Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 731: To ask the Minister for Education and Science if an investigation will be carried out into claims that some legal representatives charged clients who attended the Residential Institutions Redress Board fees that had already been covered by the State; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [29107/05]

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 732: To ask the Minister for Education and Science if claimants to the Residential Institutions Redress Board will be fully informed of the fact that their legal fees are entirely covered by the State; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [29108/05]

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 733: To ask the Minister for Education and Science if immediate steps will be taken to ensure that claimants to the Residential Institutional Redress Board received the entirety of their payments and that legal representatives are prevented from deducting any alleged charges from them in view of the fact that legal fees are paid directly by the board; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [29109/05]

Mary Hanafin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 731 to 733, inclusive, together.

Section 27 of the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002 provides that all reasonable legal costs and other costs associated with the preparation and presentation of an application to the redress board will be met by the board. In the event that agreement cannot be reached between the board and the applicant's legal representative, the matter is referred to the Taxing Master of the High Court for determination.

The redress board's published guidelines and other publicity material on the redress scheme specifically highlight the fact that all reasonable legal costs incurred in respect of applications for redress are payable by the board. Furthermore, as solicitors are required under law to fully inform their clients, in writing, of the legal costs payable in their case, it is incumbent on the solicitor to inform an applicant to the redress board that all reasonable legal costs will be met by the board and that the applicant should not have to pay any legal costs.

The Law Society of Ireland is the body responsible under law for regulating the solicitor profession and as such it is a matter for the society to investigate complaints about the conduct of a solicitor. Earlier this year, my Department became aware that the society had taken the view that it was precluded from investigating complaints from applicants concerning overcharging by solicitors as a result of the prohibition on disclosure of information under section 28 of the redress Act. Arising from this, I included an amendment to this section on the Committee Stage of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (Amendment) Bill 2005 to enable the Law Society to investigate such complaints. This Bill was enacted into law on 9 July 2005. In early October, the Attorney General wrote to the Law Society and the Bar Council in clarification of the issue. That correspondence is ongoing.

The redress scheme was set up by the Government to help alleviate the injury and suffering experienced by victims of child abuse in residential institutional care. Awards made by the board are payable in full to the applicant, without any deduction for costs. It is a disgraceful practice that some solicitors take advantage of their clients by overcharging, as reported. I welcome the steps taken by the Law Society to examine and deal with the issue of overcharging by solicitors and to ensure that applicants to the redress board are fully reimbursed where this has arisen. I expect the society to take whatever action is appropriate.