Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)

I knew it was a ports Bill of some description. I do not believe we would get away with adding justice amendments to a ports Bill in this jurisdiction, although some might try. I admit I have tried a few daring amendments in my time so I cannot be too critical.

I want to deal with the main proposal of the Bill, namely, the reform of the overview process of the legal profession, which is extremely important and timely. It is clear the legal profession is an important component in our democratic structure. Many people now seek the vindication of civil and social rights through the courts. Disputes that in the past were settled outside the precincts of courts of law are regularly dealt with by them. While I accept the point made by Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, there has been a large increase in the number of members of both branches of the legal profession, solicitors and barristers, operating and putting up their plaques for business.

I am genuinely concerned. I do not know whether colleagues in the House have the same experience as I have with regard to the volume of complaints about the legal profession and how citizens have been treated by individual lawyers. It seems to be a phenomenon throughout the country because I hear such complaints not only as a constituency Deputy but as a spokesman on justice for my party. There is real frustration not only at delays but concerning serious difficulties that accrue on foot of bad legal advice and inertia in regard to the processing of documentation, all of which can be very costly in a variety of situations. Although I make no judgment on it, I heard of a case at my Enniscorthy clinic just this week where people were crushed by what they perceived as a huge injustice done to them by the legal profession. As a Legislature, we must respond to this.

The wind of change has blown through public administration generally, which has caused us to have independent oversight of a variety of professions in recent times, not least our own. We have established the Standards in Public Office Commission to act as a port of call for those who feel that the conduct of Members of the Houses is not up to scratch. Similarly, that wind of change has eventually reached other institutions such as the Garda Síochána, and the Garda ombudsman commission will hopefully open for formal business and the receipt of formal complaints next year.

The accepted position is that it is no longer possible for any profession to regulate itself. Where it is not impossible, it is no longer acceptable because not only must one's case be weighed by somebody who does not have a vested interest, but that must be seen to be the reality. This is why we must move in the direction signalled by the Bill.

The proposal before us is for a legal services ombudsman, whose job it will be to oversee the handling by the two legal representative bodies, the Law Society and the Bar Council, of complaints by clients of solicitors and barristers. In particular, the job of the ombudsman will be to review cases where clients are not satisfied with the handling of their complaints by the professional bodies. Given my experience, I believe this will become a very busy body. The ombudsman will have a significant workload, if my representative's antennae are anything to judge by.

It is not a pure body that will independently consider complaints. Rather, it is an oversight body that will consider how the disciplinary boards of the two professional bodies deal with complaints. As such, it does not go as far as I would like. I realise there is major reluctance to take that extra step. Often, it takes some event to force us to do so. For example, a report of the Morris tribunal would push us the way of the Garda Ombudsman Commission. There was institutional resistance, particularly from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the former Minister, when I proposed an independent ombudsman six years ago for the Garda. There is an institutional resistance to fundamental change, and we much prefer incremental change.

The two tasks of this new legal services ombudsman will be to see how complaints are handled by the professional bodies and their disciplinary committees, and to audit the review and selection of complaints by dipping into individual files annually. It will consider how these are handled, and this is a good proposal. We will see how it works. I do not think there is currently an accurate public measure of the level of discontent that exists among people who have been badly served by members of the legal profession. There is a well of discontent that must be noted and addressed.

The debate on whether professional bodies should be in the business of dealing with complaints concerning their members at all is fundamental. We would probably have a variety of different views within this House on the issue. I fully accept the point made by Deputy Jim O'Keeffe that although these are seen to be under the umbrella of the professional bodies, they are at arm's length in terms of disciplinary committees that are extant. Perception is reality, however, and there must be a clear difference.

Anybody who goes through a procedure and feels the decision or outcome is not suitable will look at who made the decision. Unless it is clear the decision was taken at arm's length from an institution, without any vested interest or interest at all, we lessen the confidence the public has in these institutions. I make a general point of asking whether professional bodies should be involved in these matters, or if there should be a stand-alone statutory legal services ombudsman that deals ab initio with complaints. An appeals system can exist thereafter, perhaps through the courts. I propose this for another day, and we will see how this works.

Another key job of a legal services ombudsman will be to report annually on the adequacy of the admissions policy of both professions. In historic terms this was a bone of contention. Like many professions, not least our own profession of politics, there seems to be a family tradition of people going into law. That has changed in recent times. It would be good to ensure that somebody examines the admissions policy to guarantee that not only are all strata and shades of society represented in the legal profession, as they should be in every profession, but that there are no direct or indirect barriers, either visible or invisible, to the full participation of all strata of society. This is particularly true in our changing society. I welcome the provision.

I will comment on how the power of this commission will be exercised. Section 27 of the Bill deals with the power to issue directions or make recommendations following investigation. According to the section:

the Legal Services Ombudsman may, by a statement in writing—

(a) if not satisfied that the Barristers' Professional Conduct Tribunal has adequately investigated the related complaint, direct it to re-investigate, in accordance with the Disciplinary Code.

I am not sure that is the best thing. I know it is not the only provision, as the next section provides that the ombudsman can recommend that the Bar Council can take any other action, which the ombudsman may specify. However, the first port of call is to send an issue back to the tribunal that the ombudsman believes did not handle it well in the first place. Maybe that is the best course of action, but I state that with some degree of concern. Once it has been dealt with and if it is adjudged to be dealt with inadequately, I am unsure as to whether it should be sent back to be considered by the same people. We will tease the issues out in more detail on Committee Stage. The solicitor's profession is dealt with in the same section.

Section 54 of the Bill enables the Law Society to direct a solicitor to pay a client up to €3,000 as compensation for loss suffered as a result of inadequate legal services. That is a low threshold. I know there is a provision in the Bill subsequently for the Minister to review that threshold biannually. The Minister could state that is without any prejudice to a person's legal rights to have remedies if that person was swindled. Clearly a citizen would go to the courts to have that put right.

Even where somebody is badly dealt with and has suffered delay or annoyance that may have gone on for years, a compensation of €3,000 strikes me as being a fairly modest threshold to be included in the Bill in current times. I have some experience of legal fees of late, having myself had occasion to traipse before a variety of courts, on the business of a representative rather than on personal business. I was exposed to the rather shocking level of moneys that lawyers of all shades——

See this speech in context