Last Friday I introduced the subject of the scale of charges as applied by the legal profession. Lest there be any doubt about what I will say at a later stage, I would point out that about 95 per cent of the legal profession are decent, hardworking, honest men and women who provide an excellent service for the community. They are deeply conscious of the need to protect the rights of their profession and of the community and to maintain the highest standards so as to protect the good name of the profession.
This House is well served by people from the legal profession of whom the profession, the country and the Legislature can be proud. I would not wish these people to take my remarks as being indicative of my opinions of them. The legal profession is the only group in this House capable of transcending all boundaries, political or otherwise. Since I was elected to this House ten or 11 years ago various professions have risen in support of each other when one or other was under attack, but that position has changed and only the legal profession remain stalwart in responding whenever one of their members is under attack in this House.
As regards the scale of charges, there is one interesting provision in the Bill which prohibits the society from deterring members of the profession from advertising their charges. I am spokesman on the insurance industry for the Fine Gael Party and one thing that annoys me is that some members of the legal profession take it upon themselves to advertise as a no foal no fee basis. They advertise their availability to pursue claims for people who trip, slip, fall or are injured when something falls on them on the basis that there will be no charge unless they are successful in their claim. People can discuss matters confidentially in the clear knowledge that they will not have to pay unless they win the case. That is a recipe for disaster because, ultimately, each member of the profession will compete on that basis in order to ensure they get a fair share of the business. However, at the end of the day the people who pay are the members of the public, those who pay insurance.
The advertising of charges can be of benefit in that it clearly indicates to the public how much the legal firm will charge in the event of their services being used. It alerts the public to their liabilities and eliminates the possibility of a hidden agenda, for example, charges for items such as telephone calls, letter writing and so on, tasks which are carried out by many of us on a regular basis without charging. On the other hand, the advertising of charges could advertise the availability of the legal firm for particular cases. By advertising that services are available at a cost they are merely suggesting that the public should know how much they will be charged before they decide to take a claim. The point I am making is that there is a positive and a negative side to the question of charges — there are the hidden charges and the publicised charges.
The issue of charges ties in with that of advertising. Advertising, from the point of view of insurance, which I have already mentioned, has to my mind done irreparable damage and has contributed in a serious way to the vast increase in the number of insurance claims experienced through the years. If the increase in the number of claims is allowed to continue at the present rate the problem will become much more serious. The other side of that argument is the need to protect the consumer from the person who, at the end of an action, presents an account of size of which the client has not being alerted to. A client often goes through a course of consultations only to find at the end of those consultations that the figure he or she is expected to pay up is well in excess of what was expected.
The prohibition on solicitors deducting their costs as a percentage of damages recovered without the prior agreement of their clients is an entirely acceptable provision and one with which I agree.
Charging costs as a percentage of damages awarded is another issue in which there are two sides to the argument. I well understand that a solicitor or a barrister dealing with a case that involves a sum of several hundreds of thousands of pounds, perhaps more, could feel that he or she had to command a charge in keeping with the responsibility placed upon him or her because of the amount involved. On the other hand, it should not naturally follow that the value of a transaction should relate directly to the granting of an amount of money in line with the value of damages awarded. This aspect is covered in a different section of the Bill. A solicitor could have a very simple transaction that involved hundreds of thousands, or even millions of pounds or the same solicitor could have a transaction that required the expenditure of considerable time and energy but involved a very small amount of money.
I should point out that I know of solicitors who have carried out time-consuming work for no charge at all. In fairness to the profession, I should mention that in some instances a solicitor, recognising an individual's inability to meet high costs, has taken it upon himself or herself to write off the charge but still carry out the legal responsibility. However, there is also the minority, who do, on a regular basis, impose high costs on those whom they know cannot afford them. It seems that they first consider the value of a transaction and then, by the use of some kind of a scale that I understand exists, determine the costs to apply to a client. For some unknown reason, those costs have a peculiar habit of arriving at the sum total of the benefit awarded to the client. That is a very curious coincidence, but it has happened on several occasions. I am sure that the fine, upright members of the profession who sit in this House, including the Minister of State opposite, will recognise the truth in what I am saying. I certainly do not intend my comments as any criticism of the Minister or any other Members of the House.
One of the most spectacular cases I have dealt with, and I am sure that other Deputies could tell a similar story, concerned the contesting of a will. If a close relative of a deceased person contests a will then it should be possible to advise the client at an early stage of his or her chances of success and in the case of a thirty-second or a thirty-third cousin contesting a will it should not be too difficult for a solicitor to work out that person's entitlement before going through a lengthy, expensive process. However, that is not what happens.
Some time ago I dealt with a case in which the total value of the estate was about £35,000 or £40,000 and in which the transfer or property by will to a close relative — a niece or nephew — was required. The will was contested by a much more distant relative. It took two years to resolve the case as in the very difficult situation arising in such instances it is important to make sure that everything is done properly and to the letter of the law. By an amazing coincidence, when the case was resolved and the account was furnished, it transpired that there was no benefit to anyone except the fortunate members of the legal profession who dealt with the case. The person for whom the property was intended received no benefit at all. When the bill of costs to the client was calculated it arrived at the self-same figure representing the total value of the estate.
I do not understand how that could have happened. I could have understood if the final bill of costs resulted in a charge of £20 or £30 more to the client — even £100, £200 or £300 more — and I could well have understood if the end result was £5,000, £10,000 or £15,000 less, but I do not understand the way in which the bill of costs arrived at the same amount as the total value of the estate. The result was very peculiar. I am quite sure that it took a very long for those involved to sit down and work out the costs in such a way that in the end they did not have to write out a cheque to anyone. In actual fact, the individual who made the will, if properly advised, could easily have phoned a solicitor in the first instance and said that he or she would leave all of the property to the solicitor because the solicitor would get it anyway.
I should point out that the case to which I refer did not even go to court, it went only to the steps of the High Court. I hate to think what the cost would have been had it actually gone to court. Of course, in reaching the steps of the High Court, barristers became involved and many expenses were incurred, such as those paid for witnesses who had to stay in the best hotels when they would not ordinarily have gone to them. It is very strange that it took the entire estate to clean up the matter. That was neat. I mean no disrespect to anyone, and I am quite sure Members in the House realise that I do not, but the fact remains that that kind of thing does happen.
I also wish to refer to the area of negligence, which is covered fairly adequately in the Bill. A classic example of negligence relates to the registration of property at the Land Registry. It is not uncommon to hear of cases in which, perhaps ten years after property changed hands, it is discovered that title had not been registered with the Land Registry, despite the fact that a fee was charged for that. That is another peculiarity.
One instance with which I am particularly familiar concerned an unfortunate individual — who could ill-afford it — who had to draw £10,000 from a lending institution to increase a mortgage in order to ensure continued occupancy in a house. That happened simply because at the time the property was obtained the solicitor involved was negligent and did not conclude the registration of title. The negligence was discovered only when the person wanted to sell the property and ran into difficulties because in actual fact the title was not in the correct name. The negligence provision in the Bill provides, I hope sufficiently, for such acts of negligence. If I may, I shall revert at a later stage to the subject with which I have just been dealing.
Another provision in this Bill which worries me is to allow banks to undertake conveyancing, a proposal about which I would be extremely worried. Some of my best friends are bank managers, and I would hope that we would remain on that footing for as long as possible. I would be very worried that a lending institution, an arm of which would take on the role of conveyancing, would have a vested interest in determining, first, the manner in which they might go about their task and, second, that there would be a serious conflict of interest because they were employed by a financial institution. I do not think that proposal should ever have been advanced. In 95 per cent of cases, the legal arms of such institutions, undertake their task efficiently and honestly. But in the event of a dispute arising between an account holder and the bank, human nature being what it is, it would be my fear that the member of the general public whose conveyancing was being handled by a lending institution would find himself or herself at a slight, perhaps more than slight, disadvantage. Such conflict might well run counter to the provisions in this Bill that costs be indicated to a client beforehand.
It is well known that some lending institutions operate through the credit bureau system, which is a peculiar one. Take the case of those whose conveyancing is being done by a bank who wish to move their account to another lending institution, on the basis that they do not like their bank manager or for some such reason. Without naming any institution, it has not been unknown for at least one such lending institution to first check with the credit bureau to ascertain where that individual intends to shift their account. Therefore, when a check is carried out into the individual's creditworthiness, the agency to whom they intend to apply will be cleared, but no others; despite the fact that they are being given a clean bill of health by the financial institution. That is something that has occurred on several occasions. I am sure Members present are well aware of that. At best it is devious; at worst it is much more.
It is my belief that an individual who enters into an agreement or arrangement, legal or otherwise, with any large institution is entitled to fair play no matter how large the institution or how small or insignificant the group represented by the individual. I contend that the practice of any institution to first check to ascertain where an individual will apply for funds to relieve his or her responsibilities to that institution amounts to a type of blackmail because they can blacken their name with all others. This practice will be of even greater significance if the banks are to undertake conveyancing, when they may well ask the relevant individual: where do you intend applying for this loan to carry this account in future? If the individual is foolish enough to inform them, all they have to do is clear that particular agency with the credit bureau. This means that if, say, agency A is approached by a client for a loan, on checking with the credit bureau they will be told that this is a good client. However, if the lending agency in control does not know to whom the application for the loan is being lodged, they will have to clear all inquiries through the bureau. Some people in the House may think I am exaggerating or that that does not happen. I can assure them it does happen; I have seen it happen. I am sure that other Members here must know it happens also. That is sharp practice on the part of the institution concerned; in this instance, it could be the lending institution. It could become even sharper practice if under the provisions outlined in the Bill lending institutions had the right to carry out conveyancing, when a conflict of interest would immediately arise.
All the people with whom I have discussed the provisions of this Bill have without exception raised serious questions about the possibility of conveyancing being handed over to these institutions, in addition to the fact that they have been known to go on strike, thus limiting their availability to the public. For example, in the case of such a strike it would be impossible for the public to gain access to their solicitor or his services through the cash dispensing system. I should like the Minister to take that point on board.
Later I propose to make a passing reference to the need for criminal law reform, which legislation should be introduced and considered in this House in conjunction with the Bill before us.
I might deal now with the matter of criticism. All of us in this House are subjected to criticism from time to time for one reason or another. In fact, any time is open season for us to be criticised. Members of the Judiciary and of the legal profession have not been slow to level criticism at us when they see fit. From time to time they make political statements outside this House which would appear to me to be in serious conflict with the positions they hold. They tend to resent very much any reference by any Member of this House to the manner in which they conduct their business. I refer to that in the context of this Bill and of the fact that most of the people about whom I speak have been, or are, members of the legal profession who have moved up through the ranks, and more power to them. However, I cannot understand why they are so sensitive to any criticism of their charges. After all, if a person in any private enterprise anywhere overcharges there is nothing whatever unusual about having that brought to the attention of the public and reference made to the fact that they have overcharged. Yet there appears to be great sensitivity on the part of some members of the legal profession outside this House when questions are raised about their charges, when it is even suggested they have overcharged. They appear to take it as a personal affront and feel they should do something about such critical comment.
In recent times the Law Reform Commission advocated revision of the libel laws, it being felt that politicians appear to be becoming overly sensitive to criticism and so on. I have to admit that quite an amount of criticism is levelled at politicians. The theory is that there is need to effect some change in that area because libel was being too loosely interpreted and so on. But in the case of any criticism of or reference to any member of the legal profession on the part of the media generally, in this House or elsewhere, they respond unanimously and with great alacrity, they feeling the very bastions they represent are being challenged. That is a peculiar attitude. For example, it is not at all unusual for them to suggest that the Legislature should have done this or that two, three or five years ago or that the legislators should have taken action. Yet whenever we legislators have taken action they adopt peculiar attitudes when interpreting the legislation placed before them. There appears to be on the part of the legal profession a great lack of continuity or consistency of interpretation of legislation placed before them.
It is not unusual for two members of the same profession to interpret legislation in two totally different ways, with the result that we are all confused. It is not unusual for members of a profession when questioned in this House — we have a right to question anyone we wish — to become incensed and suggest that we have over-stepped our authority and should be brought to task for our misdeeds. That is a dangerous attitude which suggests intimidation. I do not agree with this attitude. Members of this Legislature, whether or not they are members of the legal profession, should not be intimidated by anybody outside this House. We have been elected by the people to speak on their behalf. Regardless of our political affiliations, any suggestion that we should remain silent is a direct attack on democracy which we cannot tolerate or accept.
Members of the profession should not become over-sensitive about the references made here by Deputies from time to time to charges. If a charge is valid they should be able to defend it. They should not get so sensitive about the issue of charges as to suggest that we are in some way undermining their integrity. They should be prepared to face up to this issue. If the charges are excessive so be it, but if they are not excessive they should be able to show proof of this. They should set out on paper how they calculate cost and costs in particular areas.
There is a growing belief that inquiries and investigations are sometimes set up not to produce results which are of benefit to the people but to enhance a person's bank account. That is not the purpose of inquiries. Inquiries are set up to ensure that a matter is fully investigated with the view to ensuring that steps can be taken in the future to prevent a recurrence of it, or perhaps recommend that redress should be made by one of the parties involved. Once an inquiry or investigation is set up it should be allowed to run its full course. We have every right to ask questions about how long it will take, the manner in which it is being carried out and the costs involved. Many recent examples spring to mind.
State institutions, for example, this House, the courts, etc., are subject to attack and criticism. We do our best to respond as far as possible to valid and justified criticism. It is important that we do this. Nobody is above criticism. We are often criticised in the course of our daily work. I would be slightly worried about people who are sensitive to criticism and I would be very worried about people who are so sensitive to criticism that they have to react to it. As I said, the Judiciary often become involved in areas for which they are not directly responsible. I presume we all do this at times.
We need to recognise that this House is the senior legislative body. While we may not always succeed in what we are trying to do, we certainly do our best. The 166 Members of this House make contributions on various Bills from time to time. Many of us are not qualified in particular areas. I am certainly not a qualified member of the legal profession. The contributions made by Members give an indication of what we think about a particular Bill and how it will affect the public for whom it is introduced. It is not acceptable for members from outside professions to take us to task for our lack of foresight when dealing with legislation. We may have foreseen issues which could arise when the legislation was introduced but it is the interpretation of the legislation at a later date by bodies outside this House which gives it the force or weight it ultimately carries. We will learn more about this over the next weeks or months in other areas. I will say no more about this issue at this stage.
I wish to refer to the charging of costs as a percentage of the damages recovered. I am worried about this practice. As I said, I can well understand why a member of the legal profession handling a case in which serious injury has been caused to a person will obviously feel a greater responsibility if a huge claim is made. However, this does not mean that a member of the legal profession should automatically bear ten times the responsibility for a claim for £1,000 as he would for a claim for £100. This should not be the case. In fact, it should be the other way round as the administration involved in both claims is roughly the same. Obviously if a solicitor loses a case the client will feel he has done a very bad job but if he wins the case it will be like the politician who wins — he is a fellow well met at that stage. I am glad that we will at least be able to deal with this issue under the Bill.
While regard should be had to the responsibility imposed on a solicitor handling a case, regard should also be had to the liability a bill will place on a client. As I said, the entire estate or claim of a client should not be eaten up in legal costs. This should not be allowed to happen. Unfortunately, this has happened in the past.
I referred earlier to conveyancing but I do not think it is any harm to refer again to this issue. In the past we have dealt with cases where conveyancing has taken a long time. I know that some delays have been caused by the difficulties in the Land Registry but other delays seem to stem from a lack of response by the solicitor handling the case. On occasion, public representatives have to get involved to try to sort out the matter. This should not have to happen. Public representatives should not have to become involved in cases which other people are being paid to sort out. We do not get money for doing this, we do it in the course of the many social services we provide. We should not have to become involved in doing the job of someone else who is being paid a hefty fee for carrying out a function or service on behalf of a client. I am sure it poses a dilemma for members of the legal profession who are also public representatives because they must regularly be called upon, as a public representative, to sort out a problem caused by a member of the profession who has failed to do his or her job although he or she was paid to do so. A member of the profession who is a public representative will be asked to do the same job for nothing. It is a peculiar circumstance but it happens quite regularly and I am sure the Minister is familiar with the practice. I often wonder how a solicitor must feel faced with that situation on a Saturday morning in a busy clinic with 30 or 40 people sitting in a queue. They have to make up their mind what to do, they might as well resolve the problem themselves and do it for nothing, as many of them do.
As I said, a large number of members of the legal profession do a great deal of that kind of work and I pay tribute to them for doing so. I am trying to get at the minority, the 5 per cent who, as in all professions, do great damage to themselves, the profession and the country generally. I am not against the legal profession, many relatives of mine are members of it and I have not had any rows with them about it. However, the reason I am worried is that members of any profession whose job it is, for a fee, to advise a client in a particular fashion, take upon themselves a great deal of responsibility. Two things are important; the advice they give must be good and consistent and the solicitor must be able to stand over it in ten or 15 years' time. They are being paid a fee to advise a person and it is very different from asking politicians their opinions on the weather or something else and getting different answers. If the public do not like the answers politicians give they can show their displeasure at the next election. However, they might not be in a position to deal with a member of a profession to whom they go seeking advice which turns out to be wrong. It comes back to relating the scale of charges to the service and I fully accept the pivotal nature of the service.
In some cases things do not always work out as one would have liked. For example, two people may go to different solicitors looking for advice. A typical matter would be in relation to a contract to purchase or sell a house or other property. Two solicitors, one for the buyer and the other for the vendor, will say that it is a straightforward case and that they will do their best to ensure that everything is brought to a satisfactory conclusion in the shortest time possible with the least expense and inconvenience. On the other hand, one of them might decide to be clever, will look at the contract very carefully and wonder how he can penalise the unfortunate purchaser, to make more money.
I came across a case not so long ago where something like that happened. A contract was drawn up but, unfortunately for the buyer, it did not stipulate, "subject to loan approval". The property being purchased was substandard which is not a simple case to deal with if loan approval is involved because, generally speaking, local authorities, banks and other lending agencies are not too keen to lend if the property is not fully serviced and in good condition, particularly if it is a dwelling house. That type of case usually involves a minimum of two months, planning permission can take some time and the whole matter could take six months. I assume that solicitors involved in such transactions would know that the situation is difficult and detailed and would require consideration before a decision is given. In this case the buyer's solicitor, as I said, forgot to stipulate that the purchase was subject to loan approval.
After a reasonably short time, given the nature of the case, the vendor's solicitor wrote to the buyer's solicitor stating that they wished to withdraw from the contract. The buyer's solicitor was very anxious that this would not happen because of the tedious nature of the business, and so on and he remonstrated with his counterpart. Matters rested for some time and then the vendor's solicitor wrote to the effect that they were withdrawing from the contract. As a result the deposit was forfeited, which is a very serious matter. In legal terms it may be normal but, while a deposit of £100,000 might be insignificant to a millionaire, a deposit of £1,000 could be a great deal of money to a couple who are not well off. In the case about which I am speaking, it was a sum of £2,000 from a couple who badly needed the money. They were living in very bad conditions and were making an attempt to house themselves, at their own expense. They were buying their own house and they honestly thought they were doing everything right. I would have no objection to them forfeiting their deposit if I thought the vendor would lose as a result of the contract not being fulfilled. However, that was not the case because there was no difficulty in relation to the buyer, who was quite prepared to pursue the matter until he achieved loan approval.
Peculiarly, the property was sold to somebody else at a price corresponding to the exact amount of the deposit. It was a strange coincidence. Surely the solicitor acting for the vendor could have talked to his or her client and said that although they were legally entitled to withdraw from the contract because of the inordinate amount of time it had taken, and that in law they had right on their side, morally what they were doing was wrong? The solicitor acting for the vendor in that case should have had no compunction about telling the clients that what they were doing would badly effect the people who could ill afford to lose money. It was a smart alec trick that could have been pulled on two financial institutions or two well-heeled organisations that could afford to lose a deposit, but it should not have been done to a couple who had to scrape their last few bob together for a deposit to buy a house and who had to live in unbelievable circumstances in order to save money. To pull a stroke like that, and that is what I call it, lets down the legal profession. I have the name and address of that solicitor before me but I will refrain from naming him because the rules of this House forbid me to name him. He lives in Store Street, Dublin. He is quite entitled to criticise me if he so wishes but likewise I am quite entitled in this forum to criticise the antics he pursued in this case.
It was never intended that people should be advised in that fashion. Neither side should have been advised in that fashion. It would have been a simple matter to negotiate with the buyer's solicitor and for both solicitors to accept they should have withdrawn from the case and handed the money back. That did not happen. It became a contest between the solicitors as to who would win and who was right in law. In that uneven contest — as far as the client was concerned — the unfortunate purchaser who had paid a deposit of £2,000 lost. This has happened on countless occasions in the past and it is likely to happen in the future.
I pursued the matter but I was totally frustrated in all my attempts to resolve the matter. Indeed, I pleaded with the vendors to instruct their solicitor— I presume they did, because they were decent and honourable people — to change his mind but there was no response. Because the vendors were so advised by their solicitor, the young couple who wished to purchase the house lost their deposit. The solicitor acting on behalf of the vendor proved a point but it was a pyrrhic victory. He may have won legally, and I know that morals do not enter into it in that arena, but nonetheless if he has a conscience at all he may remember these victims in the future. Indeed, he may well be on the receiving end; perhaps he was on the receiving end in the past and that is why he did it.
To do such a thing to a couple is tantamount to sticking your hand into their pockets and walking away with their money. If this was done to a large institution, a bank or a building society, it would be wrong. If this happened in a deal between two corporations it would be legally and morally wrong but because of the circumstances of this case it was doubly wrong. Surely, it is a question of conscience. Mind you, I doubt if he has a conscience.
I know that other Members have had experiences of the legal profession. I know that this case is the exception rather than the rule and that we do not expect to have a repetition of it every day, and I know we will not. However, there should be some provision in the Bill to nail down once and for all the way contacts are entered into and the manner in which you can extricate yourself from one. We need to have regard to the rights of the individual for whom the solicitor is acting rather than ensuring that a solicitor for either party proves a legal point.
Everybody can be put at a disadvantage at some stage. It would have been useful to refer to the manner in which contracts are drawn up. Generally speaking, there is a standard contract and I hope we can ensure that we will not have a repetition of the case I have referred to and that there should be a time limit imposed on fulfilling the contract and that regardless of what happens in that period a refund will be given. Perhaps there may be some legal charges but I hope the legal costs will not amount to the sum of money involved. However, this is covered in the Bill.
While the Solicitors (Amendment) Bill is helpful and has some worthwhile innovations, it would have been useful also to have aspects of our criminal law amended. We have all seen cases on television where the victims have brought their circumstances to public notice. Society is becoming more and more violent; there are various contributory factors, and there is a need to revise the criminal law in line with the Bill before us so that the law will be respected outside this House.
The public regularly question the consistency of court verdicts. I can never understand why in almost identical cases of robbery, or robbery with violence, the defendants can walk away scot-free, or as near as possible to scot-free, without having a penalty in keeping with the crime imposed on them. I cannot understand that. In this House, even though we are criticised from time to time, we try to be reasonably consistent; but consistency does not seem to apply in that area. I noted with some interest a discussion on a recent television programme where views were put forward by various people and the Legislature was blamed repeatedly for inaction. The legislation which has been put in place has not always been acted upon and certainly has not always been enforced in a consistent fashion. We in this House cannot be expected to legislate for every conceivable situation that is likely to arise in every single set of circumstances. We can only do our best. It will be a matter for those who sit on the benches to interpret the legislation. If we do not have some changes in the criminal law Bills such as this will be immaterial; it is simply papering over cracks and will have no permanent or lasting effect.
I should like to refer to the matter of bail. It is not unusual for somebody to be caught either in the act of armed robbery or mugging some unfortunate elderly person or young person in a public place in broad daylight and to be taken to court, charged and remanded on bail. After two or three weeks they can be out again and repeat the same performance and again be charged and remanded on bail. I have a simple view on that. For anybody who is either involved in an armed robbery or caught carrying arms or offensive weapons there should be no question of bail whatsoever; they should be remanded in custody until such time as the courts had time to hear the case.
I am all in favour of ensuring that the Constitution is observed and that the State protects the rights of the individual. I know that under the Constitution until such time as a person is found guilty they are presumed innocent. I fully subscribe to that view. How then does one deal with criminals who abuse the system? They use the system to perpetuate their own profession. If they have a sawn-off shotgun, a hatchet or a chainsaw in the boot of their car, if they are about to saw off somebody's head in order to take their money from them, they know when they are caught that they will be charged and remanded on bail. They know too that they can go back after a week or a fortnight and buy replacement tools of the trade to carry out a similar type act. I find that peculiar. It is not unusual in the courts to find somebody who has appeared there again and again on a multiplicity of charges; in fact, such people often receive a sentence while awaiting trial on a subsequent charge or charges. I do not understand why that self-perpetuating system goes on. There is an absolute necessity for the introduction of another Bill.
I should like to refer again to the television programme to which I referred earlier regarding the Criminal Justice Bill of the mid eighties. I was a Member of the House at that time. Despite what was said on "The Late Late Show", a strong lobby of people wrote to every Member of the House repeatedly asking us to water down the Bill and to have regard to the human and civil rights of the accused. We fully appreciate and understand they are entitled to their civil and human rights and so on. The legislators backed off because they were subjected to a long tirade of representations and accusations beforehand. We were accused of being regressive and of introducing repressive and oppressive legislation. A serious campaign was carried out on that occasion by some very responsible citizens, who should have know better, suggesting that this House was attempting to introduce legislation which would put their civil and human rights in jeopardy. That was not true.
In the meantime innocent people going about their business have had their rights put in jeopardy and have had no redress from any quarter. Not so long ago a friend of mine, a young, fit, active person, was so badly beaten in the course of his work that he will never work again, though he may well receive some compensation. That person has a wife and family and had been able to provide for them. I often wonder where the do-gooders, who are so anxious to help the accused, stand now in relation to that individual? If they were asked to come into court and testify as to whose rights were being eroded, what would they say? How would they talk to the wife and children of that victim? Would they say "We foresaw in the mid-eighties that people like you could have some redress and that the people who committed the crime might be caught and convicted and given ten years in prison"? Are they going to say they foresaw that? I do not think so. What they are most likely to say is that the legislators did not do their job or that somebody else did not do their job, but that they have sympathy for him. Sympathy is not a whole lot of good.
