Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)

I commend the draughtspeople and the Minister of State on the proposed levy. It is a very good concept that might go unrecognised whereby the professions against whom complaints are likely to arise and proceed will have to pay a levy towards the upkeep of the ombudsman's office. I cannot but concur with Senator Bacik's point that a very small proportion of complaints is made against barristers. However I would vary the proportions of the levy in a different way. Regrettably, solicitors find themselves at the coalface of dealing with the public and obviously are much more likely to be hit by complaints. Barristers are somewhat shielded because, despite the professional access, by and large people do not walk in off the streets to barristers but come to them via solicitors.

The biggest single complaint against the legal profession in the past decade has been on the inordinate fees reaped by senior counsel at the tribunals, especially the more recent tribunals on zoning of lands in Dublin, some of which were extraordinary. Some of the senior counsel made €1 million per year. This is a major issue. If one examines the capacity to earn and the earnings achieved by some senior counsel, the levy should be pro rata on the basis of earning capacity or earnings. We recently touched on young solicitors and some at the Bar who are at the lower echelons of their careers. If they begin at the age of 25 and live to be 65, they will never earn more in that 40 years, allowing for taxation, than some of the big hitters at the tribunals. They might be in a minority, but we should examine those who have earned this money. Those who can most afford it should pay.

I have great respect for Senator Bacik, but solicitors are hit because they are at the coalface of the complaints mechanism. Many complaints I have seen made were caused by engineers, architects or somebody else. Solicitors rely on their skill and judgment and they take the flak, so it runs down the line. If the Minister of State is minded to make any change it should be pro rata on the basis of earnings. It is a bit unfair that a young practising solicitor, allowing for professional negligence and so on, should be down €15,000 before ever earning a crust. Professional negligence insurance is expensive. Their contribution to the Law Society for membership is probably minimum, forgetting about professional negligence. I ask the Minister of State not to hit the weak earners but to do it on the basis of those who make the most money, whether the huge firms of solicitors or the high earners in tribunals.

Regrettably, tribunals have become a gravy train over the past 15 to 20 years. They were set up by the Oireachtas and they were let run without fetters. I have contended in this House and in another forum that there were three tribunals of inquiry worth the name of tribunal: the Stardust tribunal, the Whiddy disaster tribunal, both of which involved much loss of life, and the Blood Transfusion Service Board tribunal. The others could have been dealt with by another mechanism. They have cost the State a great deal of money. Those who make big bucks should pay pro rata into this fund.