Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

In general I also welcome the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2006. Sadly, whether the Garda, the medical or the legal professions, we all know only too well the dangers of leaving any profession to its own devices. The dangers of allowing professions to operate without independent and transparent systems to ensure the highest standards and accountability for the public are inherent. At the extreme, the absence of independent mechanisms to review, to receive and to rule on complaints can risk lives and ruin lives. For example, the Irish Medical Organisation should have struck Dr. Neary off the register much sooner. I will not comment on the ability of the IMO's assessors but the fact that Dr. Neary chose the three members of the IMO who assessed him speaks volumes for the need for complaints bodies to be independent of the sectoral organisation of which the subject of a complaint is a member.

The seeming inability of the Garda complaints board to find against members of the force and its frequent refusal to even investigate complaints never surprised me in the past because the board was never fully independent. As far as I am concerned the Garda Ombudsman Commission cannot take over quickly enough. However, if the Garda Ombudsman Commission is to be effective in rooting out Garda corruption and restoring community confidence in the Garda, the Minister must make legislative and resourcing provisions to give the Garda Ombudsman Commission powers at least equivalent to those of Nuala O'Loan, the PSNI ombudsman.

A recent and well known example specific to the legal profession, which illustrates the need for an effective complaints body, was the despicable double charging of victims of child sexual abuse by certain members of that profession. There are many other lesser known, yet equally grave, examples. Cosúil leis an Teachta Howlin, aithním go bhfuil níos mó gearán faoi dlíodóirí ag teacht chuig mo oifig. Tá siad ag teacht chun cinn, diaidh ar ndiaidh. Níl sé i gceist agam dul tríd gach uile gearán atá i mo oifig faoi láthair. Níl sé i gceist agam am a chaitheamh leo siúd atá ag déanamh gearán díreach toisc gur theip orthu. Tá daoine eile ann, áfach, a theip orthu toisc gur loic dlíodóir nó abhcóide orthu. Níl mé ag rá go bhfuil saineolas agam ar gach chuid den chóras dlí, nó ar an chóras dlí ina iomlán, ach cosúil lena lán daoine aithním nuair atá an córas tar éis loiceadh ar duine, nuair atá bob buailte ar duine, nuair nach bhfuil caite go maith nó go gairmiúil le duine, nó nuair nach bhfuil treoracha an chliant comhlíonta ag an dlíodóir nó an abhcóide.

My office is receiving an increasing number of complaints and requests for assistance regarding improper, unethical or incompetent conduct by members of the legal profession. This year alone I have received six major complaints from people who have run out of options in seeking justice and this is only the tip of the iceberg. Other Deputies will obviously also have received the same number if not more complaints from people who are looking for help and do not know where to turn or who are reluctant to seek help. Most of these complaints have involved a substantial loss of property or assets in questionable circumstances, sometimes to the benefit of the solicitors involved or an unfair imposition of financial penalties or exorbitant legal fees due to the incompetence or disregard of their legal representative. Some members of the legal profession are profiting from the trust and the vulnerability of people in need of assistance and this is creating great hardship and distress for the individuals involved. Some people have been pursuing justice and recompense for years at great financial and emotional cost. Many have been denied access to legal recourse to pursue complaints or to appeal against unethical solicitors due to an inability to find a solicitor willing to take on their case and an inability to get civil legal aid. FLAC is generally not in a position to handle this type of case due to under-resourcing or the means test.

I am directing my criticisms only at those solicitors and barristers who are abusing. The vast majority are upstanding and helpful in every way but there are those who give a bad name to the legal profession. Hopefully, through this Bill, the legal services ombudsman will be able to address and right the wrongs in terms of clients of solicitors and barristers. Many people have sought recourse through the Law Library or the Bar Council or whatever way to vindicate their rights. The introduction of an independent body to hold legal professionals accountable through this Bill, in the form of a legal services ombudsman, is welcome and overdue. I will table a number of small amendments with the aim of improving the relevant provisions of the Bill to ensure the effectiveness and crucially the independence of the proposed ombudsman.

Section 5 outlines the eligibility criteria for appointment to the position of ombudsman. Sinn Féin will table an amendment to ensure that not only will the current members of the Bar Council or the Law Society be ineligible for the position but also recent members of both bodies. Section 11 governs the appointment of the staff in the office of the legal services ombudsman. It provides that prior to seeking the consent of the Minister and the Minister for Finance to appoint new staff members, the legal services ombudsman must first consult the Bar Council and the Law Society. Ní thuigim in aon chur cén fáth go bhfuil sé sin ann. I find this provision bizarre. The Garda Ombudsman Commission established under Acht An Garda Síochána does not and should not have to consult with the Garda before appointing its own staff. I fail to see the reason the legal services ombudsman should be any different. Perhaps the Minister is only half-hearted in his desire to introduce this particular ombudsman which will monitor the activities of his former colleagues in his personal profession. Hopefully, I am incorrect in that.

Section 11, as drafted, can only serve to reduce the potential for public confidence in the ombudsman if allowed to stand. Section 14 makes provision for the legal services ombudsman to produce annual reports on the admission policies of the Law Society and Bar Council. These reports are to contain the numbers admitted to practise and how this matches for demand for services. Sinn Féin has long been of the opinion that the Judiciary and the legal profession are not representative of society. It has long been disproportionately made up of people from wealthy backgrounds. In the interest of justice it is imperative that this situation be reversed. Therefore, it is crucial that the legal professions begin to include a fair representation of people from working class backgrounds. With this in mind, Sinn Féin will table amendments to section 14 in order that the legal services ombudsman will report a breakdown of the numbers admitted under a number of headings, including socio-economic background, gender, ethnicity etc., with a view to establishing quotas if necessary. We will also seek a number of standard amendments in order to increase the democratic accountability of the ombudsman. These will apply to sections 9, 13 and 14.

On the question of gaming and lotteries, dealt with in sections 55 and 56, I do not see a need for these other than the practicalities. They are logical in that we have changed the monetary situation from pounds and pence to euros and cents. However, these changes will do nothing to address the multifaceted problems in society with regard to gambling. We need to address these problems in legislation and to be more severe on those abusing the situation. Everybody here knows of places which have abused the Gambling and Lotteries Acts over the years. While there is not supposed to be any payout, if somebody goes up to the hatch he will get his payout. This happens throughout the country and needs to be addressed if we intend to raise the stakes. Even though the payouts are few in number, some people spend 24 hours or longer in some of these centres pumping in their income for the week. This must be addressed.

The main part of this Bill deals with the legal services ombudsman. It is intended the ombudsman will address the issue of those members of the legal profession who have abused the privileged relationship between themselves and their clients. Sometimes they dress up straightforward cases in complexities to create a mystery, to make their profession a mystery or to make legal proceedings inaccessible to those taking cases. This creates uncertainty among clients and sometimes clouds the true intent of such barristers and solicitors.

Some of the cases I have come across in my office involve solicitors in Dublin advising clients not to make complaints against gardaí who have abused or assaulted them because that might hinder their cases. What type of advice is that from a solicitor? If the law is broken, solicitors should encourage their clients to take cases against the gardaí in question. Another case involved a farming family in Tipperary who were forced to sell off a large part of their land to pay legal costs having been improperly advised and following the mishandling of their case by the solicitor. The family was also forced to drop a case against the solicitor for fear of further losses and on account of their inability to access legal representation. They could not find anybody who would take a case against the solicitor, which smacks of the legal profession protecting itself.

Another member of the same family, who chose to continue to pursue justice, was forced to sell another portion of the land to pay legal costs and penalties after a serious breach of trust and the mishandling of that case by a solicitor. Most of his remaining land was taken by the same solicitor in a technically legal, but ethically questionable, land grab. The same individual tried unsuccessfully to get somebody to take a case against this solicitor, but was told he could represent himself in court. What type of advice is it when our system recommends someone who is not legally qualified or competent to take a case to the High Court?

The most common complaints I receive about solicitors have to do with conveyancing and with solicitors obtaining land or assets through unethical dealings. Often they cloud the issue or delay proceedings to such an extent that people lose the asset they set out to acquire. Another complaint is of funds being removed by solicitors with access to people's bank accounts. I could list many more examples and be specific, but I do not have the authority of the people who came to my office to name and shame.

This new ombudsman facility will, hopefully, address this type of case so that we can stand up proudly and say that through this House we have set up a mechanism which addresses the concerns of people such as those who come to my office, one which helps break down the mystique and mystery being created around legal proceedings so that all people will have access to the legal profession.

Den chuid is mó, fáiltím roimh an Bhille um an Dlí Sibhialta (Forálacha Ilghnéitheacha) 2006. Má ghlacann an tAire leis na leasuithe achuirfimid chun cinn ar Chéim an Choiste, ní bheidh aon fhadhb agam tacú leis an Bhille seo. Ritheann sé liom nach dtacaím go rialta le Billí ón Aire, Teachta McDowell — go fíorannamh, chun an fhírinne a rá. Caithfidh go raibh tionchar maith agam air sa chás seo. Is trua nach mbíonn an tionchar céanna agam ar an reachtaíocht a chuireann sé chun cinn de shíor. Den chuid is mó, bím go hiomlán ina coinne.

Tá súil agam go n-éireoidh linn an Bille seo a rith tríd an Dáil, go mbeidh sé ina Acht roimh i bhfad, agus gur féidir leo siúd atá thíos leis an chóras dlí agus cirt i gcás dlíodóirí, abhcóidí agus a leithéidí in ann teacht ar chúiteamh nó faoiseamh do na coireanna atá déanta orthu thar na blianta.

See this speech in context