Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)

I welcome the legislation, although I would have preferred if its Title referred to the ombudsman rather miscellaneous provisions. It is difficult for somebody trying to research law if many different items are included in miscellaneous provisions Bills. I would not have expected to see bankruptcy and gaming included in this Bill, which is primarily concerned with the establishment of the legal services ombudsman. It does not make the Bill clear and coherent.

I have seen the work the Ombudsman has done in areas such as complaints about local authorities. It is an office which can be very effective if people's complaints have not been resolved by the relevant organisation, so I welcome the establishment of the legal services ombudsman from that point of view. Complaints must be made to the professional bodies before they can be considered by the legal services ombudsman. It will be widely welcomed that there will be some element of independence from the professional bodies because there was a feeling that the professions were judging themselves.

I note a levy will be applied on practising barristers and solicitors and I presume the introduction of the ombudsman will be financially neutral on the State. The levy will be paid to the Minister who must pursue those who do not pay. I am curious about how the Minister will pursue those debts. Will it be done through the State's legal offices? Will it place an additional obligation on them? The extent of the levy will be judged on the costs in the preceding year. The first year will be important from that point of view in that it does not tend to be a typical year as one is setting up an office and requires equipment and so on. One obviously would not have a typical case load with which to compare. There must be a little latitude in estimating the cost. If this office is successful, the case load will increase but one is likely not to have sufficient resources which will result in a backlog. It is important to allow a little latitude so that does not occur.

A timeframe for making complaints is listed, that is, within six months of the professional body concluding the case. I would like that six-month timeframe extended. There is no limit for deliberations such as those which apply to An Bord Pleanála. I accept there may be complex, legal issues but one criticism of the legal profession is the time it takes to do things, so I would like to see a time limit.

In the first year, publicising the office will be an issue as will acquiring an office, equipment and so on. It would be unfortunate if there was a backlog and an inadequate number of staff. As I said, an issue which is the cause of complaint is the unacceptably long time it takes to finalise matters. That is why I would like a time limit because it would give some certainty to people.

The publication of an annual report and the fact the ombudsman may be required to appear before the Committee of Public Accounts is useful in terms of increasing public awareness of the role of this office.

While the Bill covers complaints which have gone through the professional bodies without reaching a satisfactory conclusion, many of the complaints about the civil process relate to delays in the courts, which is not covered by this legislation. For example, there is a minimum 18-month delay in Naas Circuit Court in hearing matters of separation and divorce. That backlog is growing rather than declining. Naas is not an exception, although there is a serious problem there with delays. The number of judges and support staff, who are as important, is clearly deficient given that the cases which go to court for hearing tend to be those in which people cannot reach agreement. The result of protracted problems for the two parties and of unresolved disputes often damages the children involved. There is a human price which is often paid later in life by many people. It is becoming obvious that additional judges need to be appointed.

I would like to see judges being designated, in particular for civil matters which can understandably play second fiddle when criminal cases are involved and there might be a loss of liberty.

I welcome the fact that the ombudsman can review specific matters which are the subject of complaint. A good example of that is the issue of management companies. I have come across numerous people who have told me that when they have inquired of solicitors the implications of signing up with a management company, they have been told it is a fairly standard clause. They have been most dissatisfied with that kind of advice, and understandably so.

While the buyer should beware, there is a significant dependence, especially with first-time buyers, on solicitors to give the best advice. While in theory buyers have the option to choose a solicitor, I have met many people who have told me a solicitor was recommended by the developer. Sometimes there can be a cosy relationship there that may well end up as the subject of a complaint in the future.

It is only over time that we will see the value of this kind of work where particular issues are examined in a cohesive way rather than by means of individual complaints, although I would fully expect the complaints of individuals to get priority attention.

Sections 40 to 42, inclusive, deal with pension provisions for judges. I can see the value of that. However, this is an issue that requires some consideration when a judge has been appointed because clearly there are different implications if somebody is appointed who is in his or her mid-60s as opposed to somebody being appointed in his or her mid-40s.

Section 51 refers to evidence being given from a remote location by video-conferencing. That is a welcome provision in civil law. I am very much in favour of using whatever technology is available to become more efficient, use people's time better and possibly also reduce their need to travel. It would also make cases more efficient because one would not time them on the availability of people travelling.

Section 54 provides for €3,000 as the maximum sum allowed as compensation for a loss suffered as a result of providing inadequate legal services. I would consider €3,000 to be on the modest side and given that it is a maximum figure it is only likely to be increased in line with inflation. I question whether it is an adequate sum in the first instance. If somebody goes to the trouble of approaching professional bodies and proceeds from there to the ombudsman, clearly a great deal of effort is required and it is unlikely to be over a matter of little importance. This matter should be re-examined. I would not be surprised to see amendments being tabled on this issue.

Part 5 deals with the Gaming and Lotteries Act. While I was surprised to discover this was included, I do not have a problem with the changes proposed. In most cases the limits that are put in place are there to protect vulnerable people. The value of money has clearly changed over time.

The same is true for local authorities which can impose by-laws that can exclude, for example, gaming arcades from their areas. Very often that is done with the same purpose in mind. However, the nature of gaming and gambling has changed and it is no longer subject to geographical limits as people are connected to the Internet and everything from poker to horseracing, dog racing and everything one can conceivably think of is offered as a means of gambling, even elections. It goes right across the spectrum.

It is obvious that there are vulnerable people to whom we do not appear to offer significant protection. There is no doubt there is a need for some measure of regulation of this aspect of the industry. We hear about young people putting substantial sums through on-line gambling accounts and there is a danger that this practice will become compulsive for some people. We must ensure this danger is taken into account. I question why this aspect of the matter was picked out as one of the more important issues when there is something much more substantial that needs to be addressed.

See this speech in context