I wish to share time with Deputy Finian McGrath.
Legal Services Ombudsman Bill 2008: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to the Legal Services Ombudsman Bill 2008. I welcome the legislation which is overdue. We have introduced legislation to impose independent regulatory supervision in many areas and it is only right that we do the same in the legal services sector.
The Bill provides for the appointment of a legal services ombudsman by the Government. I warmly welcome the stipulation that the person appointed may not be a practising barrister or solicitor. Similar provisions have been put in place in England and other jurisdictions. I am glad that the initial appointment will be made for a period of six years. While the appointment is renewable, it has to be reviewed at the end of six years. This stipulation which has been applied throughout the public sector helps to increase people's awareness of their responsibilities because they can and will be moved on if they do not perform adequately.
The functions of the ombudsman will be to receive and investigate the handling of complaints by the Law Society or the Bar Council, review the procedures of both bodies for dealing with complaints, assess the adequacy of the admission policies of the Law Society and the Bar Council to the professions of solicitor and barrister, respectively, and promote awareness among members of the public of matters pertaining to the procedures of these bodies for addressing complaints.
I will concentrate my comments on solicitors rather than barristers because, in my experience as a public representative, I have received more complaints about the former. People are more likely to engage a solicitor than a barrister.
Complaints can be made on grounds of inadequate service, excessive fees or misconduct. A claim must be made within five years of the occurrence of the problem. A complaint can be made directly to the Law Society or the solicitor's disciplinary tribunal. If the complainant is not satisfied with the way the complaint is addressed, he or she can bring the matter to the independent adjudicator who, while not connected to the legal profession, is appointed by the Law Society. This reveals a flaw in the current system in that there is a connection between the adjudicator and the Law Society. This legislation will remove that flaw by transferring these functions to the legal services ombudsman.
I have never accepted the way in which the profession is regulated because, in my experience, complaints have not been taken seriously enough. People have approached me about particular solicitors or cases after experiencing difficulties in finding alternative solicitors to pursue their grievances. The Law Society has stated it cannot deal with complaints of negligence but that if, for example, a solicitor has failed to process a case, draw up or serve documents or take out probate to a will in a timely manner with the result that the client has suffered a loss, a court action may be taken. It has further stated it maintains on its website a list of solicitors who are prepared to take on cases of negligence. However, it has been my experience that people have found it difficult to hire a solicitor to pursue such cases.
When an investigation was commenced by the Law Society, it was often of an innocuous nature or insufficiently robust. I acknowledge that matters may have changed in the light of the high profile cases involving solicitors being struck off the register. Allegations are being taken more seriously because of the damage wrought to the profession by these cases.
A good friend of mine was fond of asking the question: "Who guards the guardians?" That question was first put by Plato to Socrates and the answer was that they would guard themselves against themselves. That is the answer on which we have relied in this and many other areas but the situation is now changing in regard to the legal profession.
In the context of our discussions on amalgamating State agencies, I am concerned that we might be creating another layer of bureaucracy in the legal services ombudsman. Perhaps the functions could be placed within the remit of the Office of the Ombudsman through the establishment of a legal services division. However, section 19 of the Bill provides that the Law Society and the Bar Council will each be responsible for 10% of the costs, with the balance to be met by either body based on the caseload involved. This would seem to suggest the legislation is Exchequer-neutral. If that were the case I would not have a problem with the setting up of a separate office. That is something the Minister might clarify when he speaks later. The Minister might also clarify whether this legislation gives us the power to force these bodies to make payments and what we can do to make sure they pay.
I wonder how large the office of the legal services ombudsman will be. For example, the Office of the Legal Services Ombudsman for England and Wales consists of 25 people. How long will it have to deal with a particular complaint? Should we include an aspiration that, in the absence of certain difficulties or problems, a report should be furnished within four, six or eight months? I have no hang-up about the particular time, but a timescale should be specified. We have one, for instance, for An Bord Pleanála, which is supposed to make a decision within a four-month period, although we all know it never does. Perhaps something could be stitched into the legislation to tighten things up so we do not find ourselves waiting years for a report from this office.
Judges do not appear to be any part of this Bill. I am often concerned about the conduct of some judges. I am aware of the separation of powers of the Oireachtas and the Judiciary, which we must be careful to maintain. However, I wonder whether the legal services ombudsman could have a role to play in this regard. My biggest gripe is the inconsistency of sentencing. A District Court judge in Waterford could make a decision on a particular case, and the same case could be going on before another judge in Donegal, but the two sentences could be totally at variance with one another. This is part of the reason victims of crime are not happy with what is happening within our courts system. I wonder whether the legal services ombudsman could act as a vehicle for complaints they may have. There could be a role for this new office in the creation of a database of sentencing, which might let us see what different judges are doing in different parts of the country. I assume this is not something that is being done by anybody at present. This information would be useful to all of us. I remember a judge saying that at the end of the day judges must implement the will of the Oireachtas. I do not think this is happening at present. This might serve to make them a little more accountable.
Acting Chairman
Does Deputy Kenneally wish to share time?
Yes. How much time have I used?
Acting Chairman
The Deputy has used 11 minutes. There are nine minutes left in the slot.
I did not realise I had gone so long. In deference to my colleague, Deputy Finian McGrath, I will finish up with that, although I had one or two other things to say. I welcome the introduction of the legislation and hope it will pass speedily through the Houses and become law sooner rather than later because it is in the interests of everybody.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Legal Services Ombudsman Bill 2008. In light of recent events it is topical, relevant and above all good for citizens, taxpayers and consumers. We need the right calibre of person for the job, which is a very important position. It is not acceptable, as we have seen in recent times, for some bankers, solicitors and others in the legal profession to damage the integrity of their position. This legislation, as far as I am concerned, is about justice, fair play and equality. These are the issues that must be at the heart of the Bill.
In recent years the State has been damaged by sleaze and corruption in all aspects of Irish life. Politics, business, the church and the legal profession have all been seriously damaged and we should admit this to the public. The public want change and they want action, but above all they want reform. This Bill is part of the agenda of reform. Members of the legal profession, many of whom I meet regularly, are embarrassed by and ashamed of the activities of some of their own members. This is at the heart of the debate today. I urge the Minister to put the boot into rogue solicitors and bad practice in the legal profession. This is something that people of integrity who work in the legal profession, particularly those with great records on human rights and citizens' rights, are calling out for. They want support and they want this legislation to deal with the issue.
The purpose of this Bill is to establish on a statutory basis the office of the legal services ombudsman to oversee the handling of complaints by the Bar Council and the Law Society, review the procedures for same and report annually on the adequacy of the admissions policies of both professions. Section 4 provides for the establishment of the office of legal services ombudsman. Section 5 stipulates that the legal services ombudsman shall be appointed by the Government and that the person appointed shall be suitably qualified, and provides for the classes of person not eligible for appointment as ombudsman. This is a sensible section. I urge the Government to ensure that the right calibre of person is appointed to this position.
Section 6 sets the period of office at a maximum of six years, allows re-appointment for a second or subsequent term and provides for the manner in which the ombudsman may resign from office. It also provides for the circumstances in which the Government may remove the ombudsman from office as well as the circumstances in which a person ceases to hold the office of legal services ombudsman. Section 7 provides for terms and conditions relating to remuneration of the ombudsman.
I welcome section 8, which is a strong section. It restricts the ombudsman from engaging in other paid employment unless approved by the Minister. This is a sensible measure because the ombudsman must focus on his or her job in the interests of consumers, taxpayers and, above all, citizens. Section 8 ensures that the person chosen will focus on his or her position. Section 9 provides that the functions of the legal services ombudsman are to receive and investigate complaints about the handling by the Law Society and the Bar Council of complaints made to them by clients of barristers and solicitors, to ensure that such complaints are dealt with fairly, effectively and efficiently by the two professional bodies, to assess the adequacy of their admissions policies and to promote public awareness of the complaints procedures of the two bodies. This is also important. We must protect the interest of clients and citizens.
Section 10 stipulates that the ombudsman shall be independent in the performance of the functions of the office. This is an important section, because the independence of the ombudsman is a key aspect of the legislation. As an Independent Member of the Oireachtas I must point out that in the upcoming budget it is important that the Government focuses on certain issues. There should be no cuts in areas such as cystic fibrosis, disabilities or health. I mention these because I want to put down a marker in this debate for the broader discussion about the budget in next few days.
Section 11 provides for the ombudsman to appoint staff and set their terms and conditions of employment, subject to the consent of the Minister and the Minister for Finance and following consultation with the Bar Council and the Law Society. The ombudsman may, subject to the consent of the Minister, engage the services of advisers or consultants and may also authorise members of the staff to perform certain functions. I urge caution on section 11 when dealing with the area of consultants, on which the public is demanding action. We do not want to see any more waste of public money on the employment of consultants. I urge the people directly involved, including the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform who is present, to be wary of this section. We need to be very conscious of cost and ensure we do not waste money. It is the priority of the State for the next six to 12 months that money be well spent.
Section 12 provides for the Minister to advance to the ombudsman out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas amounts as the Minister may determine, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, for the purposes of performing his or her functions. The Minister for Finance has a significant input into this section also. Section 13 provides for financial accounting and audit matters including presentation of audited accounts to the Minister and their laying before both Houses of the Oireachtas. This section is important as it deals with the accounting and auditing issue. Section 13 delivers on the issue of accountability.
Sections 14 and 15 provide for various reports to be made by the ombudsman, including an annual report to the Minister on the performance of the functions of the office, a report to the Minister within two years of being appointed on the effectiveness of the office and the adequacy of its functions, special reports on matters of particular gravity or in other exceptional circumstances and an annual report to the Minister on the adequacy of the admissions policies of the legal professions. Each of these reports shall be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas and published. Sections 14 and 15 are key. However, presenting the report to the Minister within two years of appointment may be too long and could be reduced.
Sections 16 provides for the appearance of the ombudsman before a committee of Dáil Éireann regarding its accounts and such matters as its efficiency and any other matter raised in a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General. This section is important as it zooms in on accountability. In recent days with the financial crisis and the major rows in the United States, I have been very impressed with its Congress committees that have hauled in some of these bankers, particularly those involved in Lehman Brothers, to give account to the representatives of the people. An Oireachtas committee has a role to play in this issue.
Part 4 of the Bill dealing with complaints and reviews gets to the heart of the matter. Sections 21 and 22 provide for the making and investigation of complaints. A complaint may be made to the ombudsman concerning the handling by the Bar Council of Ireland or the Law Society of Ireland of a complaint against a barrister or solicitor. A complaint may also be made to the ombudsman about a decision of the Law Society of Ireland to make or refuse a grant from the Law Society of Ireland's compensation fund. Complaints to the ombudsman must be made within six months of the determination of the related complaint by the relevant body. The circumstances in which a person is not entitled to make a complaint are also provided for. We need to focus on the issue of complaints and ensure our citizens and taxpayers are at the heart of the legislation.
I welcome the debate and the legislation. This is an opportunity to bring justice, equality and fair play into the justice system.
There is an unanswerable case for the early introduction of the Legal Services Ombudsman Bill. The case in favour of the Bill is open and shut. I say that as somebody who, like the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Dermot Ahern, practised for many years as a solicitor. I say so on behalf of more than 95% of the solicitors and barristers who try to give a decent honourable service to their clients. I also say it on behalf of that 95% or more who are utterly appalled by the way the reputation of the legal profession is being tarnished by some rogue lawyers and in particular by the recent high-profile cases involving enormous amounts of money. Those 95% plus want to see those practices stamped out. I do not intend to comment on those high profile cases except to say I want to see due process taking place. I am not making any presumptions about them getting their just deserts.
Looking at the broader issue, it is important for those who want to give a decent honourable service as lawyers as well as for the general public to whom they provide the service. We have a system where justice is done and seen to be done from the point of view of any complaints arising from giving or perhaps more usually not giving that service. What is expected of lawyers in this day and age? I have just finished reading the book, Jasper Wolfe of Skibbereen, about the founder of my firm. In his time not only did he need to show competence and honesty, but he also needed to show complete bravery and courage. He was appointed crown solicitor after 1916 and his first job in that role was to represent the crown at the inquest into the murder of the lord mayor of Cork, Tomás McCurtain. He did it because he had to do it — it was his job. After the verdict of wilful murder against Lloyd George and Lord French, the lord lieutenant, was brought in, Jasper Wolfe for his pains was sentenced to death by the IRA. For various reasons he was able to deal with that matter.
In the past people like him needed to deal with more than the ordinary service to their clients and needed to show great courage and bravery in doing their job. That courage and bravery was recognised by the people of Cork West who returned him at the head of the poll to this House in the 1920s. While we do not expect that type of courage and bravery nowadays from our lawyers, we expect competence and honesty. We need a system in place that holds to account those who are not up to the mark. Those who try to do the job properly are diminished by the actions of a few — the bad apples in the barrel. This is why I so strongly support the Bill.
Having said that, we should not ignore that there is a system of dealing with complaints currently in place. It is not as though we are inventing a completely new system. I note the annual report of the Law Society of Ireland disciplinary tribunal for 2007 has just been published. It indicates strong action is being taken against a number of solicitors against whom complaints were made. That tribunal consists of 30 members including 20 members of the legal profession and ten laypeople. Despite the work of that tribunal, which seems at this stage to be effective, there is a need for a totally independent oversight body that is statutorily underpinned and that will have the kinds of powers mentioned in the Bill. I want to see the Bill in place because the ombudsman system has proved itself over the years.
The system originally came from the Nordic countries. It has served us well, particularly because of the high calibre of the people who have served as Ombudsmen, going back to Mr. Michael Mills, followed by Mr. Kevin Murphy and now, Ms Emily O'Reilly. It has been a very effective system.
I want to make one point in the context of how the ombudsman system has developed. We have a plethora of ombudsmen, some of them women——
Most of them are women.
Exactly. All of them are doing a good job, but while not questioning whether we need them all, is there not some way these offices might be better co-ordinated? I say this in the context of the examination that should be underway as regards the need for the 1,000 or so State bodies we have. I am not proposing the abolition of any of the ombudsman offices as they exist. I understand they are all doing a good job, but nonetheless, there are quite a few. The original Office of the Ombudsman was set up in 1980 on foot of complaints against Departments and some State bodies. There is also a Pensions Ombudsman, an Ombudsman for Children, a Financial Services Ombudsman dealing with the credit institutions, and an Ombudsman for the Defence Forces. In more recent times we have set up the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission and there is also the Press Ombudsman. In the context of setting up yet another ombudsman's office, there may be a case for an overall look at the system, to discern whether efficiencies might be achieved, perhaps by some co-ordination of resources. I think in particular of office facilities and administrative back-up. Is there some efficient manner we can ensure the various ombudsman offices can work better together for the future? Obviously, this would have to be carefully teased out, but I see some possibilities there for greater efficiency.
One can anticipate that any incumbent Ombudsman will argue he or she is doing a good job, and I am not disputing that. Recently, I saw the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces had very few staff and was operating out of highly unsuitable offices. Perhaps that Ombudsman might be able to work out of one of the other offices, perhaps under the wing of the main Ombudsman. It is certainly worth examining.
Another issue I want to focus on is parliamentary oversight. The Bill provides for the report of the legal services ombudsman to be laid before the Oireachtas and to be fully considered, presumably by a committee of the House. Now that we, as Members of the Oireachtas, are looking at the affairs of the legal profession, perhaps it might be apposite for us, also, to look at our situation in the context of the operation of the system here. Do we genuinely have a system in the Oireachtas whereby proper and full consideration is given to reports of the type mentioned in this Bill? Is it merely for the record that these reports will be laid before the House or are we going to be able to make a continuing input into the system by having them properly examined and debated? I question that and believe it is probably time for us in this Parliament to look within ourselves and decide whether reform is necessary here, so Members of the Oireachtas may provide a better system to the general public in dealing not just with reports from people such as the Ombudsman, but otherwise.
Overall, this Bill is needed. It is part of a process of reform we have to encourage and was recommended by the Competition Authority. Experience in other countries, particularly in England and Wales, has shown that the Ombudsman system has a positive effect from the viewpoint of engendering more confidence among the general public in dealing with lawyers and in providing a more acceptable complaints system. I am delighted to see the Bill, and I want it to be in operation as soon as possible. As far as the legal services ombudsman is concerned, roll on the Bill and let us have it in operation within the coming months, if we can.
I thank the Deputies from the far side of the House for their contributions. I shall follow on from what Deputy Jim O'Keeffe said in his first few words, as a practising solicitor for more than 20 years, before and during my time in this House. I want to echo Deputy O'Keeffe's words as regards the abhorrence that 95% of the solicitors' profession have for some of the revelations that have taken place in recent times. This is not to say it did not happen over the years. During my time in full-time practice, I was always aware that among the general public the solicitors' profession, which I knew more about, but indeed barristers, too, was self-regulatory. When a complaint was made it was very difficult to get closure, but we have moved on a long way from then. The Law Society and the Bar Council, as the representative bodies of their respective professions, because of the general public outcry and the fact that in general society is much more transparent, have made a strong effort to ensure justice is not only seen to be done, but actually done. Clearly, that is something all Members of this House welcome.
I thank Deputies for their broad welcome for this Bill and the support they have given it. As regards the comments Deputy O'Keeffe has made about the plethora of ombudspersons, there is some justification for looking at this. This is why the Government is reviewing the question of getting some synergies among some of the bodies with similar remits. In this instance, however, particularly given that the office of the legal services ombudsman will be funded by a levy from the profession, it is difficult, quite apart from its remit, to see how it might be subsumed into some other office. Nonetheless, I acknowledge and concur with the sentiments expressed by a number of Deputies on the positive contributions made by the various incumbents of Ombudsman offices in this State. I have used them during my career as a public representative and sometimes encouraged constituents to do so on occasions when I could not obtain definite answers to their queries. A number of Deputies expressed the view that the ombudsman should not be a practising member of the legal profession. Section 5 specifically excludes practising barristers and solicitors from appointment as ombudsman, while also providing that the Government satisfies itself that the person appointed has appropriate experience, qualifications, training and expertise.
The legislation gives the ombudsman a broad set of functions and powers. Deputies were concerned to ensure the Bill would not be toothless and that it would contain adequate power of investigation and enforcement. I draw attention to the general functions and powers of the ombudsman provided for in section 9, which include receiving and investigating complaints, reviewing the procedures of the Bar Council and the Law Society for dealing with complaints made to them by clients of barristers and solicitors, assessing the adequacy of the admissions policies of both professional bodies and promoting public awareness of their complaints procedures.
Part 4 contains the substantive provisions relating to the ombudsman's functions in respect of complaints and reviews. He or she will have an array of powers in the investigation of complaints, including to conduct investigations under section 22, to require persons to provide information and to attend before the ombudsman under section 26, to issue directions or make recommendations to the Law Society or Bar Council under section 27 and to enforce directions through the High Court under section 30. In particular, with regard to complaints against solicitors, on completion of an investigation the ombudsman may direct the Law Society to make an application to the solicitors' disciplinary tribunal for an inquiry into alleged misconduct. In the event of a finding of misconduct, the tribunal may refer its findings and recommendations to the President of the High Court.
Deputy Kenneally raised the issue of the power of the Minister to ensure the Law Society or Bar Council do not default on the payment of the levy to cover the cost of the ombudsman's office. I refer him to section 20(1), which gives the Minister the power to make regulations to ensure payment is made by both bodies. The subsection provides for rules on the collection and recovery of the levy, including the rate of interest on amounts not paid when due. An opportunity is provided for the Minister to intervene if both bodies do not make the levy available.
In addition to his or her powers of investigation of individual complaints, the ombudsman has important general review powers under section 32, which enable him or her to review the procedures of the Bar Council and Law Society for dealing with client complaints. These include powers to examine the compliance of barristers and solicitors with complaints procedures, such random complaints as the ombudsman considers appropriate, the effectiveness of the two professional bodies' procedures, the time taken to complete investigations and complaints relating to particular matters as the ombudsman considers appropriate. Arising from such a review, the ombudsman may make written recommendations to the Bar Council and Law Society to improve their complaints investigation procedures and the co-operation of barristers and solicitors with them. If he or she is not satisfied with the response, the ombudsman may direct that the recommendations be implemented and such directions may be enforced through the High Court.
Section 14 is also an important provision in that it gives the ombudsman the power to submit reports to the Minister on issues that, because of their gravity or other exceptional circumstances, should be the subject of a special report. If these functions and powers prove inadequate, section 14 provides that, within two years of the date of appointment, the ombudsman may submit to the Minister a report on the effectiveness of the office and the adequacy of the functions of the office. The legislation, therefore, affords an early opportunity for change if the ombudsman feels he or she does not have the requisite powers.
I have noted Deputy Flanagan's suggestion that the ombudsman should produce a customer charter. Section 23 provides that he or she may establish and publish procedures on the receipt and investigation of complaints and, in that context, he or she could issue a customer's charter.
Deputies Flanagan and Ó Snodaigh queried the need under section 25 for the ombudsman's investigations to be conducted in private. Because many of these matters are sensitive and owing to the personal or private nature of legal services provided by lawyers to clients I consider, having examined the issue, that it is appropriate that investigations carried out by the ombudsman be conducted in private.
A number of Deputies commented on the levy provisions. The 2006 legislation provided for the costs of the office of the ombudsman to be met entirely by the Law Society and the Bar Council. The levy provisions in the 2006 Bill apportioned the cost of the office of the ombudsman between the Law Society and the Bar Council by reference to the respective numbers of practising solicitors and barristers. This would have imposed a disproportionately high charge on the Bar Council in view of the low numbers of complaints made against barristers. In drafting this legislation, the levy provisions were reviewed to take account of this disproportionate charge with a view to putting in place a fairer charging arrangement.
Section 19 of the legislation provides that the costs of the office of the ombudsman be recouped by way of an annual charge on the Law Society and Bar Council. The annual charge will be calculated by reference to the respective numbers of complaints made to the ombudsman relating to solicitors and barristers subject to a minimum charge on each body of at least 10% of the total annual cost. The minimum charge takes account of the costs of carrying out functions additional to investigating individual complaints, including reviewing the complaints mechanisms and the admissions policies of the two bodies. As a result of these changes, the annual charge will be apportioned between the two professional bodies in a manner that reflects the workload of the ombudsman. This brings more proportionality to the levy provisions.
Deputy Rabbitte raised recent cases, which are before the courts, concerning misuse of property title deeds. Generally solicitors were given the opportunity over the years to provide letters of undertaking, as Deputy Flanagan will be aware from his practice. Such letters are no more than a promise by a solicitor to provide the necessary documentation and anybody who abuses this facility should be brought to justice and censured for breaking the trust they are given in this respect. We are putting significant reform in place, which will ensure solicitors, in particular, are punished if they break that trust in closing transactions on the basis of letters of undertaking.
Not surprisingly, several Deputies raised the issue of legal costs. A legal costs Bill is included in the Government's legislative programme, which was published on 23 September 2008. Work is under way in my Department on preparing the scheme of the Bill, which will provide for reform of the manner in which disputed legal costs are assessed. It will also provide for significant improvements in the quality and quantity of the information that a solicitor is required to provide to clients and the manner in which it is supplied. A further objective is to ensure the litigant has a central role to play in controlling his or her legal costs. This will be a new system for assessment of legal costs, which provides information to the public on the law and on a client's entitlements relating to his or her costs.
Deputies Rabbitte and Flanagan raised the issue of the so-called "solicitor's lien", an established right under common law, whereby a solicitor may retain a client's file pending payment from the client. The Competition Authority viewed this as an unnecessary restriction on switching of solicitors by clients and recommended legislating to extinguish this common law right. The policy underpinning the existence of the lien has been approved by the courts here and in England and Wales. As the law stands, two remedies are open to an aggrieved client. He or she may either apply to court to have the lien set aside or complain to the Law Society, which may set aside the lien pursuant to section 8 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994. In addition, the society has in place a practice notice since 1996 dealing with the law and recommended practice in this area. I understand that such disputes are invariably resolved without recourse to the courts.
In the event of the lien being extinguished, it is inevitable that some clients would be required to make full or partial payment for legal services in advance in circumstances in which it does not occur at present. While it is legitimate that solicitors will not allow a file out of their possession until they have their costs paid, they take on business without advance payment. As Deputy Charlie Flanagan would concur, were we to extinguish the lien, solicitors would demand payment up front before proceeding. This would cause unnecessary difficulty for clients who may not be able to afford advance payment. We have considered the matter and the best way to deal with it would be to leave the situation as is, particularly given the censure provided for in section 8 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act. The Law Society may set aside a lien in circumstances of dispute.
Deputy Ó Snodaigh raised the issue of the difficulty in engaging a solicitor to act against another solicitor. While this was the case when I started out, particularly in a small geographic area, and because of the perceived difficulty, the Law Society set up a panel of solicitors who would be available in such circumstances. I am aware of cases taken against solicitors by panel solicitors, an arrangement that has worked well.
The Government's policy of reform of the legal professions is reflected in the enactment this year of the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, which provides for a number of reforms of regulatory matters in respect of solicitors, including providing for a majority of lay membership on the Law Society's regulatory committees, the publication this year of the Legal Services Ombudsman Bill and the commitment to publish a legal costs Bill.
I assure the House that policy is to ensure the highest standards and best practice are maintained by both legal professions. I commend the Dáil and Members on both sides of the House for their good contributions. I hope the Bill passes as soon as possible.
Question put and agreed to.