Paudge Connolly (Cavan-Monaghan, Independent)

If one is looking for a professional opinion, or to challenge a professional opinion, it may be that nobody will provide it in this country. A person may have to search across the world. This is not unusual. These are the types of obstacles put in people's way. The matter becomes a cost issue. Common sense is left out the back of a solicitor's door on the street. These are instances where if a complaint is to be made, an ombudsman will ensure that people are not robbed to take an action.

I believe the word ombudsman means a defender of humankind. I take it the proposed ombudsman will be a free service to people who have a legitimate complaint. My understanding is that it will be the last recourse for people who have paid their bills, etc.

Section 27 of the Bill indicates that if the ombudsman decides the client's complaint is justified, it will be able to direct the professional body to reconsider some or all aspects of it. The ombudsman may decide the professional body caused the client unnecessary distress or inconvenience due to the handling of the complaint, or perhaps that the client suffered some loss as a result.

Unnecessary distress is being caused to people, no less so than to the people I referred to earlier. They are going through this case for approximately six or seven years. That is a major amount of time from anybody's life. Not alone will these people be further pinned to the ground, but it is likely they will never receive a penny for the distress the legal system has caused them with regard to their home. Will there be any form of recompense for people who have been put through the wringer and whose lives have been destroyed? We should consider these issues. In such cases, the ombudsman should be empowered to direct the body to reconsider its decision.

Sections 55 and 56 of the Bill amend the Gaming and Lotteries Act 1956 to insert new values of 50 cent and €30 euro as maximum stakes for gaming machines. I do not know the situation or whether the people framing this legislation have gone out or undercover in some of these gaming arcades and seen that one can play for fun. Did they know that the 2p signs on the machines are 20 cent or 20 euro, and that one can go in nominally to win €2, but that amount could in reality be €200?

This is happening and there is no point in stating differently. Is there anybody to examine the issue, or perhaps have a chat with the people pumping the money into these machines? People pumping money into machines like this can often ill-afford it.

See this speech in context