Amendments Nos. 2 to 6, inclusive, have been ruled out of order.
Legal Services Ombudsman Bill 2008: Report Stage.
Amendment No. 1 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 2 to 6, inclusive, not moved.
Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9 are related. Amendment No. 10 is an alternative to amendment No. 9. Amendments Nos. 7 to 10, inclusive, will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 11, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following:
"(b) including a break-down of the number of persons admitted to practice as barristers or solicitors during that year in terms of gender and socioeconomic background, and”.
Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 10 are self-explanatory. They seek to ensure that the legal profession is reflective of society rather than confined to a single socioeconomic group. In the past, the profession was confined to men but thankfully in recent years the profile of those who practise law has progressed significantly towards gender balance. I do not have the figures to inform me whether the profession is reflective of society but, at approximately 51% of the population, women now outnumber men.
A presumption exists among the general public that the legal profession is aloof from society. This is partly the result of the educational obstacles put in the way of those who depend on inadequate maintenance grants to enter the profession. The legal services ombudsman should be reflective of the general public. I do not suggest major changes but it is logical in this day and age to ensure fair representation of people from working class backgrounds in order to offer a more varied outlook.
I thank Deputy Ó Snodaigh for his contribution to the Bill. He is in effect seeking a quota system for admissions to both parts of the legal profession. In regard to the gender profile, 46% of practising solicitors and 40% of barristers are women. Moreover, the majority of law graduates from public and private third level institutions are women. The proportion of female graduates in 2003 was 65.4%. The educational requirements of the Law Society and the King's Inns are such that equal opportunity is given to both sexes to enter the legal profession. I do not agree with a quota system in this regard. Over the past several decades, both sexes have been given better opportunities to become barristers and solicitors. The Law Society and the King's Inns have introduced schemes to allow people to take up professional courses by various routes, with the overall result of widening access to the professions among every stratum of Irish society.
I recall during my time as a law student in UCD being given a lecture on Roman law by the former Deputy, Fine Gael Attorney General and expert in constitutional law, J.M. Kelly, in which he made some disparaging remarks regarding the fact that the proportion of females in the class was for the first time almost 50%. He very eloquently stated that the only reason so many females were studying law was because they wanted to find eligible men. A protest was held as a result of his comments and the remainder of the course in Roman law was boycotted. Thankfully, however, other students and I passed our examinations in the subject. During the 1970s, significant numbers of females began to take up courses in law.
I understand the Deputy's intention but it would be wrong to introduce a quota system, particularly in view of the substantial numbers of females who are now studying law.
I am unsure whether I was alive at the time of the incident described by the Minister. I do not agree with the proposal for quotas because the opportunities are now such that people from many different backgrounds can attend public and private law schools to qualify as barristers provided they meet the educational requirements.
I did not suggest quotas solely on the basis of gender representation. I acknowledge the significant changes that have taken place in that regard. My intention was to address the perception to which I referred earlier but I would be happier if another mechanism could be found to ensure the legal profession is more reflective of society. I do not generally favour quotas but they are needed in certain circumstances where imbalances arise. They can be subsequently removed provided the will exists to achieve a balance. In light of the figures set out by the Minister on gender proportions in legal courses, we may in future need to introduce quotas to ensure the adequate representation of males. I hope that will not be required, however.
I will not press the amendment but ask that more be done to address the perception that working class people are not adequately represented in the legal profession. I know many legal professionals from working class backgrounds who encountered major difficulties in pursuing their chosen careers.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 8 to 10, inclusive, not moved.
Amendment No. 11 has been ruled out of order.
Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 13 and 15 to 17, inclusive, have been already discussed with amendment No. 1. I call the Minister to move amendment No. 13.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 14, line 33, before "the" to insert "subject to section 20(2),”.
I would like to give a rationale in respect of amendments Nos. 13, 15, 16 and 17 as they address some of the issues raised on Committee Stage by Deputy Rabbitte.
The objective of the Government amendments and Deputy Rabbitte's alternative amendments are in effect the same, namely, to exclude invalid, frivolous and vexatious complaints from the calculation of the levy under section 19. The issue is how this objective can best be achieved. Section 20 provides that the detailed provisions for counting and calculating the levy be made by the Minister in regulations to provide for the exclusion of complaints in that section rather than in section 19. Amendment No. 17 provides for the exclusion of complaints falling within the scope of subsection 22(4). The net effect is that frivolous, vexatious and other invalid complaints which the Ombudsman declines to investigate or discontinues investigating cannot be counted for the purpose of calculating the levy.
Amendments Nos. 13, 15 and 16 are technical cross-referencing amendments consequent on amendment No. 17.
As pointed out by the Minister, amendment No. 1 was not moved. Members may at this point put a question to the Minister in respect of amendments Nos. 13, 15, 16 and 17.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 14 not moved.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 15, line 1, to delete "the number (determined in accordance with regulations" and substitute the following:
"subject to section 20(2), the number (determined in accordance with regulations (if any)”.)
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 15, line 33, before "the" where it firstly occurs to insert "subject to subsection (2),”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 16, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:
"(2) The determination for the purposes of section 19 of the number of complaints made in relation to barristers and the number of complaints made in relation to solicitors shall exclude any complaint which the Legal Services Ombudsman has decided under section 22(4) either not to investigate or to discontinue an investigation thereof.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 are related and will be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 20, line 16, after "manner" to insert "(including by any informal means)".
While Deputy Rabbitte's amendment No. 21 is similar, I will give the rationale in respect of amendment No. 20. Section 23 was examined in the light of the Committee debate on the matter of resolution of complaints by the Ombudsman. I agreed with the views expressed then that there would be value in making reference in the Bill to informal resolution of complaints where appropriate.
In this regard, amendment No. 20 gives statutory guidance to the Ombudsman to make it clear that he may resolve complaints by informal means if appropriate. On Deputy Rabbitte's amendment No. 21, we have moved in his direction in meeting the objective of encouraging informal resolution of complaints where appropriate. Amendment No. 20 addresses the situation.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 21 to 26, inclusive, not moved.
Bill, as amended, received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I thank the Acting Chairman and his staff for facilitating the passing of this Bill. Also, I thank Members opposite for their co-operation. It is hoped the Bill will be passed by the Seanad and will become law in the near future.
Question put and agreed to.