I move amendment No. 2:
In page 11, between lines 13 and 14, to insert a new subsection as follows: "(3) Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this section shall require disclosure to a housing authority by a solicitor of any privileged communication made to him in that capacity."
I referred to this matter on Committee Stage and the Minister said he would consider it between that Stage and Report Stage. The purpose of my amendment was not only to have the Bill amended but also to invite the Minister's comments on the amendment. I understand that since I raised the matter, the Incorporated Law Society has been in correspondence with the Minister's Department in the matter. If it is permissible, I should like to quote from the letter which the Minister received from the Incorporated Law Society. In the course of the letter of 27th October, 1965, the Society said:
The council of this Society are somewhat concerned about the provisions of section 4 of the Housing Bill, 1965. This section would apparently enable a housing authority to require a solicitor to furnish confidential information regarding a client's affairs without that client's consent. This is contrary to the accepted law and the recognised right of clients to professional secrecy on the part of their solicitors. The council wish to submit that the section should be amended to protect that right. If necessary, they are prepared to attend on the Minister to supply further information.
The Society received a reply from the Department to which, no doubt, the Minister will make reference. The reply of the Department refers to the fact that there were similar provisions in the Housing Act, 1931, in the Local Government Act, 1960, and in the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963. Apparently the principle we are asked to accept is that because bad law is already on record, we should not change it. If that is to be the guiding principle in determining what we should do, there would be no point in amending legislation. The whole purpose of amending legislation is to reform what we consider to be wrong and to make it better.
This principle was also at stake in the Companies Act, 1963. In the Companies Act, 1963, which is as close to us and closer than some of the other legislation which has been quoted by the Minister, it is provided that wherever people are required to furnish information, nothing in the provisions requiring the information should require disclosure by a solicitor of any privileged communication made to him in that capacity. It is desirable that people could understand that this right, this privilege, exists not for the protection of the solicitor — it is a matter of total indifference to him personally whether the information is released to a Minister or anybody else —but for the protection of the individual, who should feel entirely free and protected in consulting his legal advisers. A person should be entitled to take legal advice without the fear that information disclosed by him may, because of that, be released to other people. If that principle is infringed, we put in jeopardy the liberty of the individual and that confidential, privileged relationship, which people are entitled to expect and have the right to demand, between themselves and their legal advisers.
I do not, for one moment, compare the situation in all respects with that which exists between a penitent and his confessor under which the confessor may never break the seal of confession, notwithstanding the fact that the confessor may have information which could clearly establish responsibility for a crime. It is the mere existence of that privilege and confidential relationship which justifies the institutions which we have and in which lay people can get advice from specialists. Once you breach that privilege and breach that right, then you put in great danger these privileges which exist for the protection of the liberty of the individual. I can anticipate that the Minister will say that the right to withhold information cannot be any greater simply because information is given to a solicitor. That is a legitimate point of view but it is not a question of changing the right or the degree of privilege. It is simply a question of recognising the right of an individual to consult his legal advisers and not to put any person into jeopardy, into danger, simply because he has done the prudent thing and taken legal advice.
I would earnestly ask the Minister once again to reconsider the matter and to be influenced, not by these earlier Acts, but by what can be found in the Companies Act, 1963, which in respect of seeking information is on all fours with what is sought in this Bill, but does maintain the integrity of the legal profession and the relationship which ought to exist between any citizen and his or her legal advisers.