I wish to deal with a point I raised previously about this type of legislation, that is, definitions. Subsection (6) states: "A person ceases to hold the office of Legal Services Ombudsman when the person — (a) is nominated as a member of Seanad Éireann,". There is confusion in this provision. The university Senators, for example, must be nominated by ten graduates in good standing. The word "nominate" is used in that context, but it would be more accurate and clear if the provision used the word "appointed". When I teased this matter out on a previous occasion, I was told that what was meant was not the process of nomination to stand for election to the Seanad but what is effectively appointment by the Taoiseach, under his right to appoint 11 Members of the House. The provision would be much clearer if it stated "appointed" as a Member of Seanad Éireann.
Legal Services Ombudsman Bill 2008: Committee and Remaining Stages.
I welcome this Bill. However, the issue of exclusion of people who can serve in these positions is always included in Bills such as this. The Ombudsman must be a person of particular standing and he or she cannot be a practising barrister or solicitor. There is an aspect of this Bill that has not been taken into account and the Minister might consider it. I brought forward the Registration of Wills Bill that went through this House. It has not yet gone to the Dáil. A number of solicitors have been discredited recently and I am very concerned about the wills books in their practices and where they are being retained. The people who made the wills should be informed by the Law Society of exactly where the wills have been stored after being taken from the discredited practices or practices that have become insolvent. People are concerned that in the case of some wills that were made, the people are now deceased. In some cases, people will not benefit from the last will and testament of the person. This is an important issue which the legal services ombudsman will probably have to address when he or she is appointed. I hope the Minister of State, an experienced barrister, will bear this in mind when ideas are being put to the ombudsman on his or her appointment to office.
I concur with Senator Norris's point on the use in section 6(6)(a) of the word “nominated” as opposed to the words “appointed” or “elected”. Under the current proposals, the person appointed could serve two consecutive periods of six years. The President’s term lasts for seven years, while Members of the Houses serve a maximum of five years before elections are held. Why is the proposed term of the ombudsman not similar to those of Members or the President?
Why are members of local authorities precluded from being appointed legal services ombudsman? During the debate on the charities legislation, the Minister of State, Deputy Curran, made a recommendation on foot of comments made by Senators, including Senators Cummins, Leyden and myself, regarding the role of local councillors. Local authority members can bring a wealth of experience acquired as public representatives and in their employment to any position. Two terms of six years is a long time for a person to hold office.
I concur with Senator Buttimer that a six-year term is lengthy. Our experience of the ombudsman system, while relatively recent, has been a major success. As a practising lawyer and paid up member of the Law Society, I believe the establishment of a legal services ombudsman must be broadly welcomed as an extremely positive development. The role will be one of overseer and the ombudsman will operate in conjunction with the systems in place in the Law Society and Bar Council for dealing with complaints, practice and procedure.
As one who has practised law for more years than I care to remember, I believe the Law Society has by and large dealt with complaints exceptionally well. Every organisation can make mistakes and I accept in principle the reason people ask who guards the guardians and why the legal profession should engage in self-regulation. The Law Society complaints' board consists of laypersons and has an input from the High Court. When serious matters arise, as in a number of recent cases, the society can take serious steps.
I welcome the concept of establishing a legal services ombudsman. Senator Buttimer raised the possibility that an appointee to this position could serve for 12 years. Obviously, the person appointed, whether a man or woman, must be carefully chosen and must not have a connection with the profession. The example of a retired judge springs to mind. We must find the right person, one who will do the job successfully and, critically, one who will enjoy public confidence, without which any ombudsman will fail.
Unfortunately, I did not speak on Second Stage. The Bill is well founded and not before time and will restore, in a belt and braces fashion, public confidence in lawyers and barristers. The number of practising solicitors currently exceeds 8,000. Unfortunately, due to the recession hundreds of partially and fully qualified solicitors do not have a job. I have received many requests from young people who have completed their degree and done the examinations in Blackhall Place, having probably spent six or seven years studying law, who are not in a position to qualify.
I presume the ombudsman will not have a role in determining numbers in the profession. While competition is good, one does not want to bury a profession by having too many people qualify. Since I received my parchment in 1978 the number of solicitors has quadrupled from 2,000 to 8,000. We also have a vast number of barristers. While we always hear about barristers and, in some cases, solicitors who do extremely well, have acquired considerable wealth and have high earning capacity, many practising solicitors are in financial difficulty. Some have been unable to secure employment, while others have been made redundant.
In the 1980s, not long after I qualified, I emigrated because work was scarce. One firm in Cork, which will remain nameless, laid off ten conveyancing solicitors at that time. We have entered a similar period. While I welcome the decision to establish a legal services ombudsman and accept the importance of restoring public confidence in the legal profession, it is important to have some sympathy. As is the case with politicians, the media, whether in print or broadcasting, tend to tar lawyers with one brush and give an impression that all lawyers are milking the system. While this may apply in the case of a small element in the profession, there are many decent lawyers and barristers.
I fear for the future of many young people in the legal profession who will not be able to emigrate in the next four to five years. In my mid to late 20s, I had no such problems. While I could have gone to America, I chose to spend two years in England. This option is not open to young people in the profession. We need to spare a thought for recently qualified young lawyers as well as those about to sit the Bar or law exams who do not see any light at the end of the tunnel.
Senator Norris referred to the terminology used in section 6, specifically subsection (6) which sets out the circumstances in which a person ceases to hold the office of legal services ombudsman. These include when the person is nominated as a member of Seanad Éireann or is elected as a Member of either House of the Oireachtas or of the European Parliament. This terminology is used to deal with circumstances in which the person ceases to hold the position because he or she is nominated or elected to one of the Houses, whereas section 5 deals with those people who are not eligible to be appointed legal services ombudsman in the first instance. A distinction must be drawn in this context.
Senators will note that in section 5(3)(a) reference is only——
If I may ask the Minister of State——
Please allow the Minister of State to finish.
——made to a Member of either House of the Oireachtas.
On Senator Leyden's comments, the functions of the legal services ombudsman are dealt with in section 9. The Senator's concerns are encompassed in the first function, which is to receive and investigate complaints about the whereabouts of wills in solicitors' offices. This issue clearly comes within the function of the ombudsman.
Senator Buttimer raised the issue of the proposed six-year term of office for the ombudsman. I understand this is a standard term for this type of appointment and that other ombudsmen may be reappointed. The Government also has a right to remove the ombudsman, albeit in highly circumscribed circumstances which are not dissimilar to the provision in the Constitution on the removal of the President or a judge on the grounds of ill health or stated misbehaviour. Section 6(4) sets out the grounds on which the Government may remove the legal services ombudsman. These include, in subsection (4)(c), where “the Ombudsman’s removal from office appears to the Government to be necessary for the effective performance of the functions of the office”. This power is reserved to the Government if serious concerns can be raised about the manner in which the ombudsman is discharging his or her office. I am a supporter of local authority members’ having a role, as they do in VECs and local policing committees and as they used to in health boards. However, what is envisaged here is a clean break between this very important high level office and elected office.
The issue of unemployment among solicitors was mentioned. As a former lawyer, I am aware of the major pressures on the legal profession. One of the key functions of section 9, specifically section 9(1)(c), is “to assess the adequacy of the admission policies of the Law Society to the solicitors’ profession and of the Bar Council to the barristers’ profession”. In addition, under section 15(1) the annual report of the legal services ombudsman may specify the number of persons admitted to practice as barristers and solicitors during that year and an assessment of whether such number is consistent with the public interest. There is an argument that too many people are being admitted to some training courses where they are given an expectation of a lucrative career that may not be available, certainly in the circumstances in which we find ourselves. The role of the ombudsman in this regard is important.
I mentioned the issue of nomination, which can cover nomination to stand as a candidate. Many people are nominated for positions and not all are chosen. At the previous Seanad election in Trinity College there were about 14 candidates but only three of us were successful. Thus, 11 were not successful, although there may not have been quite as many as that. What about people who are nominated and do not accede to the position? Why should they be excluded?
I think differently about the phraseology, although I bow to the Senator's expertise in matters of grammar. If we were talking about people who were simply nominated as candidates the Bill might have spelt that out a little more clearly, but in my view it could not be interpreted as anything other than a person who is a Member of Seanad Éireann so nominated by the Taoiseach. That is expressed in the disjunction from paragraph (b) which refers to a person elected to either House. That is simply there to indicate that the legal services ombudsman ceases to hold office if appointed, or nominated, to the Seanad. There are many words to describe what we are talking about. It is fairly clear in my view.
I will not be tedious on this matter. However, it is instructive that the Minister of State himself instinctively used the word "appointed". I am sure if he were prosecuting a case in court he would make hay with that fact. The current wording is perhaps a coyness on the part of Government which does not like to admit too openly that it appoints people to the Seanad. Linguistically, "nominating" usually means putting a name forward. The Taoiseach actually has the power to do considerably more than that as he or she appoints Members. I will not push it but the Minister of State, by instinctively turning to the word "appointed", makes that point effectively for us. Perhaps at some later stage in this legislation we can consider this again. From a practical point of view, I know there is not a snowball's chance in hell of this Bill going back to the Dáil, especially on a small point such as this, so there is no point in wasting time.
Section 9 confers a fairly general power in terms of function which is to receive and investigate complaints. That is terribly wide. The bodies named are the Bar Council and the Law Society and it is implicit in this that complaints may not be entertained if they are against the Judiciary. Can the Minister of State tell me whether this is the case? Can the legal ombudsman entertain a complaint against a member of the Judiciary? If this is not the case, why not? As a Member of the Oireachtas I have received complaints from time to time. Some of these appear to be rather excitable and not entirely well founded. There may be an element of conspiracy theory and judges are blamed because litigants did not get the judgment they wanted. However, there are occasions on which they appear to be well founded. There was a case recently which interested me, in which a mistake was clearly made by a judge which may have resulted in imprisonment. The person whose rights were transgressed in this case found they had no recourse in law for compensation. This seems to be a matter that could be addressed to the legal ombudsman. Is the Judiciary excluded from the operation of the ombudsman?
Senator Norris raises an interesting point. With regard to the Judiciary, the equivalent of a bar council, which was mooted some years ago, should have been set up. I do not want to cross swords with my learned colleague but having regard to the independence of the Judiciary as recognised in our Constitution, this ombudsman should probably cover only solicitors and barristers. However, I am sure the Minister of State will clarify that.
Perhaps this is a red herring but there is one issue in which I have a particular interest arising from a complaint by a constituent of mine. Apparently a person can put up a plate stating that he or she is an attorney at law. The Irish version of a solicitor is an attorney. This complaint arose when a person from another jurisdiction wished to engage legal services on a question of copyright. He engaged a firm in Dublin which advertised itself as attorneys at law. However, it transpired after much investigation that the firm consisted of neither solicitors nor barristers. The person concerned complained to the Law Society because it obviously had nothing to do with the Bar Council, but the Law Society said the people presenting themselves as attorneys at law were not members of the Law Society so it could not deal with it. This was a serious complaint that cost a constituent many thousands of euro with no redress. He relied on the skill and judgment of this firm. It has a plate here in Dublin saying "attorneys at law", yet its members are not solicitors or barristers. I meant to raise this in another forum but here we are setting up a legal ombudsman.
It is an anomaly. Nobody should be allowed to practise law unless he or she is——
Covered by this.
——qualified under the Law Society's rules and regulations or those of the Bar Council. A person may present himself as an attorney at law, which is a phrase set aside to cover solicitors in a more American type of jargon. It has happened in this country. An effort to pursue the company involved, which was not some Mickey Mouse operation, failed because the gentleman in question relied on the fact that the members of this company were qualified people, yet they turned out not to be so. This is something I am worried about, and it should be investigated, although not through this legislation. I might give the details, which are well documented, to the Minister of State or his colleague. There is something of a vacuum in this regard and I am concerned that others might be caught in the same trap. The case is less than three years old and has cost a person — I am not sure whether he is a citizen but he is certainly living here — a substantial sum of money. He was led up the garden path. He relied on the skill and judgment of the members of a particular firm who were neither solicitors nor barristers, and his complaint has fallen into a boghole. Unfortunately, it got nowhere. However, sin scéal eile.
On section 9, I will return to the Minister of State's response to the point made earlier about limiting the number of people entering the legal professions. The number of practising solicitors stands at 8,000. I urge the Minister of State to bí cúramach in that regard. In the mid to late 1970s, when I was a young man starting on the road to becoming a solicitor, many people walked away from the Bar or the solicitor's office because they believed the professions were the preserve of the very rich and the landed gentry. As someone who comes from a relatively humble background, I do not wish a return to those days. I was fortunate in being able to enter the system but others decided to follow different avenues. One has to be extremely careful in restricting numbers solely on the basis of academic merit and capacity. I would hate to think people might be prevented from entering their chosen profession merely because they lack the wherewithal to stand their ground.
I welcome the provisions in section 9 for handling complaints fairly and efficiently and assessing the adequacy of admission policies. The numbers studying law were too high at one stage, with the result that the Law Society introduced restrictions which were not in place when I took my degree. I had to complete first, second and third law and entrance examinations were only introduced as I was finishing my studies in Blackhall Place. I put my hands up to say the newer breed of solicitors are better trained than my generation. I completed my law degree without much practical experience but my son, who is an apprentice at present, spends one day every second week observing court proceedings. In my time, one swatted for the examinations and then licked stamps for one's first six months in a solicitor's office. When the younger generation of students have completed their studies, they are already well trained even if they lack experience.
I have read, although perhaps not in section 9——
We are on section 9.
I accept that. In regard to barristers, solicitors and their clients, anybody can be a client of a solicitor but one must be introduced to a barrister by a solicitor. Perhaps further clarity could be provided in that regard because one cannot approach a barrister directly with a request to be represented in court. It is much more common now than 40 years ago for junior counsel to represent clients in the District Court. When the ombudsman considers clients' complaints against barristers, will "client" be understood to be the solicitor or the person who engaged him or her? I am unsure which section makes this provision and apologise if it is not section 9.
I welcome the Minister of State. Senator Norris raised a legitimate question regarding complaints against the Judiciary. The former Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Michael McDowell, explored mechanisms for such complaints. All Members of the Oireachtas receive complaints regarding members of the Judiciary, although 99% are of the excitable and conspiracy theory nature described by Senator Norris. Perhaps this Bill is the appropriate vehicle for a complaints system.
Senator Donovan identified the anomaly of people who claim to practise as lawyers but are not subject to the complaints procedures of the Law Society. They will fall through the cracks in this Bill.
I can compile a list of young people at various stages in their law training who are now being cast on the scrap heap. I concur with Senator O'Donovan that the legal profession was traditionally seen as the preserve of the elite but this has dramatically changed in the past several years. I hope we never return to those days but a problem has clearly arisen in regard to the expectation among students that they can find lucrative employment as solicitors and barristers. Increasing numbers of students cannot complete their training because solicitors' firms are closing. I am aware of several firms in Kilkenny which have gone out of business over the past 12 months. The trainees in those offices face a difficult future because they are not yet qualified.
I welcome the provision in section 9(1)(d) for promoting awareness among the public of the procedures of the Bar Council and Law Society. There is a perception that the two bodies operate behind closed doors in smoke filled rooms or whatever the current equivalent of these may be.
As Senator O'Donovan noted, it is intended to introduce a judicial council Bill for the purpose of making complaints against judges. Issues clearly arise in regard to separation of powers and the Constitution. It is not intended in respect of the present Bill to invest the legal services ombudsman with powers to investigate complaints against members of the Judiciary.
I cannot say that the issue of attorneys-at-law holding themselves out as lawyers is addressed in this Bill. Many barristers are dual qualified as attorneys-at-law and can legitimately advertise themselves as such, though they would not have a right of audience in court solely on that basis. Perhaps consumer protection legislation is the most appropriate vehicle for protecting consumers against what is in effect false advertising. We must guard against the possibility that a client would rely on the legal advice of an individual who is not a solicitor or barrister.
I agree with Senator Phelan that equality of access has improved dramatically. The King's Inns formerly provided classes that began at 4.30 p.m., which was convenient for working students. As a teacher, I was able to take advantage of these courses but now that the course is full-time it is much more difficult for people with other careers to enter the profession. I hope this will not have a negative impact in terms of equality of access to this part of the legal profession. The Bill, in later sections, deals with issues relating to clients of a barrister. Nowadays, there is direct access by professionals to barristers. In other words, other professionals such as accountants can be clients of a barrister.
I am grateful for the Minister of State's reference to proposed legislation in regard to judges. I accept absolutely the separation of powers between the Oireachtas and the Judiciary. However, Senator O'Donovan is correct that while judges must be independent that does not mean they are infallible. I do not believe in infallibility, even for the particular gentleman who spends much of his time in the Holy City. It would be invaluable if such legislation were to come before the House.
I wish to address a couple of other matters, including the issue of attorney-at-law, of which I had not heard in the context of this profession although we have come across it in respect of other professions, in particular architects. Legislation, introduced in this House, created a necessity for professional competence in architecture, given the number of people in Dublin without the relevant qualifications purporting to be architects and the absence of any law to prevent them so doing. These people were purporting to be in a position to give professional advice.
With regard to the question of whether a civilian can ever play a useful role in the law, I am tempted to advertise my services. Some years ago an acquaintance of mine was involved in restoring an 18th century house in the centre of Dublin and while he did very well, he irritated some of his neighbours who manufactured a case against him. I received a telephone call late one night from this person who was in floods of tears. The following morning, I could tell the way the case was going that he was going to get himself into serious trouble. Having been an ardent fan not alone of Rumpole but of Perry Mason, I stood up in court and asked the justice if I could be recognised as amicus curiae. I am not sure such person was at that time known in Irish law but it certainly was known in American law. The judge, perhaps because texting or idly dreaming of the golf course, did not stop me and I managed to put the garda back in the witness box and demonstrate that the summons had been incorrectly served — it had not been served at all. I also put the witnesses back in the box and showed they were all lying and that they had conspired to give the same evidence but were too stupid to do it.
At the end of the case, the judge stated he had never come across such a situation and that I was correct, and he dismissed the case. I had earlier stated that, on the basis of the cross-examination, I wanted the case against my client dismissed. It was with immense pride that I uttered the words "my client". I must say but for my advanced years I would have been tempted to take up a career at the Bar. The elation I experienced on winning my first and, so far, only case was enormous.
Last week it was reported that a woman who is party to the anti-abortion lobby had attempted to join, I thought rather impertinently, a case involving retained embryos. She raised the question of amicus curiae and attempted to have herself recognised. While the learned judge gave a ruling which barred this woman from being accepted as amicus curiae the nature of her ruling would leave one to believe she was giving some credence to the existence of the role of amicus curiae.
Earlier, I wondered whether the attorney-at-law issue might, perhaps, be covered by the Trades Description Act, which is a British act. A very distinguished practitioner made the point rather urgently to me that lawyers are not trade.
On a point of order, that was a joke.
A very good one. I do not despise trade: I have relatives who are in trade.
I am glad Senator Norris raised the issue of infallibility of judges. A Bar Council was enunciated eight years ago by a previous Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Ceann Comhairle, Deputy John O'Donoghue. It is a concept I have always supported, in particular given that I chaired a committee that examined matters in regard to a certain judge who was not infallible, as the learned Senator will know.
Perhaps the Minister of State will enlighten me on the following matter. Given the current call to patriotic duty by the Minister for Finance, the salaries of all, including Senators and Deputies, are being scrutinised, which is fair enough. We are being asked to take a cut in expenses and so on for the sake of the economic survival of the country. However, I have not yet heard any judge, from the Supreme Court to the District Court, offer to come on board this patriotic voyage and take a 10% cut in salary. A District Court judge earns approximately double the salary of that of humble Members of this House, and good luck to them, but in this era of total protection of the Constitution there is a moral obligation on judges to bear their fair share of the burden. If judges were to agree to a 10% pay cut for the next four years or until such time as we wade our way out of this difficult situation, this act of great patriotism would send out an important message to the public. I have never experienced an economic downturn of such severity. I urge the Judiciary, while not suggesting they should or must do so, to consider taking a 10% pay cut for the next three or four years. That would send out an important message to the public. I use the opportunity of this debate to call, for what it is worth, on the Judiciary to do so.
I wish to address two further issues. I put on record my congratulations to the Law Society — my colleague, Senator Bacik will be aware of this — on its proposal to offer students the opportunity to undertake their examinations at a new school in Cork rather than in Blackhall Place. This is a great achievement. It made no sense that people from Cork, Kerry or Munster in general had to travel to Dublin to do their examinations. It is a wonderful step forward. On a related matter, I have called on numerous occasions in this House for the establishment of a High Court in Cork. While this issue may be outside the remit of this legislation, perhaps the Minister of State will comment on it.
By way of clarification in regard to the attorney issue, the plate concerned was erected by a firm which has more than one office in the city. They are neither barristers nor solicitors and they have misled people. The person who raised this issue with me, an American citizen, originally lodged a complaint with the Law Society, which had no record of the firm concerned. He then approached the Bar Council which also had no knowledge of the firm. As far as I am aware — I am open to correction on this point — he also lodged a complaint with the Department of Justice, Equality of Law Reform, through the Minister, and got nowhere either. This type of practice must be stamped out. This firm is still plying its trade, probably within a five mile radius of this Chamber. That should be stamped out, possibly not under this legislation but I hope it can be taken on board. Neither the Incorporated Law Society nor the Bar Council is at fault because these people never came through them. It is like the old story of people calling themselves architects when they were not qualified. A wrong has been done and there is no remedy. I think it was King John who said "where there is a writ there is a remedy" or there should be. A wrong has been perpetrated, possibly affecting others apart from my acquaintance, and I would like to see it remedied if possible.
I forgot to say I am glad to see subsection 1(c) about the admission policies because I raised a matter on the Adjournment here some years ago concerning a young man, Frank McGowan, who had been disbarred from admission to the courses in the Incorporated Law Society. I am not sure whether there was subsequently a legal case but I do not think there was. It was ultimately resolved. My friend and colleague, Senator Bacik, informs me that she was very much involved in that agitation too. I am not sure whether she wants to speak on this matter. There was certainly a narrowing at that point and, through a combination of student protest and the operations of the Houses of the Oireachtas, the Law Society did reform its very narrow policies.
I would have thought that Senator O'Donovan's acquaintance, who seems to have been very unfortunately treated, would have had recourse under civil law against the person who had fraudulently misrepresented himself or had failed him in various ways. There may be wiser counsel here.
He lost all his dollars in the first venture and does not have the finance to pursue it.
That is regrettable.
If I was a really unscrupulous politician, which I hope I am not, I would catapult myself in on top of advice that my distinguished colleague Senator Bacik whispered to me and pretend that it was my own wisdom. She may feel entitled to put it on the record herself. I will refrain from so doing because I disdain those practices which are rampant in this House.
I was going to hold my fire for later sections but having been brought in by Senator Norris I would like to speak on this section. I must first, however, declare my interest as a member of the trade, being a barrister.
Profession.
The profession, as the Senator prefers, and a member of the trade union for the profession, that is, the Bar Council.
And a pinkie-communist-socialist.
I thank Senator Norris for that accolade.
It is important the legal services ombudsman would assess the adequacy of admissions policies. Senator Norris has reminded me of a campaign in which I was centrally involved in 1988 and 1989 when the Law Society operated a restrictive admissions policy in the form of a quota for the number of people who could pass the entrance exam. The Minister of State may recall this because it was a high profile matter at the time. Several of us students occupied the offices of the Director General of the Law Society at Blackhall Place in the course of the campaign. The position did change and the Law Society lifted the quota but following another case involving students from Queen's University the society changed its entrance requirements again.
The training by the Law Society and the Bar Council has greatly improved. The Minister of State raised the difficulty, for those who are trying to hold down a job, of trying to pursue a course of training to become a barrister. That has been rightly highlighted as a problem. The Bar Council is seeking to address this by again offering its course part-time. This course is much better than it had been and is geared for vocational training. It is important because of the difficult history of admissions policies to the legal profession that the legal services ombudsman would provide some oversight so its reach would be not just to receive and investigate complaints but also to review admissions and so on. We will address the ombudsman's report on number of persons admitted to practice under later sections.
On Second Stage I said it would be a good idea for the ombudsman to review the attrition rates from both professions. I did research on discrimination in the legal profession some years ago and found it was difficult to establish with any certainty the numbers leaving the professions and why. The concern was that people were leaving not because they were unmeritorious but the opposite, people of merit were being lost to the professions because the culture was discriminatory or made it difficult for people to get on. That would be a useful matter for the legal services ombudsman to keep under review.
Senator O'Donovan commented on incomes in the legal profession. Barristers and solicitors have earned extraordinary levels of income. We see those in the public domain, the tribunal fees, but there are also exorbitant commercial fees. In 2006 the Competition Authority provided information on a much broader level, not just those in the public domain, and found that members of the junior Bar earned on average only €30,000 per year. The median income of recently qualified barristers is just over €30,000, and solicitors earn just over €48,000, while at the other end of the scale the average income for senior counsel is €330,000. There is an enormous disparity in those figures, perhaps beyond the remit of the legal services ombudsman. It is useful to keep sight of that by way of context.
There is a contrast between Senator O'Donovan's concern about the attorneys and Senator Norris representing an acquaintance. If Senator Norris's acquaintance had been taken away in chains he would have no recourse albeit the outcome on the day was fantastic. It points to the difficulty. We have strayed a bit from section 9 but it is good that the legal services ombudsman has a key role in the admissions area and will draw attention to it annually through his or her annual report.
The promotion of "awareness among members of the public of matters concerning the procedures of the Bar Council and the Law Society" is a positive thing with which I was involved. A councillor, Vincent Martin in Cavan-Monaghan, did a lot of work in that regard, demystifying the law.
He is in Monaghan.
He brings in young people, fourth and fifth years and does a great job. He is an old colleague of mine.
He is a member of the Green Party.
If the legal services ombudsman can do some of that as well it is welcome.
The Bar Council has already raised with the Minister of State the cost of the legal ombudsman service. Section 11 gives the necessary power to the ombudsman to employ persons on particular terms and conditions and to engage the services of professional and other advisers and so forth. That is important. It is necessary to keep the cost of running the service as low as possible. Given the difficult times we are in I am sure the Minister of State will be in full agreement with that. The figures for other commissions are available, for example, the running costs for the Standards in Public Office were just over €1 million of which €737,000 was staff costs. Costs in any of these services or agencies can run high, even when kept fairly tight and within budget. I have no doubt the legal services ombudsman will keep to strict budgets but it is necessary to ensure that superfluous staff are not recruited under the authority of this section.
The Senator is absolutely right to mention the need for restraint. Section 11(4) requires that professional advisers be engaged solely with the consent of the Minister. If the legal services ombudsman requires professional advice, it will probably relate to a case or complaint that is being brought against a fairly well resourced barrister, solicitor or group of solicitors. The potential for an escalation of costs in a dispute of that nature is the reason for the requirement that the consent of the Minister be obtained. That is why section 11(4) has been included in the Bill.
In my Second Stage speech, I referred to section 15(1) the Bill, which states that "the Legal Services Ombudsman shall prepare and submit to the Minister a report . . . specifying the number of persons admitted to practise". This section is incomplete in the absence of a provision requiring the ombudsman to review the number of people who have left the profession and to monitor the figures in general. In light of what I have said about cost overruns, I hope that will not be too costly an exercise. With some of my colleagues, I participated in a research programme that was funded by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform some years ago. We found it quite straightforward to collate the number of people who had been admitted to practice over the years and to break them down by gender. I do not think it would cost too much if a little more detail were to be included in the report submitted to the Minister, thereby building on the research we did and the figures that are available to the Law Society and the Bar Council.
A little more information about the nature of the profession should be provided. When we surveyed barristers and solicitors extensively, we found evidence of real concern about the existence of a discriminatory culture in the profession. Many of those who responded to our survey described it as an "old boys' network" or "old boys' club". They suggested that the culture in question was militating against the retention by the profession of able people. In particular, young female solicitors in rural areas complained that they encountered exclusion from social networks etc. rather than overt discrimination. We are concerned that people who should be retained in the profession, good and meritorious professionals, may be lost to it. The Bar Council has suggested to the Minister that the ombudsman should have less reporting functions rather than more. While it is useful that section 15 of this Bill will ensure that the ombudsman monitors the number of people in the profession, somewhat more detail could be supplied. I accept that section 15(1)(b) provides that the ombudsman shall assess whether “the number of persons admitted . . . is consistent with the public interest in ensuring the availability . . . at a reasonable cost”. While that is a good measure, there is room for other criteria to be applied by the ombudsman in gathering figures for the purposes of these reports.
Senator Bacik's points are well made. The purpose of section 15(1)(b) is to ensure that the ombudsman tests whether there is competition, whether prices are being kept as low as possible and whether people can access the available legal advice. Those guiding criteria were selected with regard to the Competition Authority’s previous report on this area. As I said during the debate on section 9, one of the functions of the legal services ombudsman will be to try to ensure the admissions policy is improved. The annual report that is submitted to the Government will be significant. The admissions policy will reflect whether people are being retained in the profession. The Law Library found six or seven years ago that the rate of attrition was very high. It found that approximately 40% of those who were admitted to practice were no longer practising five years later. It is a very high level of attrition. One of the functions of the legal services ombudsman will be to examine the available information and prepare a report on the patterns that emerge. As Senator Bacik said, the socioeconomic significance of the figures in question will have to be examined. It is an important function of the ombudsman.
I am grateful to the Minister of State for indicating his willingness to consider this important point. He is as aware as I am that there is anecdotal evidence of high levels of attrition. When we did our study, we were concerned to get hard data on that. We found that neither the Bar Council nor the Law Society was able — I am not sure they were not willing — to provide information on attrition in the profession. They simply did not keep figures on attrition. Part of the ombudsman's great service to the public should be to ensure that such figures are kept. Exit interviews, which are quite common in other sectors, should be conducted with people when they leave the legal profession. We need a better sense of the number of people leaving the profession and their reasons for doing so.
I am glad to say that one of the positive consequences of our report was that the Law Society adopted the recommendation that its members should pay women solicitors a full salary during maternity leave. That had not previously been the practice. We found that it was one of the real impediments to the retention of women in the profession. I understand the Bar Council has adopted a similar policy, to the effect that women members pay reduced fees during what is, in effect, their period of maternity leave. As barristers are self-employed, they do not have the same statutory pay and leave rights. These practical changes are important if we are to increase the rate of retention of highly qualified and able barristers and solicitors. I hope the ombudsman will be able to keep this sort of thing under review.
The points made by Senator Bacik are fair. I reiterate the point I made during the debate on section 9. As I understand it, the issue of retention will be examined during the assessment of the adequacy of the profession's admissions policies. The structure of our courts system can make things difficult for mothers of young families in particular. I did not know that lower fees are charged in circumstances of maternity leave. It could be suggested that as mothers try to develop their careers and meet their child care responsibilities, the manner in which the courts are ordered and the legal diaries are constructed is anti-family. A fair degree of work is needed in this area.
I thank the Minister of State.
It is good that the ombudsman will have to appear before an Oireachtas committee, at its request, on an annual or biannual basis. I am slightly concerned about this section of the Bill, which provides for the ombudsman's appearance before "other committees" of the Oireachtas. It needs to be teased out logically. There are 20 Oireachtas committees at present. If an agriculture-based complaint is made against a barrister or a solicitor by a person from a farming background, the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food might want to discuss it with the ombudsman. It is obvious that the complaint might also be said to be relevant to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights or the Joint Committee on Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. It is very loose-ended. When the ombudsman is appointed or nominated, it will be unfortunate if he has to appear before 20 committees of the Oireachtas. It would be an unfair burden of responsibility.
While I have not tabled an amendment to this section, I suggest that the phrase "those committees that are deemed appropriate", to include the Committee of Public Accounts and the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights, be included in this section. It would be unfortunate if the ombudsman were to end up before the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to discuss an agrarian complaint, or before the Joint Committee on Communications, Energy and Natural Resources to discuss a marine or fisheries complaint. The remits of some committees overlap. This will be an important function of the ombudsman, who will have an important job. This section, as it stands, seems very open-ended. I would feel sorry for the ombudsperson — male or female — if the circumstances I have suggested turn out to be an unintended consequence of this legislation.
I share Senator O'Donovan's concern about this section of the Bill, which seems rather open-ended. I would have thought that the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights would be the obvious committee before which the ombudsman would appear. I am slightly bemused as to why any other committee would require the ombudsman to appear before it. On this section I pondered why it is necessary to specify that the legal services ombudsman would attend. We have had recent public concern about people refusing to attend Oireachtas committees. I would have thought by nature of the office the legal services ombudsman would be obliged to appear if required. Perhaps the Minister of State will enlighten me on that. Will this provision be standard in any legislation establishing a body of this nature? It seems implicit that while serving as legal services ombudsman they should be obliged to appear before a relevant committee, but perhaps I am wrong about that.
This is a standard drafting mechanism where such appointments arise. If the legal services ombudsman thinks the call to the committee is oppressive or outside his or her vires in any way, he or she may decide not to appear and that can be subsequently determined by the High Court, as the Senator can see in the rest of the section. If the High Court so orders, the appearance will have to be made. There are protections and it is a fairly standard and balanced section that is part of this type of legislation on other appointments.
Again, this relates to the levy to be paid for the establishment of the expenses of the ombudsman, or "ombudsperson". I am grateful to Senator O'Donovan; I also like to use that word to symbolise that it could be a man or woman. This levy is to be paid by the Bar Council and Law Society. The Bar Council has approached the Minister and I did not table an amendment to subsection (4) because I did not think it was appropriate as this might be reviewed in the future. It seemed reasonable to take 10% from each professional body. However, I am conscious from the figures, which the Minister put on the record on Second Stage, that there is an enormous gulf between the level of complaints against barristers and solicitors. In 2007-08 there were 24 complaints against barristers compared with 1,745 against solicitors. The complaints against barristers represent 0.01% of the overall total of complaints. In that context perhaps 10% is rather too much for the Bar Council. I did not feel it was appropriate to table an amendment on this because it will have to be reviewed and section 20 gives the Minister quite extensive power by regulation to examine how the levy is paid, although not to overrule subsection (4).
Leaving the remaining 80% to be paid pro rata seems to allow for equity but we return to the issue of the overall running costs of the legal services ombudsman. The 10% figure may not be particularly significant if the overall running costs are kept low. It is not inappropriate for each professional body to pay 10% but I acknowledge that the discrepancy in the numbers of complaints may mean the Bar Council may have some merit in its argument that it should pay less. The 80% rule——
Huh.
I am not putting it any higher than that.
I apologise; that is spelled "H-U-H".
Senator Norris has put his disbelief on the record. My other point is on the Minister's power by regulation to provide for the payment of the levy, but perhaps I will leave that for section 20.
I have a slight interest which I did not declare. I concur with the Minister of State's view about how difficult it is to combine doing a job and the night course in the King's Inns because I have class at 5.45 p.m. so I hope we can expedite the rest of the Bill.
I will do my best.
Does the proposal that the costs of the ombudsman be paid by the Bar Council and the Law Society relate to the entire cost, including the salaries paid to the ombudsman and all staff in the office? We have had many complaints recently about particularly high pensions being paid to people who have given up public positions. Will the pensions of the ombudsman and staff be covered by the levy on the Bar Council and Law Society?
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.
Hear, hear.
I accept what Senator O'Donovan stated about solicitors being on the front line in that they offer services directly to clients much more frequently than barristers. I should stress that I approve of the idea of the levy. I certainly was not putting it any higher than simply raising the difference in numbers of complaints. I accept fully that both the Bar Council and the Law Society should pay into the levy. It is a reasonably fair proposal that the 80% remainder of the levy would be split pro rata according to the number of the complaints.
All of this is subject to how much the overall cost of the ombudsman service will be and how much it will cost to run a service that provides the necessary scrutiny for members of the public who are dissatisfied with the service they have received from barristers and solicitors. We must never lose sight of the important objective of the ombudsman's office while at the same ensuring it does not generate enormous cost overruns in doing so.
I have one final point I forgot to raise earlier when I got carried away on my issue about the high earners. It is mentioned in the Bill that the complaint must be made within six months. Perhaps I am confused in this. What worries me are issues we have come across in legal complaints where a person is not compos mentis and there is a time lag or a complaint has been initiated by an elderly person who then dies. Perhaps I am reading this incorrectly. I would be slow in applying strict time constraints on a person who is under age where the complaint might not come to light for some years until the person attains the age of 18, or on a person who because of a mental incapacity is not capable of processing the complaint. Does the Statute of Limitations apply or has the ombudsman a free hand? The ombudsman should have a much freer hand than hitherto. We have seen where the Statute of Limitations in many instances wrongly deprived people of the right to make complaints regarding issues that came to light many years later or did not manifest themselves within the period concerned.
Senator O'Donovan refers to section 21. The ombudsman can accept a complaint after the six-month period if he feels justice requires it.
Returning to the section we are dealing with, to answer Senator John Paul Phelan, section 19 also deals with the superannuation of the staff and the ombudsman.
While the 10%-10%-80% divide might seem a little unfair given that solicitors are at the coal face, solicitors outnumber barristers by approximately ten to one.
It is 9,000 solicitors to 2,000 barristers.
That is less, approximately five to one. Nevertheless 10% of the levy will come from the Law Library and a little more after that. It is getting towards a representative figure while allowing the flexibility of a pro rata system. It would be reasonable to allow this to bed down to see whether fairness is reflected in the way in which the levy operates. It should also be remembered that the levy is charged to the two professional bodies and it is up to them to decide how they raise it from their members. I recommend the section the House.
I welcome this section. This is the crux of the Bill, enabling the making of complaints to the ombudsman. As I stated on Second Stage, I welcome it because it provides for a necessary degree of oversight and scrutiny of what for a long time has been regarded as self-regulating professions.
I acknowledge the professions have made quite significant amendments to their own disciplinary procedures to allow for much greater input of laypersons to the extent of lay majorities, etc. At the same time the legal services ombudsman has been long recommended by many bodies and many reports over the years. The provisions in section 21 will provide an essential remedy for consumers of legal services and clients who feel they have been unfairly or badly treated by barristers or solicitors. As the Minister of State said on section 19, as with any new procedures, time will be needed to bed down the procedures and for members of the public to become aware of their existence.
I am glad to see subsection (6) allowing the ombudsman to accept complaints after the six-month limitation period where special circumstances exist. That will be important, especially in the first few years of the existence of this service for people who are not aware of the service. It may take longer for people to get around to submitting a complaint or they may simply be unaware of the existence of the procedure in the early years of the existence of the ombudsman.
I wonder about subsection (10): "A complaint to the Legal Services Ombudsman may be made by any person on behalf of another person." In light of Senator Norris's revelation that he has acted in the past as an amicus curiae — in the English courts it was called a McKenzie friend, a person who was not legally qualified who appeared on behalf of another person, and after the poll tax riots I recall many McKenzie friends appearing in the magistrates’ courts in England — it strikes me that the provision could be problematic. Has the Minister of State any thoughts on it? How is the ombudsman to know? Clearly he or she must act in good faith in accepting a complaint but if it is made by a person who is not the person who made the original complaint to the Law Society or Bar Council under the earlier subsections, I wonder how that will work in practice if another person can then step in to make a complaint on behalf of the original complainant. I am not sure what the section aims to do. It could be important where a complainant feels unable to make a complaint. If it facilitates people making complaints who would not otherwise be able to do so, that is important. I am just not sure whether that is the purpose. Perhaps the Minister of State could explain it.
Senator Bacik hit the nail on the head when she stated this section is the cornerstone of the Bill. I note the ombudsman is an additional layer of control over the legal professions. In the Solicitors Acts, which regulate the solicitor profession, there are substantial mechanisms along these lines and from my experience and knowledge, they are well utilised. Many solicitors have been struck off and others have been severely disciplined.
It should also be noted that complaints of misconduct against solicitors may be made by clients to the society or the solicitors disciplinary tribunal, which is an independent statutory tribunal appointed by the President of the High Court under the 1994 Act to investigate complaints of misconduct against solicitors. Members of the tribunal appointed by the President of the High Court include lay persons. There is a notion abroad that the Law Society regulates itself, but it is far better dealt with in practical terms.
In this regard, the appointment of the ombudsman is an extra layer with which I have no problem. The same may be said of the Bar Council which has its rules and regulations. A client who has a complaint against a solicitor has many avenues open to him. He can make a complaint to the Law Society and it will be investigated. It may end up at the solicitors' disciplinary tribunal, as many serious complaints have, and if that fails, the client has a right to go to the legal services ombudsman if he is not entirely happy.
When I set up a small practice on 4 April 1981, I was advised to take out professional negligence insurance, at a cost of £750, which was a lot of money then. We cannot practise without professional negligence insurance so it is possible to undertake civil action against a solicitor on the grounds of being ill-advised or that the client lost money when relying on a solicitor's skill and judgment.
Many avenues are available in the event of a complaint; this is a cornerstone of the legislation and it is a good thing. It gives the public extra comfort that there are so many steps. There is a perception that solicitors and barristers are untouchable, but it is not true. In the early 1980s when I started, it was almost impossible to find one solicitor who would take on another. I was pursuing a particular medical negligence case where I had to engage a British consultant because no Irish consultant would act against a colleague. That has changed. Now, in every county, there are solicitors on a panel ready to chew up their colleagues for making mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes and there are civil remedies.
The more serious mistakes where there is gross misconduct, however, deserve criminal sanction so this is an important aspect of the Bill. This is not the first avenue for a complaint, it could be the fourth or fifth.
Senator John Paul Phelan asked on section 19 about the funding of the ombudsman's office. The Minister of State outlined that not alone do the Bar Council and the Law Society have to fund the ombudsman's office but all future pensions of the ombudsman and the staff. That will be a huge cost in future and there is no provision in the Bill for pensions for ombudsmen or their staff. Will the person who makes the complaint be charged? The ordinary client of the solicitor pays anyway, because it will be taken into account when deciding costs.
There is no charge for the complainant. Under section 21(10), the complaint to the legal services ombudsman may be made by any person on behalf of another person. That relates to the capacity of the person on whose behalf the complaint is being made. A further safeguard against anything untoward in that regard can be found in section 22(4)(b), which states that the legal services ombudsman may decide not to investigate a complaint if he or she is satisfied the person making the complaint has an insufficient interest in the matter. There are safeguards.
Senator O'Donovan mentioned the solicitors' disciplinary tribunal. The right balance is found here. The Bill does not get rid of the tribunal, it gives a vote of confidence in it while providing an extra dimension. Section 22 states that the ombudsman can go ahead with the investigation of a complaint if the Law Society does not get on with it in sufficient time. By reading the two sections together, the right balance is struck between preserving the good practice that has existed until now and providing an extra safeguard for the future, which is the purpose of the Bill
I welcome the principle expressed in section 22. I have often been approached by people who are unhappy with the service they have received from a solicitor or barrister. Often delay is a major factor in people's dissatisfaction, with calls not being returned or unexplained delays in procedure. I know how difficult it is for practitioners to keep on top of work so there are points on both sides, but delays within the disciplinary processes should be included as matters the legal services ombudsman may investigate. Where either the barristers' professional conduct tribunal or the Law Society's procedures have delayed unreasonably in processing complaints, the ombudsman may step in.
A person may make a complaint to the ombudsman even when he is entitled to bring a complaint in a court so the ombudsman's power of scrutiny is overriding. There has been a problem with delays in court judgments, a matter the European Court of Human Rights has raised. I doubt, however, it is within the scope of this Bill to resolve that today.
The Senator is right, delay is a source of complaint and it is something the legal services ombudsman can investigate. Equally, delay in the investigation of a complaint can lead to an injustice for the person against whom the complaint is made. He is entitled to have the complaint investigated promptly. Those safeguards are reflected in the section.
This is another important section. Here, the ombudsman can issue directions to the Bar Council or the Law Society following investigations. There is room for improvement in any system of investigation and once the ombudsman's office is up and running, in five or seven years, I would like to see it point out its successes before an Oireachtas committee.
I heard the former secretary general of the Law Society saying that less than 1% of complaints were eventually found to be of merit or substance, which is an important fact. Many people who never give up, have gone through the legal process with solicitors or barristers. The facts show that there is a substantial number of spurious complaints against the professions. In time to come, I hope the legal services ombudsman will bear that out. When that office is established it will be able to give directions, hopefully, in a balanced and guided way so that the professional conduct of the Law Society or the Bar Council can be improved overall and we will have a better service for citizens.
I welcome the Senator's comments. The intention of the Bill is to provide a better service for those using legal services. In addition, legal practitioners will also benefit from whatever will be learned from all of this. The powers to be afforded to the legal services ombudsman will be quite wide and will have all the necessary balances. As I said, the legal services ombudsman can exclude a complaint if he or she is of the opinion that it is frivolous or vexatious. It is a well crafted Bill and much of the drafting reflects the concerns about balance that have been expressed by Senators.
I do not want to delay the Minister of State but I wish to express my gratitude to him for taking this Bill through the House. At the start, I should have welcomed him to the House. I was a close working colleague of his in the last Dáil and I am delighted to see he has been promoted. He is doing an excellent job and I wish him well in dealing with a delicate and difficult portfolio. I have do doubt that he has the capacity to make his own mark on it and I am confident he will do so.
I congratulate the Minister of State on bringing this Bill through the House. He has done an excellent job and knows his brief inside out. It was a privilege to hear him answering the many questions from various Senators on all sides. I wish him well.
I compliment the Minister of State and his advisers who have played a role in this matter. Of course, I am not for a second suggesting that the Minister of State relies extensively on the advisers, but they were a good team. The Minister of State showed himself to be in full command of this Bill. I was a bit surprised when I discovered that no amendments had been tabled to the Bill because this House has a number of eminent legal people among its Members. When I mentioned this to them they said the Bill was not bad. It is good to have a Bill that apparently does not require extensive amendment, which is a tribute to its draftsmanship, even though I raised a technical point. I see the Minister of State is waving the Constitution at me. Perhaps over a friendly cup of tea at some stage during the week, I may have the benefit of his further wisdom on this matter. I compliment him in particular on answering the points effectively, especially after a fairly gruelling time last night. I was watching him on television and he behaved with considerable dignity under pressure in a difficult situation. We in this House welcome the professionalism he brings to his job.
I echo Senator Norris's words of welcome for the Bill. I thank the Minister of State for all his work on it and for answering the points we raised with substantive replies, rather than formulaic ones that we sometimes get on legislation. The Bill will provide for an important extra layer of scrutiny, as has been said. It will improve the quality of services provided to members of the public, which is the ultimate aim. It will ensure that all legal practitioners are more accountable and subject to scrutiny, not just within our own professional disciplinary procedures but also through this extra mechanism of scrutiny and oversight.
I thank Senators for their kind words and I acknowledge the role played by my advisers. I was waving the Constitution around because one of my advisers brought to my attention that Article 18.1 states: "Seanad Éireann shall be composed of sixty members, of whom eleven shall be nominated members and forty-nine shall be elected members." I could not help raising that issue.
The Constitution is badly drafted.
Yes, but the Bill is extremely well drafted, which is reflected in the lack of amendments, although specific issues were raised.
When is it proposed to sit again?
Amárach ar 10.30 a.m.