Paul Connaughton Snr (Galway East, Fine Gael)

Unlike other Members who spoke on the Bill, I am not a solicitor or a barrister, but I speak for the majority of people who use the legal services. Many aspects of everyday life are intertwined by legalities which are becoming more complex. To make matters worse, the famous legalese, as referred to by Deputy Michael D'Arcy, is becoming more difficult to understand. There is an argument about the bureaucracy of the European Union. One can imagine the bureaucracy and legal complexes needed to deal with 27 member states. Although spoken about thousands of times, no one has made an effort to overcome the complexities of legal speak.

In my contacts, as a Deputy, with solicitors, I find them honest and straightforward. They do a good job but I would not say they work for nothing. The public will be happy with the provisions of the Bill. The solicitors and barristers of this country will welcome this new body. Those legal practitioners who work according to the procedures will have no problem with this new body. However, as referred to by Deputy D'Arcy, there are a few bad apples in every barrel and the legal profession is no exception. A bad apple in the legal profession can create havoc for a large number of ordinary people. Many Members will know of solicitors' firms where something went wrong, for instance, title deeds being mislaid, and the misery that has resulted for ordinary families. This Bill will allow the injured parties have recourse to a more straightforward type of justice.

The person who will be the legal services ombudsman will need to have all the qualities of leadership. He or she should not be a person who is easily frightened as the legal profession will rightly ask questions. The system will need to be robust enough to defend the decisions made by the ombudsman's office. Of all the professions none is better able to make a case than the legal profession and those in legal life. I share the view that whoever is appointed to that exalted position should not be involved in the legal profession, that he or she is neither a solicitor nor a barrister. It is entirely possible to find a person with the requisite competence but who is not involved in the legal profession, is neither a solicitor nor a barrister. The person appointed should be neither a solicitor nor a barrister as the reasoning behind this Bill is the need to reassure people they do not have to go to court with the devil in hell.

I refer to the first Ombudsman, the late Mr. Michael Mills, who had outstanding qualities. We have since been blessed with persons in those roles who also have those qualities. I expect the person appointed as legal services ombudsman will have those qualities and more because he or she will be subject to tremendous pressure.

The three categories of cases for appeal to the ombudsman will be inadequate services, excessive fees and misconduct. The Bill provides for a procedure that an ordinary citizen who believes that he or she was badly served by legal advice may go directly to the ombudsman. This could be daunting for an individual even though the ombudsman is there to help the individual. Many people may require some legal help with bringing their complaint to the ombudsman. I know the Bill states that this is not necessary but many people require professional assistance even when submitting planning permission for building a house. Legal assistance could be costly. I hope the Bill will provide that the person making the complaint will not be financially worse off.

It appears that the costs of running the office of the legal services ombudsman will be borne by the Law Society of Ireland and the Bar Council of Ireland. If this is the case, I know it will be the clients who will carry the can. Those two professional bodies are paying 10%. However, like everything else in this life, it will come back to the primary producer in the end and the consumer who uses a solicitor in years to come will be paying an invisible levy to take care of contributions being made up the line. I would like to believe this will be taken note of as this Bill goes through the House.

I wish to raise another matter which is associated with this Bill but not included in it. I can never understand why wigs are still being worn in court. It is not consumer-friendly, so to speak. It reminds me of the wren boys on St. Stephen's day when people dress up. I see no practical need for wigs.

The majority of people in this country have never seen the inside of a court — this is good because it means they have had no reason to. When they need to attend court and see people dressed in those wigs they wonder what planet they are on. The wearing of wigs does not affect the outcome of the cases but I can never understand why they are worn. It is a subject that raises its head every so often but the day I see the wigs being done away with will be a good day for everybody concerned.

Section 14 provides that various periodic reports are to be made by the legal services ombudsman to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I am not sure in my own mind about the procedure. I acknowledge that frivolous complaints will arise and it is important that such cases are filtered out following due process. The Garda Ombudsman also receives frivolous complaints. When a claimant goes through the process and where the only option left to them is to go to the courts, has the Minister any executive powers to decide on a case? If a case proceeds to court, will the office of the legal services ombudsman pay the legal fees for the claimant? It will be appreciated that such proceedings would be beyond the financial capabilities of most people. That is not clear in the Bill but I am sure it can be clarified on Committee Stage. It is something that will be raised in the coming months.

The question of overcharging comes within the remit of the legal services ombudsman. I have no doubt that there is gross, wilful overcharging in the legal profession. Much of it never sees the light of day, although there have been a number of exposés about it on television. It can arise over simple enough matters, such as ordinary insurance claims. There is no end to the amount of money solicitors and barristers can make on the basis of charges to their clients and the insurance companies involved. I have no doubt that there is no shortage of double charging and that it is going on all the time. I hope the cases brought before the ombudsman will be made public so that people will understand the situation. If a number of high profile cases were successful, it could have a ripple effect. It would show the legal profession that it could not and should not overcharge. Hopefully a satisfactory outcome can be achieved with regard to the practices of overcharging clients and ambulance chasing.

When people decide to have windows fitted in their homes, they seek numerous quotations, but they never get quotations for medical or legal advice. If someone has a headache, they may not have time to obtain quotations for treatment, but there is plenty of time to seek quotations for legal advice. Over the years, however, I have seen very few people using the telephone to ask lawyers what they would charge for doing X, Y or Z. People will visit a solicitor to outline their case and because they have confidence in that law practice, but rarely if ever will they ask how much the legal services will cost. That has been my experience over the years but I cannot understand it because we do not have a shortage of solicitors. Given the immense amount of money being charged, even for small services such as conveyancing, one would have thought that a few telephone calls to various solicitors might be worthwhile. Surely a cartel is not being organised. I am sure it is not, but the last thing potential clients do is seek quotations for legal services. I hope this will become common practice through the Ombudsman's office.

I am delighted that before he was elevated to higher things, the former Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Brian Lenihan, decided to introduce this legislation on its own, although it was linked earlier to another Bill. This is one of the most important pieces of legislation that will pass through this House this year because of the positive impact it will have for so many people in future. Some people have told me that no matter how one does it, the legal profession will always win but I do not think so. If we get a strong, dedicated and focused person in that office, with backup from the best possible legal advice, he or she will be able to take on all the vested interests. If that happens, it will be a good day for this country. This stand-alone legislation has an importance that it would not normally have if it were merely a tailpiece to another Bill.

Many aspects of the legislation will have to be teased out on Committee Stage. In his opening statement and in a recent interview, the Minister said there will be a sympathetic approach and that consideration will be given to many of the views we all hold. There will be widespread support for the Bill, which lends itself to that approach. If most common sense views can be facilitated in the Bill, it will make for better legislation.

See this speech in context