Lisa McDonald (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister of State. I would like to put on the record of the House my interest in this legislation as a practising solicitor and member of the Law Society. Despite my overall support for the Bill, I have a few fundamental reservations about it.

I worry that this legislation seeks to create yet another watchdog in Irish society. The KitKat advertisement, which shows policemen sitting outside a bank eating KitKat while crimes are being committed all around them, comes to mind. I wonder about the value of toothless watchdogs and the need for more agencies of State in terms of their cost effectiveness and the need for another layer of bureaucracy. Whether or not the legal profession needs or deserves an extra oversight is another issue.

We live in the age of ombudsmen and in an age where people rightly require that decisions taken by others, albeit sometimes for their good, are firstly explained to them and are further explored when not in their favour. I am concerned the proposed new office could become yet another letter writing agency, generating more heat than light from the cases with which it deals. We must learn the lesson in this regard. We must either have an ombudsman with real teeth or no ombudsman at all. In this regard, I welcome the provision for High Court enforcement of directions made by the ombudsman and for referral of any question of law by the High Court for determination, which is an addition that will give further teeth to the office.

I acknowledge Ireland's first Ombudsman, the late Mr. Michael Mills, who had outstanding qualities. We have since been blessed with persons in such roles who have those qualities. I expect that the person appointed as legal services ombudsman will have those qualities and more because he or she will be subjected 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 the ordinary citizen who believes he or she was badly served by the legal profession or legal advice may go directly to the ombudsman. This could be daunting for an individual even though the ombudsman exists to help that individual. Many people may require legal help with bringing their complaint to the ombudsman. While the Bill states this is not necessary, we will find in practice that people will require professional assistance when submitting issues to the ombudsman. Legal assistance is costly, as everyone knows, and I wonder if the Bill will make complainants financially worse off.

It appears the running costs of the ombudsman will be borne by the Law Society and the Bar Council. The reality, however, is that it will be the clients who will carry the can in this instance. As the Minister of State outlined, the two professional bodies are paying 10% while the remaining 80% will be paid pro rata by those two bodies, which should help to ensure compliance and ensure members of both professions will up their game, so to speak. However, like everything else in 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 this to be taken note of as the Bill goes through the House.

If one uses the website, www.rateyoursolicitor.com, there are huge——