Mary O'Rourke (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)

I was telephoned by the office of the Government Chief Whip and I understand the Opposition party is not speaking. It is not that I am taking its place. As the Acting Chairman is aware, there is a tradition of moving around the House and I am glad to have the opportunity to speak in an informal sense about this Bill.

For many years, I wondered why this Bill did not come about. There is no doubt that we live in an age of ombudsmen. We live in an age when people rightly require that decisions taken by others, albeit sometimes for their good, can first be explained and then explored if they do not come out in their regard.

I shall not be long in case Deputy D'Arcy is thinking of bolting. I am only taking ten minutes. I count many people of the legal fraternity, particularly many solicitors, among my personal friends. I have always found them to be very robust, thorough and concerned with their clients' wishes and what they mean to do.

Deputy Charles Flanagan raised a very important point at the end of his speech, namely, the language contained in the letter of engagement. My gripe about the legal profession is that its members understand each other. They love each other if they are not facing each other in court. They like and speak their language. Outside of that magic circle, we often do not know what they are talking about. I am not talking about judicial decisions. I have never commented on what a judge has said or done because it is not my business to do so. However, as a public representative, I am the conduit for people who have felt that they have not been best served by the legal system. I have a particular case in mind which I shall not go into.

The cases that come to a Deputy inform his or her debate, as they should because we are sent here to put forward our points of view. I am thinking of a particular case involving a separated mother with grown-up children and now grandchildren and her business arrangement with a particular legal representative and how that was handled, or mishandled, on her behalf. She was told to be at the High Court in Dublin on such a day when the case would be heard. She went to the High Court, waited outside the court and the solicitors for both sides, who were engaged in heavy dialogue, eventually came over to her and told her it was all settled. She asked them what did they mean by saying it was all settled. They told her they had settled it. She was the person involved who was at the High Court to see she got justice, but the two solicitors had got together and decided they would settle the case and she was not brought into that dialogue at that end point. She felt she got a very raw deal.

I thought about her case afterwards, what I would do about it and whether I would write to the Law Society about it. According to the society's remit, it is well handled and a nice man is in charge of it, but the society is judging its members, which is a difficult task. Deputy Flanagan, who is a hugely welcome addition back to the Dáil — I am sure I am too, at least I will pat myself on the back if the Deputy does not — would have his own views on this matter. However, he is a member of that profession so he may not agree with what I am saying. I asked that woman why she did not tell the solicitors that the way they settled the case did not suit her. She said they just went home each in his own big car and she was left to make her way back to Athlone with the settlement arranged over her head, even though she was on the spot outside the court. I found that appalling. She had no redress.

I advised her to take her case to somebody else. She went back to her solicitor and he said he could not release the file unless she paid him some horrendous amount of money. I cannot remember the amount. He would not release her file to enable her to bring the case to another legal representative unless she handed over a huge amount of money. I thought that was wrong in itself that somebody would deal with a matter such as this in that fashion. This lady is well educated and is a woman of the world. The issue is that she was ignored as the solicitors on both sides reached a settlement and her wishes were subsumed. They told her they had it all done and dusted and that they may as well all go home.

If the office of a legal services ombudsman, the establishment of which is provided for in the Bill, is a place to which a person, such as this woman, could bring his or her gripe, then it should be a good place. However, I have a concern about it. I have had the experience of dealing with the offices of a few ombudsmen. The Ombudsman, Ms Emily O'Reilly, is doing a wonderful job. One can be truly certain that if one brings a case to her attention, it will be followed up, impartially, and that the interests of the appellant will be represented. I have also found the pensions ombudsman to be excellent. However, I have a concern about a legal ombudsman. I hope the person who gets this job will not be a legal person. It would be a distortion of justice if a legal person got that job. The office holder may have staff who are legal people, but the legal ombudsman should not have legal experience because, irrespective of how hard he or she tried, the system would become self-regulatory. Self-regulation does not work. It cannot work because under such a system the profession judges its own members.

I welcome the contents of the Bill. I welcome the idea that the letter of engagement between client and his or her solicitor is to be in plain language. I understand plain language because it is what we all understand, but those in legal practice have words which ordinary people do not understand. They use terminology which is often obtuse and it does not work to the benefit of the consumer. The term "letter of engagement" is a good one — the client engages with his or her legal representative. It is provided that the letter of engagement should be in plain language. One might ask what is plain language. It is the language one hears in one's local pub, shop, post office or on the street as one goes about one's business; it is not legal language. I am sorry if in saying that I cause offence to legal people who are present, but matters such as this need to be said.

We have a duty to the people we represent to ensure the legislation we introduce reflects their point of view and how they feel they have been treated or mistreated by the legal profession. Rather than the legal profession treating it as an onerous burden, if people say they intend to bring a case to the legal ombudsman, I would say fair dues to them, that is the person to whom they should go to get redress. However, a person will only get that if the legal ombudsman is not a legal person.

Teasing out of the provisions of the Bill on Committee Stage will be interesting. It will serve the public well and it is long overdue. I hope our knowledge of how ombudsmen operate will permeate the workings of this ombudsman's office when it is set up. I also hope it will operate for the benefit of the ordinary people who will be able to say that they went to this office and the steps to be taken were laid out for them. While the case may work out in favour of the person concerned, it may not, but I believe it may well do so. I wish the Bill every success. I hope the work of the legal ombudsman's office will be to the benefit of the public.

See this speech in context