Terence Flanagan (Dublin North East, Fine Gael)

Like previous speakers, I welcome this Bill which will put the office of the legal services ombudsman on a statutory footing. Under the terms of the Bill, it will be possible, for the first time, for members of the public to make a complaint to an independent ombudsman, who is neither a solicitor nor a barrister, if they are unhappy with the outcome of their complaint made to the Bar Council or the Law Society. When lawyers investigate themselves, it can lead to charges of a cover-up. I am glad that the Bill provides for the establishment of a new, independent ombudsman.

Complaints made both to the Law Society and the Bar Council vary from excessive fees charged to clients, misconduct, inadequate service and bad advice to poor representation. As Deputies, we all know of instances where rogue solicitors have overcharged constituents and provided a poor service.

Some of the functions of the legal services ombudsman will be to promote awareness among the public of matters concerning the procedures of the Bar Council and the Law Society; to assess the adequacy of the admission policies of the Law Society for solicitors and of the Bar Council for barristers; and to review the procedures of the Bar Council and the Law Society for dealing with complaints made to those bodies. Those functions are to be welcomed and it is no harm that an independent ombudsman will have a remit to ensure that proper and adequate candidates are appointed as solicitors or barristers, as well as ensuring that the complaints procedures are correct.

I welcome the fact that the legal services ombudsman will have to submit an annual report on the effectiveness of his office to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. That report will also cover the adequacy of the functions of the ombudsman's office. This is an innovative change. Given the current number of quangos, this practice should be introduced for all such bodies so that they have to provide an annual report outlining the effectiveness of their functions. This report may contain recommendations for improving the effectiveness and value for money of the office of the legal services ombudsman. We want an independent ombudsman who will function correctly within a given remit.

The legal services ombudsman will attend meetings of the relevant Oireachtas committee whenever he or she is asked to do so by the committee and shall provide the committee with such information as requested. I hope that when the ombudsman's office is up and running it will be well advertised and that the necessary details will be contained in literature produced both by the Law Society and the Bar Council.

The legal profession should have nothing to fear from the appointment of an ombudsman. If anything, the appointment should help to promote higher standards in the legal profession. It should enhance its reputation as happened in England and Wales with the appointment of an ombudsman who oversees complaints relating to lawyers and barristers. Whoever is appointed to this office needs to speak to the ombudsman in England and Wales and learn from its experiences. This will ensure that the teething problems experienced in that office are avoided in the new ombudsman's office.

Will a customer charter be put in place which will outline the turnaround time members of the public can expect in regard to their complaints? Will the ombudsman's services will be free of charge to the public?

It is good that the ombudsman's role, as stated in the Bill, will specify the numbers of persons admitted to practise as barristers and solicitors respectively during the year, and that the decisions made will be in the public interest so as to ensure that the cost of employing a solicitor is reasonable for any member of the public. Certainly, one of the major criticisms is the excessive fees that some barristers and solicitors charge. If the Bill ensures there are more solicitors and barristers and more competition within the market, that is a positive development for the public.

It is reasonable and welcome that one has up to six months in which to make a complaint to the ombudsman. Why is it that all investigations are to be held in private? Would it not make more sense, in the interests of transparency and public accountability, if some of the investigations were held in public? Perhaps the Minister could indicate when summing up whether this will be the case.

I am pleased to note that the full cost of the office of the ombudsman will be paid by both legal professions and that the State will not have to pick up the tab. That is welcome given the current rates of wastage. It is necessary to ensure high standards are retained in the law profession and in the Bar Council. It is welcome that both professions will provide the money to pay for this office because it is in their professions' interest to have a good independent ombudsman functioning in this area.

I note that if a person obstructs the work of the ombudsman, he or she is liable to a fine not exceeding €2,000. That certainly would focus the mind or any person seeking to obstruct the work of the ombudsman and it is welcome.

As Deputy Connaughton said, the Bill could be examined further and the Fine Gael Party will table amendments on Committee Stage. However, I welcome the publication of the Bill. For the first time, it will provide for an independent ombudsman who will not be a solicitor or barrister and will look at the complaints procedure in both professions. The legal services ombudsman will ensure that excessive fees charged to clients and any misconduct or inadequate service provided by solicitors or barristers will be investigated. I commend the Bill to the House.

See this speech in context