Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)

I welcome Deputy Howlin's call for a new courthouse for County Wexford, because the facilities there are inappropriate. Considering that the Tánaiste has told us that millions of euro are sloshing around in the Government coffers, I hope that in his new role as Tánaiste he will be able to accelerate the building programme for Garda stations not only in County Wexford, but across the country. Since he has taken his 30 pieces of silver not to hang out the Taoiseach he might also be able to fill those Garda stations with real gardaí, which would be most welcome throughout the country and not just in County Wexford.

A constituent asked me to speak on one section of this Bill. However, some of the other topics raised here in the past hour have also intrigued and interested me greatly. I will first deal with the issue of self-regulation as opposed to having regulation by a body with a majority of lay people. The legal profession seems to favour having lay majority governance of its profession, which is quite interesting as the Department of Health and Children is making moves to having a lay majority on the medical council as opposed to allowing it to be self-regulated. During the course of this debate I have heard that a lay majority governing the legal profession has made no difference to the huge number of complaints about that small number of every profession who abuse their position. Many Deputies have told of how solicitors and barristers have abused their position in society to defraud their clients.

That goes to show there will be no difference between self-regulation and lay majorities on professional bodies unless there is effective enforcement and procedures are put in place which properly address complaints and correct wrongdoing. That is as important as the "self-regulation bad", "lay majority good" type of thinking. Responsibility for enforcement needs to be clearly assigned when, for example, a rogue solicitor or barrister is encountered. There is no point in trying to sue the solicitor or barrister in question because the people who are most often ripped off and deprived of justice are those who are least able to protect themselves.

This issue is particularly interesting to me in the context of the forthcoming medical practitioners Bill. Proper systems must be introduced for making and addressing complaints and for assigning responsibility. It will be useless for the legal system ombudsman to appear at the Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights once a year and rehearse a litany of barristers and solicitors who have defrauded others or otherwise abused the trust put in them by society unless there is a means of correcting their wrongdoing. I would support proposals to give authority to the ombudsman in order to stop such abuse.

I have listened to discussions in other fora about the Medical Council and the concerns expressed about the medical profession. I realise that the role of the various medical organisations is not always well understood. People often refer to the Irish Medical Organisation, the Irish Hospitals Consultants Association, the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland and the Medical Council as if all four bodies are exactly the same, whereas the Irish Medical Organisation and the Irish Hospitals Consultants Association are trade unions, the Medical Council is a regulatory body and the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland sets standards in surgery. Unless one is a member of the profession, the differences between the bodies tend to be overlooked. For that reason, it is important that the ombudsman is readily identifiable to all the citizens of this country.

An earlier speaker claimed the Irish Medical Organisation sent three consultants to Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in order to bail out Dr. Neary. In fact, the consultants were sent by the Irish Hospitals Consultants Association which, as a trade union, had no role to play in the regulation of doctors in this country. When a complaint was made to the Medical Council, it took the appropriate action, although an unfortunate delay occurred before it did so. That is why the impression was given that the response was not as effective as it should have been. In the case of health care patients and clients of legal professionals, similar problems will continue to arise unless identifiable representative organisations are available for people to contact when they have concerns. The argument about self-regulation versus lay majorities is a red herring until legislation is in place to protect those at risk. I am not my party's spokesman for justice, so I am not fully au fait with whether this Bill will provide the necessary protection but that should be its primary focus.

As a barrister and former Attorney General, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform should be absolutely certain he is protecting people from the small minority of rogues who operate within the legal profession. I hope that is crystal clear to him because it should not be a case of a complaint being acknowledged and then left to hang in the air. Like every other Deputy, I have been contacted by people who have had bad experiences with solicitors and, when I read their testimony, I begin to suspect that there may be a case to answer. However, I am not legally trained and, of course, there are two sides to every story. The reality of the case may differ from the version presented to me but, until an effective system is in place, the suspicion remains that the legal profession serves its own. It is up to the Minister to introduce clear rules, just as it is up to the Minister for Health and Children, if she ever brings the medical practitioners Bill before the House, to do the same.

The Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, also has responsibilities in the Department of Health and Children, so I want to remind him of my doubts in respect of whether the medical practitioners Bill in its current form will be of benefit to patients. The Minister for Health and Children has come out with all guns blazing, thinking she will do well by patients simply by ensuring a lay majority. As we can see in the case of the legal profession, a lay majority makes no difference to clients who receive a raw deal where there is no backup in terms of appropriate complaints legislation. The same issue will arise with the medical practitioners Bill. I have seen no proposals from the Department that would give me confidence in the ability of the Minister.

I will now turn to Part 6 of the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. I rarely get the opportunity to raise issues regarding individual constituents because I usually deal with issues pertaining to the health system at the national level. I refer to a letter sent to me by one of my constituents, which states:

We now have a thriving restaurant business that employs more than twenty-five full-time staff. Under current legislation for commercial retail lease agreements, if a tenant remains at a premises for over five years, they can then seek and be granted a longer thirty-year lease and the landlord has very little power to stop this. Hence, for this reason our landlord does not wish to renew our lease and our restaurant will close in early December of this year.

I ask the Minister of State whether he can ensure, on behalf of my constituent, that the Bill is enacted before Christmas recess or at least indicate if that is an achievable objective. The Members of these Houses may focus on issues of national importance but such issues are at their most relevant when they concern individuals. I am sure my constituent is not the only person to face this problem and the possibility arises, once people become aware of this legislation, that the safe option of terminating lease agreements will be taken, rather than seek other ways around restrictive legislation.

This is about balance between the tenant and the landlord. Tenants are ordinary, hard working people who are trying to do their best. Landlords are not always what they are perceived to be, somebody trying to squeeze the last euro out of the tenant. They are often simply families who own a premises and who wish to have a degree of autonomy over what happens with the premises. They do not want to lease the premises for 30 years. In this case, the tenant is running into difficulty because the lease will be enforced and the tenancy terminated by Christmas.

The Minister should do his best to put this legislation through Committee Stage and bring it back to the Dáil for Report Stage as quickly as possible so we can inform the people involved. One might wonder what difference this will make but this relates to the livelihoods of at least 25 people in a town in County Wexford. It is a successful business operating in a competitive environment. Perhaps the Minister will give us a timeframe for when he expects this legislation to be enacted.

What makes the Dáil relevant to our society is whether we act promptly when issues are raised and bring legislation through the House in an appropriate manner and timeframe. In his opening statement the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, made it clear that the rule of law is universally regarded as one of the foundation elements of any properly organised society. He spoke about the importance of law and its role in society.

There appears to be serious problems throughout the legal profession in its interaction with clients and individuals. It is most important that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, who understands the law and who should know what he is talking about given that he is a former Attorney General, puts the ordinary individual in society first. He must ensure, and not just give lip service to the concept, that the process that will be available to clients after this Bill is passed is one that will make a difference. It would be interesting to be able to come to the House and not have to listen to Deputies talk about how people were defrauded by a small minority of barristers and solicitors. It would be good if we could prove that this legislation made that difference and that the legal services ombudsman and the procedures available to people work.

There is no point talking about legal aid or getting a solicitor or barrister. It is next to impossible to get a barrister to sue another barrister and it is quite difficult to get a solicitor to take a case against another solicitor. People protect themselves within the profession and they do not like to be seen to sue another member of the same profession. The medical profession is the same, as is any other profession. They do not wish to be seen to be turning on other members.

If the passing of this legislation means that the Government must extend the State solicitor's services to provide a unit to implement the recommendations of the ombudsman, so be it. We must ensure it is useful. When the medical practitioners Bill is brought before the House, I will be seeking assurances that the provisions of the legislation are there to protect citizens and are not simply lip service to fulfil the spin of Ministers.

See this speech in context