Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)

I am sick to death of dealing with off-the-cuff, top-of-the-head proposals for legislation, responding to them and then finding that they are ill considered, have not been consulted on and, in many instances, will undergo U-turns.

I wish to tentatively suggest a matter for consideration that should be touched on by this legislation. There are a number of references in the Bill to the Gaming and Lotteries Act, which is 50 years old. I have no problem with the proposals on the increases in respect of slot machines, which seem to make sense, but should we not examine the gaping hole that is the lack of regulation of on-line gambling in the process of examining the 1956 Act? I am not prescribing an immediate solution, but we should examine whether the issue of on-line gambling must be addressed. We should determine whether changes in the law are necessary.

I should declare an interest in that I go to Paddy Power and other bookmakers, racecourses and dog tracks, put a few euro on the animals of my choice and often lose. I am not an innocent in these matters, but neither am I a prude. Gambling within reason can be enjoyable, but I have considerable concerns about the significant growth of on-line gambling across the world. In recent days, the US closed its markets to non-US on-line gambling websites. I am not concerned that the decision of the US Congress caused shares in a number of the companies involved to fall by almost 60% as I do not hold any of those shares. Rather, my concern is that the US closure is likely to result in more aggressive marketing of those websites in other parts of the world, including Ireland.

I have no problem with gambling and betting if the market is properly regulated, but there is a gaping hole in the regulation of on-line gambling websites. Technically, one could say that on-line gambling is illegal under the 1956 Act because the Tánaiste has always said that what is not declared to be legal must be assumed to be illegal, but such is not the platform from which to deal with the issue. As far back as 2000, a Government report on gambling called for new legislation to ensure that gambling should be "enforceable in both on-line and off-line environments". It stated: "providers of such on-line services should be able to guarantee that national law in this area is capable of being complied with". However, this does not appear to be the case. On-line gambling is not illegal in many jurisdictions and services can be accessed in Ireland. The matter requires a cross-Border approach if it is to be dealt with.

Usually, I am concerned by the down side of the problem of addiction to gambling — in a recent Sunday Independent article, it was cited as a prime factor in marital breakdowns. If we are to examine the Gaming and Lotteries Act, we should not shoot from the hip like the Tánaiste or engage in U-turns. Let us examine issues of serious concern currently that will be of even greater concern in the years ahead.

In the main, I am happy with many of the provisions in the Bill. I am happy with the establishment of the legal services ombudsman. As somebody who practised for many years as a solicitor, I suppose I should declare an interest. When one thinks of professions that are thought to be somewhat disreputable, solicitors and politicians are sometimes included in the public mind in that regard and being in both professions, I am perhaps subject to a double whammy. I am declaring an interest.

Let me make a few points about the legal profession and the legal services ombudsman. In the main, the day of self-regulation is over for all professions. Self-regulation is largely not the case at this stage as far as the legal profession is concerned. The changes that have taken place have resulted in self-regulation not being the correct description of the way matters are managed any longer as far as lawyers are concerned. For instance, the disciplinary body is not answerable to the Law Society; it is answerable to the President of the High Court.

Not alone must there be independent regulation, but there also must be the perception of it so people have confidence that there is independent regulation of all professions, not just solicitors and, of course, barristers. That is the way forward in the case of all professions and, indeed, businesses for the future. Where independent regulation is possible, that is the approach we must follow.

I support the establishment of the legal services ombudsman. The fact it is not greatly different from the present independent adjudicator is not really the point, but it sounds more independent and some of the powers probably will make it more independent.

I want to raise two issues in this regard. There is a good provision in the Bill by which the ombudsman will be able to make a report to the Minister on the admissions policies of the respective legal professions. The admissions policy of the professions in the old days was quite restrictive but, as far as I can see, it is now very open. The numbers have ballooned. In my profession, the Law Society is spreading its wings and opening a new front shortly in the real capital of Ireland, Cork, to accommodate the training of solicitors. The numbers have grown enormously and I believe the same applies in the case of the Bar.

The ombudsman will also make a report on the performance of its functions in annual reports and these must be laid before each House of the Oireachtas. However, there is a difference here, which perhaps the Minister might explain in his closing remarks. One report, that is the annual report, must be laid before the Houses within two months of the Minister's receipt of it, whereas the other, the report on admission policies, must be laid before the Houses as soon as practicable. I wonder why there is a distinction. Bearing in mind the problems that the worthy Inspector of Prisons encountered in getting his reports published and the delays in getting them published, I would much prefer an obligation on the Minister to lay the reports before the Houses within a specified period. This is another change that should be made.

On regulation of the professions, as I stated there is much reference at present to the self-regulation of the Law Society. In fact, that is not correct and perhaps it is no harm that we use this occasion to highlight the fact that the old days of self-regulation are already to a large degree gone. This Bill will highlight that even further but, more importantly, will remove the perception of self-regulation.

A quite important issue is membership of the complaints committee, which from now on will have a majority of non-solicitors. I cannot understand why the Bill specifically provides that even though the majority will be non-solicitors, the chairman must be a solicitor. That provision should not be in the Bill. Why should the chairman of the complaints committee be a solicitor? As a solicitor, I contend there may be a case for having it so in that complex points may be argued before the complaints committee and it might be useful to have somebody there with legal knowledge, but I do not want the Bill to provide that the chairman must be a solicitor. That is not appropriate.

The High Court solicitors' disciplinary tribunal is already independent of the Law Society and it has been made clear in the Bill that it operates under the aegis of the President of the High Court.

One other issue I wish to raise about my profession was highlighted by the misconduct of some members of the profession in their charges in Residential Institutions Redress Board cases. At the time, I was greatly concerned to hear on "Prime Time", on Joe Duffy's radio show and elsewhere that some solicitors had let down the profession in that regard. I am glad the matter was tackled immediately by the Law Society. From the point of view of perspective, it is no harm to point out for the sake of balance that even though it turned out that 12 firms of solicitors had been referred by the Law Society to the disciplinary tribunal, 99.5% of the solicitors who represented Residential Institutions Redress Board clients were not so involved. It is no harm to point out that while there were some bad apples who are presently being dealt with, on which matter I will not comment further, 99.5% were not bad apples. That is also important to bear in mind.

The Bill contains a mishmash of various other measures, most of which I agree with. There is provision for the court to allow certain evidence to be given by video link in civil matters. That is a progression of which I am very much in favour. Currently, there is provision in the Prisons Bill for pre-trial video linking and giving of evidence in criminal matters. The Minister should take the bull by the horns on this issue at this stage and we should as far as possible provide for at least the availability in all cases, civil and criminal, of video links. Video linking will be of benefit in years to come. It has enormous advantages. Provided it can be done in a way where the accused is not disadvantaged, it should be used to the maximum possible extent. It is of particular relevance in the context of the continuing debate on child protection cases. It is particularly important in the light of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 because, as has been mentioned in the debates on that Act, there is the appalling spectre of alleged child abusers cross-examining their alleged victims. It is an issue on which much more attention must be focused in the future. I referred to the issues relating to the gaming and lotteries legislation and I will be interested if the Minister gives a considered response.

The Minister of State outlined a mish-mash of other issues covered by the legislation, which I can support in the main. For example, the proposed amendment to landlord and tenant law makes a great deal of sense. Once upon a time, lessors exploited lessees and various restrictions were put in place. In particular, if a business letting was in place for more than five years, it meant the lessee was entitled to an automatic renewal for 35 years. The inevitable consequence, however, was the law of the market applied and any solicitor worth his salt advised his business client to let his premises for no more than four years and 11 months. One could not contract out of it until the most recent change relating to office premises.

This demonstrates that when a Government interferes with the market allegedly for the benefit of lessees, damage is caused. The result was tenants could not obtain a lease for more than four years and 11 months and they were evicted, even though they could not contract out of it. The proposed amendment is sensible because it provides flexibility. People should be permitted to avail of independent legal advice, as provided for in the legislation.

When I studied law, rent restrictions legislation was in place and it was intended to favour tenants because rents could not be increased and so on. However, the consequence of the legislation was that nobody wanted to let to tenants. Whatever protections are put in place, we must always be cognisant of the law of the market. If restrictions upset the market, the consequence is the people who are supposed to be protected will end up losing and this is what happened in regard to business tenancies. I heartily approve of this amendment.

The amendments to the Juries Act 1976, bankruptcy law and succession legislation, as it relates to joint owners who are deemed to die simultaneously, make absolute sense. I have experience of the current legislation creating difficulties and problems.

This is a relatively unexceptional Bill, which I largely support. I have highlighted two issues outside the scope of the Bill: the U-turn of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform regarding casino clubs, which is par for the course for him, and the need for a serious examination of gaming and lotteries legislation given that it is 50 years old. I am very concerned about on-line gambling and constructive and sensible proposals should be brought forward at both domestic and EU level. Apart from that, I support the Bill.

See this speech in context