Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

Cuirim fáilte roimh an mBille fán Ombudsman um Sheirbhísí Dlí 2008, agus roimh an cuspóar atá aige. Tugann an Bille aitheantas sa deireadh thiar nach féidir le heagrais atá gafa le gairmeacha dlí déileáil i gcónaí i gceart le gearáin i gcoinne baill na n-eagras sin, An Cumann Dlí nó an Bar Council. Tá sé nádúrtha go mbeadh bá ag lucht dlí le lucht dlí. Tá an bá chéanna ag An Garda Síochána le gardaí, agus ag dochtúirí le dochtúirí agus araile. Tá gá le bealaí neamhspleácha a aimsiú chun déileála go héifeachtach agus go gasta le gearáin. Caithfear chomh maith bheith cothrom le gach taobh páirteach sa choimhlint nó sa ghearán. Tá ár sochaí tar éis roinnt de na céimeanna sin a ghlacadh maidir leis na gairmeacha eile agus tá súil agam go leanfaidh muid ar aghaidh leis na hathruithe atá le teacht.

Tá sé thar am don Bhille seo. In ainneoin an fháilte atá curtha roimhe agam, d'fhéadfadh sé a bheith i bhfad níos foirfe, cé gur céim chun tosaigh é. Déileáileann an Bille le gairm a bhaineann le daoine a chleachtann an dlí, dlíodóirí agus abhcóidí. Mar an gcéanna leis na gairmeacha eile ar nós An Garda Síochána, dochtúirí nó cuntasóirí, baineann an caidreamh idir dhaoine ag obair mar dhlíodóirí nó abhcóidí agus an pobal le ceisteanna tábhachtacha. Déileáileann siad le saibhreas nó daibhreas, sláinte nó tinneas, nó le saoirse agus daoirse. Mar aon leis na gardaí, déileáileann dlíodóirí le ceisteanna móra i dtaobh saoirse agus sealúchas.

Tá go leor scéalta cloiste agam thar na blianta faoi chásanna inar bhuail dlíodóir nó abhcóide bob ar an chliant. Uaireanta ní bhíonn a fhios agam an d'aonghnó nó de thaisme a tharla sin. De gnáth, níor míníodh don chliant sna cásanna sin cad go díreach a bhí ar siúl nó cén toradh a thiocfadh as an seasamh a d'iarr siad ar an abhcóide a ghlacadh. I gcásanna eile, níor thóg an abhcóide nó an dlíodóir an treo a bhí á lorg ag an chliant. Is trua go dtarlaíonn sin. Go minic, is i gcásanna mar sin a bhíonn fadhb ann. Bíonn fadhb ann nuair nach mbíonn dlíodóir sásta an scéal a mhíniú. Cuirim fáilte roimh an mBille, ach tá leasuithe le teacht.

Sinn Féin welcomes the Legal Services Ombudsman Bill. Sadly, whether it is the Garda Síochána, the legal profession or the medical profession, we know too well the dangers of leaving any profession to its own devices. Sinn Féin welcomes the change in our society that tries to ensure an independent complaints process for the profession to ensure both the profession and the public are protected. The danger of allowing professions to operate without independent and transparent systems to ensure that the highest standards and accountability are inherent is that it undermines public confidence in that service and the profession.

At the extreme, the absence of independent mechanisms to receive and rule on complaints can risk and ruin lives. There have been a number of cases highlighted in recent years and protests outside these gates by victims — as they put it — of the legal profession. They have come together to try to ensure that what we are addressing today is set up. They also seek redress for the complaints made in respect of their experiences of the legal profession in this State. For example, the Irish Medical Organisation should have struck off Dr. Neary from the register a lot sooner than it did. The fact he had chosen three members of the IMO who assessed him speaks volumes about the need to ensure complaints bodies are independent of the sectoral organisations of which the subject of a complaint is a member.

The seeming inability of the Garda Síochána complaints board in the past to find against members of the force and its frequent refusal to investigate complaints never surprised me. I welcome the new body though I would have preferred it to be much more independent and stronger. A well known specific example, which illustrates the need for an effective complaints mechanism, is the despicable double charging of victims of child sexual abuse by certain members of the legal profession as highlighted by a number of previous speakers. There are many other lesser known but equally grave examples.

My office is receiving an increasing number of complaints and requests for assistance in respect of improper, unethical and incompetent conduct by members of the legal profession. The people concerned have run out of options in seeking justice. I believe this is only the tip of the iceberg. I am sure all 166 Members of this House have received complaints from members of the public in regard to their treatment by members of the legal profession. In general, the legal profession is above reproach but there exists within it, as in all professions, those who would do it down. They are the ones we are trying to weed out. We are trying to ensure the highest possible standard is attained by the legal profession, barristers and solicitors, within and outside the State.

Some members of the legal profession are profiting from the vulnerability of people who must access their services. This is creating great hardship and distress for people who have been pursuing justice and recompense for years at great financial and emotional cost to themselves. A person wishing to take on the legal profession in this State needs a great deal of money. Many people have lost their holdings and farms in an attempt to undo a wrong or perceived wrong on the part of practitioners in our justice system.

Many people have been denied access to legal recourse to pursue their complaints or to appeal against unethical solicitors owing to their inability to find another solicitor who is willing to take their case. This is happening across various professions. It is difficult to find a garda who will make a complaint against another garda. If this were not so, there would have been no need for the Morris tribunal. Also, it is difficult to find a solicitor who will give evidence or make a complaint against a solicitor. The same applies in respect of a doctors.

Members of the House have called for the introduction of a whistleblowers' charter to protect those who want to expose, without having to suffer any consequences or risk of being sent to Coventry by their fellow practitioners, members of a profession who are guilty of misconduct. This culture must change. It is hoped the findings of the Morris tribunal will result in such change in the Garda Síochána and that the advent of the legal services ombudsman will result in a change in attitude in the legal profession.

Not alone are people finding it difficult to find a solicitor willing to take on a case, they are also finding it difficult to obtain free legal aid. The free legal aid centres, FLAC, are not in a position to handle some of these cases owing to under-resourcing, means test results or because they are precluded by law from doing so. Mar a dúirt mé, cuirim fáilte roimh an córas neamhspleách atá molta sa Bhille seo, a chinnteoidh go mbeidh muintir na gairme dlí freagrach trí oifig an ombudsman um sheirbhísí dlí. Tá sé thar am go dtarlódh a leithéid. Is comhartha é go bhfuilimid ag dul sa nua-aois. Molfaidh mé leasuithe ar an Bhille seo ar Chéim an Choiste chun a dhéanamh cinnte de go n-úsáidfí "fear an phobail" — an teideal a bhí ann nuair a cheapadh Michael Mills — in ionad "ombudsman" i nGaeilge. Déanann an teideal "fear an phobail" cur síos níos fearr ar an ról a bheidh ag an duine a oibreoidh sa phost nua seo. Beidh an "fear an phobail" ann thar ceann an phobail. Tá sé sin le bheith molta. B'fhéidir gur chóir dúinn an teideal a athrú ó "ombudsman" go "fear an phobail" nó "bean an phobail".

The introduction through this Bill of an independent body in the form of the legal services ombudsman to hold legal professionals accountable is both welcome and overdue. On Committee Stage, I will table amendments with the aim of improving the Bill to ensure we have the most effective and, crucially, the most independent ombudsman possible.

Section 5 outlines the eligibility criteria for appointment to the position of ombudsman. Sinn Féin will table an amendment to this section to ensure that not only current but recent members of the Law Society of Ireland or Bar Council are ineligible for this position. Measaim gur chóir go mbeadh spás ama de dhá bhliana nó cúig bhliain i gceist, ionas nach féidir leo siúd atá ag cleachtadh dlí faoi láthair bheith ainmnithe mar ombudsman. Ba chóir dúinn féachaint ar sin. Ba cheart dúinn tréimhse ar leith a shainiú ionas go mbeidh ar dhaoine obair eile a dhéanamh idir an dá linn. Beimid níos fearr as muna mbeidh duine atá gafa leis an tseirbhís ainmnithe mar ombudsman. Ní chóir go mbeadh an cumadh ar an scéal go bhfuil bá ag an ombudsman don ghairm ina raibh sé nó sí ag cleachtadh roimhe sin.

Section 11 governs the appointment of the staff in the office of the legal services ombudsman. It also provides that prior to seeking the consent of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Minister for Finance to appoint a new staff member the legal services ombudsman must first consult the Bar Council and the Law Society of Ireland. I find this provision bizarre. The recently established Garda Ombudsman Commission under the Garda Síochána Act 2005 does not and should not have to consult with the Garda Síochána before appointing its staff. I fail to understand why the legal services ombudsman should be any different. Section 11, as currently drafted, can only serve to reduce the potential for public confidence. Perhaps the Minister when replying will explain cén fáth go bhfuil an foráil seo sa Bhille.

Section 15 makes provision for the legal services ombudsman to produce annual reports on admission policies of the Law Society of Ireland and the Bar Council. These reports must contain the number of people admitted to practise and set out how this matches the demand for services. We have been long of the opinion that the Judiciary is not representative of Irish society and has long been disproportionately made up of people from wealthy backgrounds. In the interests of justice, it is imperative this situation be reversed. It is crucial the legal professions begin to include a fair representation of people from working class backgrounds. With this in mind, I will also table amendments to section 15 to ensure the legal services ombudsman reports provide a breakdown on admissions policy under a number of different headings, including socioeconomic background, gender, ethnicity and so on with a view to establishing quotas if the admission quotas are not reflective of society, which I believe is currently the case. We must set targets to achieve change in our legal services to ensure we are judged by our peers rather than by our masters, which I have never accepted.

Deputy Connaughton suggested that the wearing of wigs and gowns should be prohibited. They are a hand-down from a previous jurisdiction and a previous part of Irish life and they should be prohibited once and for all. One is not being judged by one's peers if the person at the bench believes he or she is above another because he or she wears a wig and a gown. It is high time we modernised our society, including the Bar.

Section 21(7) appears to limit the retrospective powers of the ombudsman regarding complaints determined by the Law Society or the Bar Council to no more than six months prior to the commencement of the section. This is in contrast to section 6 which gives the ombudsman certain discretionary latitude. The retrospective powers provided by this section should be clarified. If one compares section 21(7) with section 6, one can see that clarity is required.

I will also be tabling a number of standard amendments to ensure the democratic accountability of the ombudsman. I welcome the fact that the ombudsman will be in some way answerable to the Dáil, through a committee, with regard to costings and so forth. However, all the ombudsman's reports to the Minister should be open to scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights to ensure that the ombudsman is working correctly and that we are getting the correct response from the Bar Council and the Law Society with regard to his or her recommendations.

I remember when the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, whose name is hard to remember because he is no longer a Deputy, set up the Garda Ombudsman Commission, he argued that it had to have three members. He maintained that it could not function properly without three members, but an ombudsman's office is now being set up with just one person. Obviously, the new Minister took on board the advice that many people gave to the effect that one person is a lot more effective in terms of making adjudications.

Another issue which I am interested in examining and on which I will do some research before Committee Stage is the term of office of the ombudsman. There are various terms of office and we should standardise them. In this case, it is six years plus a subsequent term and a further term if so required, which means that somebody could theoretically be in this job for most of his or her working life. I do not think that should be the case; two terms would suffice. Whether six years or five years is appropriate I do not know but we should consider standardising the terms of office of all ombudsmen across the board.

I have major concerns about section 27 because its provisions do not go far enough. The section refers to the obstruction of the work of the legal services ombudsman. Basically, if one obstructs the ombudsman one is liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding €2,000. Given the fees charged by some solicitors and barristers, I do not think they would care too much about €2,000 and would forego such a sum. In this case, because of the seriousness of what the ombudsman will be addressing and the fact that we want to improve public confidence, the ability to strike a person off the register and rule him or her out of practising should be included as a punishment for obstructing an officer appointed by this House to work on behalf of the public as a whole. It is important that the seriousness of this is reflected in the Bill.

Measaim go bhfuil an chuid is mó den méid atá le rá agam ráite agam anois. Cuirfidh mé roinnt leasoithe ar Chéim an Choiste. Tá sé tábhachtach a léiriú go dtugann Dlí-Chumann na hÉireann agus Comhairle an Bharra tacaíocht don Bhille seo. Táimid ar fad ag tarraingt le chéile sa chás seo. Tá gach éinne ag iarraidh a chinntiú go mbeidh an reachtaíocht seo, agus an "fear an phobail" nó ombudsman um sheirbhísí dlí, chomh éifeachtach agus is féidir ionas go mbeidh muinín ag gach éinne sa chóras dlí ina iomlán.

See this speech in context