Amendment No. 1 has been ruled of order because it is outside the scope of the Bill.
SECTION 1.
I thank Chairman for facilitating me by allowing a late start and for giving me such good news at the outset. I recall that a similar amendment was accepted on Committee Stage of the 1991 Bill. Could the Chairman clarify this?
An amendment similar to amendment No. 1 was allowed in the 1991 Special Committee. While I am not required to have regard to such matters, it is clear from the debate that Deputies did not confine their remarks to the issues of solicitors only. I have decided to disallow this amendment so as to ensure relevancy on this occasion.
I must question that decision because the Chair is anticipating the debate. This amendment is exactly the same as the one to the 1991 Bill and was accepted after debate. This amendment relates to the Title of the Bill and the Chair is anticipating the debate by disallowing it at this stage. It is wrong to use the debate which took place in 1991 as a basis for disallowing this amendment because the composition of that committee was different from this one. I regret that I must question the Chair's ruling on this matter.
I agree with Deputy Gilmore. It is in the interests of the committee and the progress of this legislation that we have a tidy debate on Committee Stage and Deputy Gilmore's amendment allows us the opportunity to make the point that the Bill is selective in its reform of the entire legal system. The measures which are before us relating to the regulation of the solicitors' profession fall short of what is needed in terms of looking at the barristers' profession and other aspects of the Fair Trade Commission's recommendations. However, there is always a temptation on Committee Stage to debate matters which should be included in the legislation and that is the purpose of Deputy Gilmore's amendment. I agree with Deputy Gilmore and support his request for a short debate on this matter, even though it is outside the terms of the Bill. It is not outside the terms of the overall reform needed for the provision of legal services.
I also support Deputy Gilmore. If this amendment was in order on a previous occasion, I do not see why it should not be in order now. My view of the position of the Chair is that the Chairman in any proceedings should always give the benefit of the doubt to the Opposition since the Government of the day will have a majority and, in this particular case, a very substantial majority. An arbitrary decision of this kind abrogates our rights as legislators and I have to support Deputy Gilmore. His amendment should be debated.
Amendment No. 1 proposes the alteration of the short title to include branches of the legal profession other than solicitors. The provisions of this Bill as read a Second Time relate only to the regulation of solicitors and therefore the amendment is outside the scope of the Bill. My rulings on the amendments are entirely consistent with those of the Ceann Comhairle. I want to make it clear that this is not arbitrary. I am being consistent here. This is a Bill about solicitors, not the other legal professions.
On a point of order, I respectively point out to the Chairman this Bill is not exclusively about solicitors. There are provisions in this Bill, for instance, which give banks the right to carry out conveyancing transactions and the Minister is indicating that he intends putting forward proposals to allow credit unions to do that also. It is not just about solicitors but much more than that.
The Bill concerns one branch of the legal profession. I am consistent with the rulings of the Ceann Comhairle and if we are not accepting them——
There are other amendments about which I am concerned and therefore I have to say that we may have to seek a judicial review if the rights of the Opposition are being overrun in this manner. This is not the right way to treat a Legislature. This amendment was in order before; it should be in order now. The Bill extends beyond the question of the regulation of solicitors. It deals with the department of an ombudsman and conveyancing rights for banks, for example. If the Minister can put forward proposals of that kind surely the Opposition should be allowed similar leeway.
I do not want to hold up the progress of the committee but, in relation to the scope of the Bill, the Long Title states that this is an Act to amend and extend the Solicitors Acts 1954 and 1960, and to provide for related matters. Deputy Mitchell has mentioned some of the related matters. There is a view that this Bill arose following the report of the Fair Trade Commission in 1990 and the Minister of State acknowledged this on Second Stage. The Fair Trade Commission referred to solicitors and located that profession in the context of the wider legal profession. During the Second Stage debate a number of Members, including myself, argued that what was required was legislation with a wider application than solicitors. It seemed anomalous that the barrister profession, for example, which many people would argue is probably in far more need of legislation than solicitors, is excluded although the solicitors profession quite clearly needs reforming legislation as well.
Both sections of the legal profession require root and branch reform. The Fair Trade Commission report made a recommendation, which is not reflected in the Bill, that the process of fusing the two branches of the legal profession should be commenced. It is perfectly in order that members of the committee have the right to raise this fundamental issue in the context of the Committee Stage of this Bill and begin the fusion of the two sections of the legal profession and the root and branch reform which is required.
I do not see why the Minister should have excluded the Bar from the remit of the legislation when the Bar was referred to in the Fair Trade Commission report. I do not see why, in the public interest, it should be excluded when there is widespread concern about, for example, the charges and fees being levied by members of the Bar, particularly in some of the more high profile cases that have arisen recently. I am very disappointed that the Chairman is now seeking to prevent debate on this important matter by ruling out of order an amendment which was ruled to be in order when an identical amendment was proposed to the 1991 Bill when that went into committee.
It is a pity that I am about the seventh speaker to discuss whether this amendment should or should not be discussed. The debate on the amendment would probably be over at this stage if it had been allowed continue. Regardless of what happened in 1991, it is difficult to anticipate what anyone will say on this Bill and whether or not they will stray from a discussion of solicitors to one of barristers. If one is dealing with local government or fair trading there is less scope for talking about barristers and this is surely the Bill concerned with the legal matters. While it makes it difficult for the Chairman to decide that people are going outside the scope of the Bill, if the 1991 debate was too wide-ranging it was more a reflection on the Chair than on the people contributing.
I welcome those comments because that is the point I am making. I was not responsible for what happened in 1991 but I am responsible for what is happening now. This is the Solicitors (Amendment) Bill. I am being consistent and I am trying to assist members. I suggest that Deputies may wish to consult the Bills Office for advice as to how their amendments may be modified to ensure they are in order.
I am not going to speak at any great length but, as someone who was involved on the Committee Stage of the 1991 Bill, I have great difficulty understanding how an amendment that was previously in order could now be ruled out of order when we are dealing with legislation that is largely the same as that with which we dealt at that time. I find that incomprehensible.
I am interested in one aspect which the Chairman might clarify. I assume he is acting on advice, whether it derives from the Bills Office or other sources. I am concerned as it seems to me that the dead hand of the Attorney General's office in the drafting of legislation has ensured that there is never a spotlight on the inadequacies of the Bar. Governments of different political hues are steered clear of ever enacting legislation that provides for the regulation of the Bar. All the regulatory legislation is directed entirely at the solicitor profession. Wearing my other hat as a solicitor, I am not complaining about that. I agree that there is a need to reform solicitors' legislation. However, I have a problem with the dead hand of the Attorney General's office, and the vested interest the Law Library has in that office, operating on the workings of this Committee and delimiting the work which we, as public representatives, can do in seeking to amend legislation in the public interest and seeking to debate the need to amend legislation.
This committee does not have a role in preserving the privileges of the Bar. I deeply regret that this legislation is not broader. Amendments tabled last time on this Bill, to at least give us the opportunity to discuss issues that need to be addressed, could not possibly, legally speaking, be outside the terms of the work we are doing today. I cannot comprehend that.
I appreciate the Chairman's wish to keep this matter and the debate relevant. The debate on this Bill is concerned with ensuring that the general public get a proper legal service from the legal profession. While there are certainly some inadequacies in the solicitors' profession, far too frequently solicitors are "fall guys" for the inadequacy of the Bar. I support Deputy Gilmore's proposal that this amendment be discussed. I am curious as to the role of the Attorney General's Office in the drafting of this legislation and with regard to the advice you got about the manner in which we should deal with it.
This is an important issue, not just in regard to this amendment but in regard to how we deal with a series of amendments throughout the course of discussion on this Bill. I do not believe this committee in dealing with this Bill can be constrained to talking about the workings of the legal profession. Every time someone mentions a member of that profession who is not a solicitor but a barrister, they will be ruled out of order. I am very concerned that we do not establish this as a precedent today because I think it will cause substantial difficulties in the days ahead.
It is important that we get off to a proper start. I will not accept any unfair criticism of my own ruling here. I am generally satisfied that my ruling is correct here. The amendment seeks to delete "Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994" and substitute "Regulations of Legal Profession Act 1994". The committee is not empowered to change the regulation. They are not empowered to change the title of the Bill. If the Minister wishes to do it in the Dáil, he may do so. Standing Orders do not allow us to do so. I will go a step further in relation to Deputy Shatter's comments about a wide ranging debate on all professions. I will be ruling on that, because this is the Solicitors Bill and I will be consistent in relation to what the issue before us is. This is the Solicitors (Amendment) Bill and I will be looking for co-operation from the Members.
Chairman, just so we can understand the implications of your ruling, perhaps you can do the Members the courtesy of indicating what other amendments currently tabled will be ruled out of order on this basis.
There are other amendments here which are ruled out of order as well. This is the Solicitors (Amendment) Bill and I will endeavour to keep the debate relevant to what is before us. I will not be moving from this.
Chairman, I am sympathetic to your problem, but the political point that has been expressed around this table is that it is a missed opportunity, that this Bill is missing an opportunity to look into the recommendations of the Fair Trade Commission.
That may be so, but I am dealing with what I have before me here today, not what might or should be here. I am dealing with the Bill as we have it and I will be consistent in that.
Chairman, this represents a slippage in parliamentary democracy and in the role of the Opposition in debating and scrutinising legislation. There should be some flexibility in your attitude to the role of the Opposition in putting forward amendments to scrutinise legislation. If you are indicating that you will put a veto on anything that is not directly relevant to the actual sections, that will stifle the debate and the Bill will be the worse for it and politics will be the worse for it.
In relation to the rulings on these amendments — some I tabled have been ruled out of order and I will make a point about that later on — what is the role of the Attorney General in all of this? Constitutionally the Attorney General advises the Government and not Parliament. His advice is never available to parliamentary committees. I say this as someone who chaired a parliamentary committee for six years. Are we to find that via the Department of Justice or the Ceann Comhairle's Office the Attorney General is offering advice on what is and what is not in order for us to consider?
I am advised by the Bills Office of the House, not by the Attorney General.
By whom are they advised? What legal advice have they obtained? Where have they obtained their advice?
They have their own members of the legal profession in the Bills Office.
Is the committee getting an absolute assurance that it is not relying either directly or indirectly on the influence of the Attorney General's Office on these amendments?
The committee will get assurances that we will deal with the business before us.
Chairman, I am very concerned. The Attorney General advises the Government, it does not advise Parliament. That is a constitutional difference which I have been seeking to change for a long time. I believe that solicitors should be called lawyers and I want to put forward that proposal. I want to say at a later stage why I believe other amendments are in order. I do not want to cause you any difficulty, but if the Attorney General is in any way directly or indirectly putting his heavy hand on this committee as has been suggested — and I have to say I have my suspicions in relation to further amendments later on — then it is time that the Houses of the Oireachtas got their own independent legal counsel.
Deputy, I am advised by the Bills Office and that is the position as far as I am concerned.
I would like to support your ruling in relation to this matter, Sir. The Bill before us is the Solicitors (Amendment) Bill, 1994. You have ruled that the Bill mainly refers to reform in matters relating to solicitors and, as the last speaker mentioned, earlier on you pre-empted a debate that could go into other areas not accommodated in the Solicitors Bill.
Following Deputy Mitchell's comments earlier on pre-empting the debate two speakers referred to other members of the legal profession who are not dealt with in the Bill. Therefore, it is proving the point that if the amendment were taken, the debate that would follow that amendment would be outside the scope of this Bill. I support your view in that regard.
We are a select committee and under the terms of reference it is my understanding that we are not empowered to discuss anything other than what is referred from the Dáil to this committee. Before us is the Solicitors (Amendment) Bill. I am sure that on Second Stage many Members who had the desire to express concern in relation to other areas did so and will have the opportunity to do so in the future.
It is regrettable that one Member decided to tarnish the Attorney General and his Office in relation to legislation coming through this committee. As a matter of record, this should be corrected and the Member concerned should also be made fully aware — indeed the Member is fully aware — of all avenues and opportunities that are available to him to raise any matter. If he feels there is one particular area of the legal profession that warrants attention, he could use Private Members Time to direct his energies and efforts in that area. He has been successful in doing that in the past.
I presume those remarks are directed to me. I raised very specific questions, most of which have not been replied to. I have not sought to tarnish anyone. I have simply sought information. I do not know why the Deputy is so sensitive.
I did say, Deputy, that you made some points with which I sympathise, but the fact is that we have legislation before us here, we have terms of reference which govern our business and I am complying with them. I am consistent with the rulings of the Ceann Comhairle in relation to those matters.
I want to deal with the question of consistency. The difficulty that we have here is precisely what is wrong with the legislation before us. We are confined to addressing just one wing of the legal profession. We have an obligation as members of this committee particularly at a time when there is a public demand for reform of the legal profession, to address the wing of the legal profession that still parades around in wigs and gowns and one of whose qualifications is to eat so many times at Kings Inns.
There is some obligation on us to address some reform in that area. My amendment was simply to try. This whole matter was referred to on Second Stage and my amendment was designed to open up that area of discussion. I accept the point you make that in the normal course of events members of this committee should consult with the Bills Office about tabling amendments. I did not consult with the Bills Office about the tabling of this amendment because this amendment was ruled to be in order in 1991. I naturally assumed, given what you have said about consistency, that it would be ruled in order again in 1994.
I have a difficulty here. In the normal course of events, Chairman, I am quite happy to accept the Chair's rulings. When an amendment is ruled out of order it is ruled out of order, but I cannot accept a ruling which rules out of order in 1994 an amendment that was ruled in order in 1991. I respectfully ask you to reconsider the matter of this amendment. I do not know if procedurally we can come back to this amendment at a later stage in the debate. I would be happy to allow that to happen if that can be facilitated. I would need to have an explanation, other than the explanation given, as to why an amendment which was in order in 1991 is out of order in 1994. It is not sufficient to justify that decision by reference to the debate that took place in 1991, because the nature of the debate here may not be the same. I wish to have this amendment debated later on Committee Stage. This will allow you a further opportunity to reconsider the matter. I regret to say that if you are not prepared to facilitate me in that way I will obviously have to see what other recourse is open to me.
I regret the Deputy may have to approach this matter in another way. I want to be clear on this. I am not using 1991 as a precedent for my decision now. I have already said that the motion proposes to delete "Solicitors (Amendment) Act, 1994" and substitute "Regulation of Legal Professions Act, 1994". As a Committee, we are not entitled to do that. The Deputy should have requested that be done in the Dáil. As a Committee, we do not have the legal power under Standing Orders to make that adjustment. The debate has gone on for long enough. I have allowed wide discussion on it and I propose to move on to the next amendment.
I do not accept your ruling. I would like you to advise me on how your ruling can be challenged because I would like to formally challenge your ruling.
You indicated that you intended to pursue this in another forum.
I did not say another forum; I said another way. I asked you to delay the debate on this amendment to a later stage. If you are not prepared to facilitate me, I am now challenging your ruling on the matter.
I am not prepared to delay it. I am quite happy that my ruling is in order and consistent with the terms of reference of the committee. The amendment is out of order. I will move on to amendment No. 2 in the names of Deputies Mitchell and Browne. Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are alternatives. Amendments Nos. 2 to 5, inclusive, will be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 6, lines 16 to 21, to delete subsections (3) and (5) and substitute the following:
"(3) This Act shall come into operation 3 months after the date of its passing.".
This Bill seeks to amend the Solicitors Acts, 1954 and 1960. It is 34 years since the last major legislation was enacted, or 40 years since the 1954 legislation was enacted. We are now proposing that section 68 of this Act should come into operation three months after the date of its passing; section 15 of this Act should come into operation on such days as may be fixed by order of the Minister. Section 15 deals with the question of the adjudicator, or ombudsman as some Members would wish to call him in later amendments. We are passing legislation here which will give the Minister the right at a future unnamed date to decide if and when it will become law.
In relation to the appointment of an ombudsman to hear complaints under section 15, it is unacceptable that no future date be mentioned. Section 1 (5) states that sections 16, 17 18, 22, 23, 25 and 58 (3) which mainly deal with the disciplinary tribunal and matters related to that shall come into operation on such day as may be fixed by order of the Minister. I propose that this legislation should come into effect three months after the date of its passing. Three months after the date of its passing will be some time down the road. I do not know if this Bill will be passed before the summer recess as it is a very detailed Bill. But gives us many months to prepare for the implementation of those sections. I feel that the Bill coming into operation three months after the date of its passing is reasonable. In general I oppose giving powers on a wily nilly basis where a Minister can bring a Bill into operation at any time in the future, or not bring it in at all if he sees fit.
I wish to refer to amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5 in my name. A white sheet has been circulated to amend amendment No. 3. It relates to sub-section (3). Under the Bill as presented, section 3 states that section 68 shall come into operation three months after the date of its passing. Section 68 deals with the requirement being placed on solicitors to give their clients a breakdown of the charges they propose at the outset of their business. I do not understand why it is necessary to have a period of three months after the passing of this legislation before there is a requirement on solicitors to provide that information to their clients.
This Bill has been in gestation for a long time. The Fair Trade Commission reported on this in 1990. The 1991 Bill, which is similar to this Bill, has been floating around for three years. It is widely known in the legal profession that this Bill is under debate in this House. Members of the solicitors' profession have had ample opportunity to prepare for the evil day when they will have to supply their clients with a breakdown of the charges they propose before taking on their business.
We must not have a position, as is so often the case, where one goes to a solicitor go get advice, is led along and then, on the steps of the court, a large sum of money is demanded before the solicitor agrees to proceed in court with the case. One could also have a situation where one would go to a solicitor to conduct certain business and at the end of the transaction get an enormous bill from the solicitor. It is normal practice in other walks in life that if one is asked to provide a service they readily provide the potential client with an estimate of the charge.
Section 68 requires solicitors to provide clients with that information in advance of taking on their case. I do not understand why there should be a three month interval, particularly as the legislation has been floating around for three years. The purpose of my amendment is to enable that provision to come into effect immediately.
Amendment No. 4 relates to section 15 which deals with the person who is called "the adjudicator". That is the person who will investigate complaints on behalf of clients of solicitors, or people acting on their behalf. That should come into effect immediately after the Bill is passed not on a date to be fixed by order of the Minister.
Sections 16, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23 and so on, deal with disciplinary matters and proceedings being brought before the High Court by clients of solicitors. Those should come into effect immediately. There is no necessity to delay the implementation of those sections until the Minister fixes a date by order. Unfortunately, in the history of the Bill the Minister has been too willing to bend to pressure from the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland. I am concerned that if there are provisions in the Bill which require an order of the Minister for their introduction after the enactment of the legislation, the Minister may continue to be put under pressure by the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland and that sections of the Bill may be delayed long after the Bill has passed. I would therefore like to relieve the Minister of the possibility that he may be put under some additional pressure from the society or any other part of the profession.
I support amendment No. 2, in the name of Deputy Mitchell and Deputy Browne, regarding the Act coming into operation "3 months after the date of its passing". The principle of the Bill is to champion the rights of the public as consumers of legal services. The Bill is consumer driven. That is its purpose. If it is recognised that the consumer has rights regarding the provision of legal services, if a range of disciplinary and investigative procedures are established to ensure that the consumer gets good service and if those rights are then postponed at the whim of the Minister, they are then negated. Any rights postponed amounts to the denial of those rights.
There has been a reluctance by the legal profession, and not only the solicitors profession, to adapt to change. This kind of intransigence is dwindling somewhat as this legislation is moving it along. Therefore, rather than leave the matter open to the decision of the Minister to introduce the various sections of the Bill when it is enacted, especially those sections regarding investigative procedures, disciplinary matters and costs, it would be prudent to ensure that such services are immediately provided, including the protection of the rights of citizens as consumers of legal services.
Reform of local government is under consideration by the Dáil at present, but this also will be postponed reform until after the 1998 elections. This is something to be wary of, as any radical reforms, such as those proposed in this Bill, must be effected immediately rather than left to be negotiated after the event between the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland and the Minister.
When regulating and seeking to further regulate the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland, which is self regulatory, there is a danger of too much cosiness between the society and legislators. As an Opposition spokesperson, I have had to be wary of consultation with the society. Our focus as legislators, and the focus of the Minister, should be in protecting the public interest. Good and prudent consultation is necessary with the society, because the committee is implementing changes in the Bill which vitally affects the running of solicitor's practices. However, regarding the coming into effect of the measures of protection for consumers in the Bill, the committee should err on the side of the consumer, inject some urgency and bring the measures on the issue of costs into immediate effect.
Regarding the other aspects of the Bill, it will take the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland at least three months to establish the complicated disciplinary procedures and the office of a legal ombudsman, with all of the parameters and personnel involved in that. Three months is a reasonable period of time for the society to get its house in order, to have the ombudsman appointed and to determine the parameters of the office, its funding and the panoply of implications regarding the establishment of the office. However, there should be a sense of urgency injected by this committee on these matters.
Section 1 (4) states: "Section 15 of this Act shall come into operation on such day as may be fixed by order of the Minister.", and section 1 (5) states: "Sections 16, 17, 18, 22, 23, 25 and 58 (3) of this Act shall come into operation on such day as may be fixed by order of the Minister." I have noted this kind of wording on other legislation over the years, but may I ask the Minister to explain the rationale behind these subsections? I should be interested to know the thinking of the parliamentary draftsman when inserting such subsections.
If amendment No. 4 is accepted, section 15 will be operative immediately upon the passing of the legislation. Section 15 deals with the requirement of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland to establish an independent adjudication system. When the legislation is passed, the society will proceed with the establishment of this system. It will take some time to put in place as it will entail the interviewing of people, the appointment of staff, the opening of offices and so on. It does not require a subsection of the Bill stating that it will "come into operation on such day as may be fixed by order of the Minister.". The requirement will be operative immediately and the system of appointing the independent adjudicator will commence on the passage of this legislation. Some urgency should perhaps be injected into the matter and I hope that the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland is taking preliminary steps in this regard, before the legislation is passed, to ensure that the society will be in a good position to have the system in place at the earliest opportunity.
The effect of amendment No. 2. proposed by Deputy Mitchell, is to postpone the coming into operation of the Bill for three months after the date of its passing. Under section 1, all of the provisions of the Bill, with the exception of section 68 and section 15, unless it is deleted from the Bill by amendment No. 4, and all of the various sections dealing with the new disciplinary tribunal, come into effect immediately on the passing of the Bill. It is not necessary to delay all other provision in the Bill for three months, as amendment No. 2 would do.
The reason the provisions referred to in section 1 (5) will not "come into operation until such day as may be fixed by order of the Minister." is to allow the new disciplinary tribunal to be established. There is no hidden agenda in this respect. We are making substantial changes in the procedure for dealing with allegations of misconduct against solicitors. We are replacing the disciplinary committee by a disciplinary tribunal to which lay people will be appointed. I hope that the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland will have this completed within three months. I do not believe it is advisable to place a straight jacket of a three month time limit on the matter, because legal difficulties may arise if this time limit was slightly exceeded as there is some work to be undertaken on the matter.
When the sections were debated it was agreed that they are in the interests of the public. For the first time the public is being allowed to participate in the disciplinary tribunal and we are also making some other substantial changes to the operation of the tribunal. It will take some time to put the tribunal in place as it could not start on the passage of the legislation and the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland would not have been in a position to do anything regarding the matter to date, even with knowledge of the legislation, as the society cannot anticipate what changes may be made on Committee Stage.
I assure the committee that I will endeavour to have the disciplinary tribunal established within three months of the passing of the Bill. There is no good reason why all the other provisions of the Bill, bar section 68, should not become operative once the Bill has been passed. The reason for placing a three month time limit on section 68 is because it places substantial new obligations on solicitors in relation to informing their clients about charges for legal services.
I want to give the Law Society an opportunity to inform solicitors of their new obligations. This will come into operation three months after the passing of the legislation. I would like to see uniformity in this matter by the issuing of general guidelines to solicitors about how they observe the provisions of the section relating to charges. In contentious cases the basis of how charges are set out in advance and the guidelines used to give clients clear guidance on the circumstances in which the cost of both parties will not meet their entire obligations are a matter for debate. There is no hidden agenda or anything sinister behind this. Its intention is to enable everybody to be fully informed and have general guidelines so that nobody can say they did not understand this, and that they are made aware of the situation unfairly by not being given notice. We are giving them three months to put the system into operation and to obtain comprehensive guidelines on, and detailed explanations of the substantial new obligations on solicitors. Three months is not unreasonable.
If the Minister were to assure the committee that, in relation to sections 16, 17, 18, 22, 23, 25, and 58 (3), he will ensure it will come into operation not later than six months after the passing of the Bill, which is a reasonable period, I would be happy not to press the amendment.
We are moving in the direction of agreement on some of these amendments. I am happy to support Deputy Mitchell's suggestion. Six months is perhaps generous but to avoid disagreement I will agree to it. I have difficulty with the delay in relation to section 68. There may be difficulties resulting from it. I appreciate the Minister's point that the Law Society, after the passage of the legislation, will require time to advise solicitors that this requirement is now imposed on them and that it may be necessary for the society to provide advice and guidance on the matter.
I appreciate the Minister's point that the society cannot anticipate the changes which will be made to the Bill during its passage through the Oireachtas. However, it is widely accepted that section 68, as it stands, imposes an obligation on solicitors to inform their clients about the cost of services. It also provides for a prohibition on solicitors taking as costs a portion of damages awards. I do not think there are many solicitors who are unaware that there has been amending legislation before the Oireachtas for the past three years or so and that this issue is under consideration. The Law Society made their views on aspects of the Bill known to Members and publicly. The society's members have been well alerted to the possibility that this legislation will be passed.
A three-month delay will result in difficulties. Section 68 states that the point at which the obligation falls on the solicitor to provide the information to the client is on the taking of instructions to provide legal services to the client. At what point is this? There can often be grey areas here. Often when a client seeks advice from a solicitor, it is not entirely clear whether he or she has given a specific instruction to the solicitor to write a leter or initiate proceedings. I can envisage confusion arising as to when the three months starts. If somebody goes to a solicitor for advice two months after the passage of this legislation, at what point does the obligation fall on the solicitor to advise the client about the possible costs involved?
Section 68 (3) states:
A solicitor shall not deduct or appropriate any amount in respect of all or any part of his charges from the amount of any damages or other moneys that become payable to a client of that solicitor arising out of any contentious business carried out on behalf of that client by that solicitor.
In what situations does this apply? Does it apply to cases involving payment of damages which are before the courts? This Bill is designed to deal with rogue solicitors, who take chances. Most solicitors do not treat their clients badly. Solicitors know that if cases before the courts are heard within the three-month period they will not have to comply with this. I can envisage a grey area concerning the dates and times of hearings and when damages are awarded. Many difficulties will arise within this three-month period. The legislation would be better without it. Solicitors already have had advance notice that the Bill is on the way and it should come into effect as soon as the legislation is passed so that there is no subsequent confusion.
With regard to any difficulties or ambiguities which may arise during the three-month interval, we can look at section 68 in detail when we come to it. There may be changes we can make to it to ensure, as far as is humanly possible, that these problems do not arise. In relation to Deputy Mitchell's request, I will endeavour to establish that tribunal. I am almost certain it will be established within three months. Deputy Mitchell will be aware, from the provisions of the legislation, that the Department of Justice also has a role in the matter. The Minister will appoint the tribunal's five lay members and I can assure the Deputy that this will be done immediately on the passing of the Bill. There will be no delay on our side. The Law Society requested this change, is enthusiastic about it and is anxious that it be implemented. I can see no reason why the tribunal will not be in operation within three months, let alone six months.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 6, lines 18 and 19, to delete subsection (4).
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 5 not moved.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.