There must be a radical overhaul of how justice is delivered and how it is seen to be delivered.

I have been through the system myself. I have a fair idea of it and I know how prohibitively expensive it is. I know the cost of doing business. I raised that competitiveness issue yesterday. If a person has to go anywhere near the legals, the money clocks up. It is a cash cow and it needs to be regulated. The free legal aid system also needs to be examined. I know of situations where free legal aid was availed of but top-ups were also being paid by those using it. They are in the business of crime and getting away with it using the proceeds of crime. We dealt with the Proceeds of Crime (Amendment) Bill 2016 last night. We need deeper examination of these issues. I wish the board well, but the jury is out on it and how it will perform as far as I am concerned.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Legal Services Regulatory Authority is an independent statutory regulator for all legal practitioners introduced by the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015. The first point I will make is that there was a delay in the text of the motion being published. The Minister of State may not be aware of this, but the Business Committee agreed to this motion being tabled on 14 July. However, it took five days to get the text of the motion. The process to appoint members to the Legal Services Regulatory Authority has been ongoing since last January. Why it took so long for all of this to happen is puzzling. Perhaps the Minister of State, if he is to return to the House later, will inform the House as to why that was the case.

That said, we welcome the motion. Other Deputies have given the reasons we are supportive of the authority getting off the ground. We will reserve judgment for the moment on whether the Act and the new regulatory body will be effective in lowering costs for persons accessing the legal system, which is one of the key challenges and tests for this new authority. We wish it well and hope it has the powers and ability to meet that high benchmark and high-level goal. We all believe that to be of value and I hope that will be one of the positive outcomes of this new authority.

The responsibility will be on the authority to demonstrate its independence from the legal professions to show that it is effective. We suggest that the Oireachtas justice committee invite the members of the authority to come before it at a later stage to discuss its work. It would be good to have a relationship between the sectoral committee and the authority and I am sure that will happen as a matter of course. However, it should be embedded in the work of both the sectoral committee and the authority itself.

It will be a further two years before the authority is required to report back on its work on its mandate and a midway discussion would be useful in that regard. The more information we as Oireachtas Members get on how the authority is working and functioning, the sooner any positive or negative issues that arise can be addressed.

We are hopeful that the new authority will address matters of codes of conflict, admission requirements to the legal professions, conflicts of interest and the long-standing need to address barriers to public interest litigation that exists within this jurisdiction. Conflicts of interest are a massive issue for the public in the case of major firms and we know that one individual, whom I will not name, secured many Government contracts during both the Fianna Fáil-Green Party coalition and the Fine Gael-Labour Party coalition. The same individual is very close to the Fianna Fáil Party, and while there might not be anything wrong in what happened, it is very important that if there are potential conflicts, the authority will be able to capture them in order that people can have confidence when contracts are being put in place. It was this individual who was contracted by the NTMA to draft the NAMA legislation despite many rightly thinking this should be done in-house by the Office of the Chief State Solicitor.

While this is a step in the right direction, it is abundantly clear that real change to the legal professions will take at least another decade. We will allow the motion to proceed but urge the Minister to heed the concerns which we have and which our justice spokesperson has raised with the Department. We also request that the authority engage on an ongoing basis with the Oireachtas Committee on Justice and Equality.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputies for their contributions which I know will also be appreciated by the Tánaiste, on whose behalf I am taking the motion. The motion, along with the similar motion of approval that was agreed before the Seanad on Tuesday, can enable the formal appointment of the 11 nominated members of the new Legal Services Regulatory Authority. Underlying the comments just made, I sense an appreciation of the need to ensure that we will now have an effective new regulatory framework for the legal services sector. It is also important, with the necessary agreement of this House to today's motion, that the members of the new Legal Services Regulatory Authority be able to set about the early recruitment of a chief executive. Under section 24 of the Legal Services Regulation Act, the holder of this important office will be responsible for implementing the policies and decisions of the authority and the managing and controlling generally of its staff, administration and business while also being responsible to the authority for the performance of his or her functions. To minimise any delay in filling this pivotal role, administrative preparations are being made in support of the public recruitment by the new authority of a suitably qualified person for that post. A start-up support team is also being established and a suitable premises is being identified from which the new authority can commence its operations. Deputy Catherine Murphy asked about that point.

These are the initial steps that will enable the chair, members and chief executive of the new regulatory authority to oversee and drive the coming into operation of the new legal services regulatory regime and to shape it in the discharge of its powers and functions. It is also planned that the stage we are now entering in the setting up of the new authority will include the phased commencement of parts of the Act such as those dealing with legal costs, the new Office of the Legal Costs Adjudicator, the roll of practising barristers and pre-action protocols.

Following establishment of the authority, its appointment of a chief executive and the initial commencement of parts of the Act along the lines that I have just mentioned, the key provisions centred around Part 6 of the 2015 Act will be commenced. These deal with the new public complaints and professional conduct and disciplinary procedures, and the appointment of the new legal practitioners disciplinary tribunal. The managed roll-out and commencement of these functions is planned for the autumn. This is being done to allow adequate time and preparation to ensure their effectiveness and success as crucial components of the new regulatory framework.

Let us not lose sight of the fact that this new complaints framework will be a regulatory watershed. For the first time in the history of the State and under legislation, members of the public who are aggrieved with the services they have received from a legal practitioner, whether solicitor or barrister, will now make their complaints to the independent Legal Services Regulatory Authority. They will no longer do so through the legal professional bodies as they do at present.

The new legal practitioners disciplinary tribunal being established under the 2015 Act will deal with matters of serious misconduct arising in relation to solicitors and to barristers. This single and independent tribunal will, in time, replace the respective and separately operating conduct tribunals that deal with solicitors and barristers at the moment. Both the legal professions and the public who avail of their services will be served objectively by the new authority and tribunal in the event that they come before the new professional conduct and discipline regime.

I also emphasise that the new regulatory authority will not be a static entity. The Legal Services Regulation Act has laid out a future path for the new authority which its chair, members and chief executive will have to drive and manage. There is a substantial programme of workto be undertaken in the initial years of the new authority. This, in turn, can pave the way for future reforms under various provisions of the Act. These reforms cover admission policies of the legal professions, education and training for legal practitioners, unification of the solicitors' and barristers' professions, and public consultations on the operation of legal partnerships and on multidisciplinary practices as I have just mentioned, as well as on barristers holding clients' moneys and on barristers receiving direct instructions from lay clients in contentious matters.

By way of responding to the concern that new regulators should be set up in a more sustainable and publicly accountable way, there will be periodic reviews of the operation of the Legal Services Regulation Act. The first of these is to take place 18 months after the establishment of the new regulatory authority to allow it some time to bed down in the discharge of its functions and to meet its early working commitments. This and the subsequent periodic reviews of the Act will be in addition to the normal annual, strategic and business planning obligations of the new body. Moreover, these reviews will include consultation with the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission, professional bodies and other stakeholders. I think the House will agree that having an inherent review mechanism within the Act should make the new regulatory authority more focused and responsive as an instrument of regulated change and reform.

In support of the planned and managed commencement of the relevant parts of the 2015 Act between now and the end of this year, an allocation of €1 million was made under the Justice and Equality Vote for 2016 as set-up support for the new regulatory authority. Any funding advanced from this allocation will be provided on a recoupable basis. Once in operation, the new regulatory regime will be self-funding by means of a levy on the regulated legal professions under the terms set out in Part 7 of the 2015 Act. The essential building blocks are now in place for a modernised and reformed legal services regulatory regime. What we need right now is the team to make that regime come into being. This has been reflected in Members’ contributions just now on this motion to approve for appointment the members of the new Legal Services Regulatory Authority.

The Committee on Justice and Equality is independent and will make its own decisions. When I was Chairman of the committee in the previous Dáil, we carried out a comprehensive review of this proposal and held hearings on the subject. Deputy O'Callaghan mentioned the initial draft and the committee intervened in this to allow everyone to have their say, which has had an impact on what is before us now.

Deputy Catherine Murphy asked about a couple of matters. Section 218 of the Act will meet some of the concerns when it is commenced. The infringement has not been determined but formally notified and alleged by the European Commission. We have made legislative repairs in the Act. No fines arise and it was not rushed on account of the directive, as might have been thought.

In answer to Deputy Clare Daly, the new Act puts far greater distance between the regulatory and representative functions of the Law Society and the Bar Council. It also puts an objective distance between practitioners and consumers. The independent disciplinary tribunal will also allow redress through the High Court. The board will be totally separate from the complaints handling and determination functions, to ensure due process.

Deputy Mattie McGrath asked about the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, the Citizens Information Board and the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission. These are at the cutting edge of ordinary people's concerns and are all on the authority. They are totally independent bodies and will take note of issues relating to the courts and receivers etc., though this not a courts Act. The courts will be dealt with in other areas of reform in the administration of justice.

We have had an election and a change of Government and that has delayed the process but we are now pressing on with the appointment of the authority. With the approval of the House of today's motion there is no barrier to a discussion between members of the committee and the new authority. The enhanced provisions for the oversight of State contracts will continue.