(Cavan-Monaghan),Mr. M. Cosgrave and Mr. Kelly asked the Taoiseach (a) the procedures under which the Attorney General or the Government select and assign legal representatives to groups of individuals at a Tribunal of Inquiry; and (b) whether such procedures were ever employed prior to 14 February 1981.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Tribunal Legal Representation.
4.
The procedures under which legal representation may be selected or assigned at a tribunal or inquiry must depend upon the circumstances which required the setting up of the tribunal and the nature of the inquiry.
To help to relieve the anxieties of those who were injured in the Stardust fire and the next-of-kin of those who died, the Government decided that full legal representation, without cost, should be made available by the State for all those concerned who wanted such legal representation at the inquiry. The Government were advised by the Attorney General that it would be inappropriate for him or for the Chief State Solicitor to represent the next-of-kin or injured at the inquiry. The Government considered that it would be wasteful of time and effort to have a multiplicity of representation of a common interest at the Tribunal. Accordingly, it was decided to appoint two solicitors which would have the effect of limiting the numbers involved and at the same time offer a choice to the families concerned.
The Attorney General had informal discussions with members of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland and as a result put forward certain names as being suitable to represent those who would wish to have legal aid before the Tribunal without liability as to costs. It was decided to appoint Michael E. Hanahoe & Co., Solicitors, as having general local knowledge. The Government also decided to appoint Mrs. Maura Bates, Solicitor, of the Coolock Law Centre, because the law centre was geographically suitable and the centre was actively involved with a great number of cases concerning people in the area affected by the tragedy. In deference to the wishes of a committee representing a number of the families concerned, the Government have now agreed to provide for the costs of one further legal team, namely, Liam T. Lysaght, Dockrell, Shields & Farrell, Solicitors, of 51-52 Fitzwilliam Square, Dublin, with counsel.
The Solicitors chose their own counsel.
The undertaking given by the Government to pay the costs of legal representation in connection with the inquiry does not extend to the costs of any subsequent actions.
Free legal representation of this kind has not been provided at any other similar tribunal and therefore there were no set procedures to be followed.
Am I correct in saying that there is no legal power for the Government, whether through the Attorney General or otherwise, to engage legal representation for groups of individuals, however sad or deserving their situation may be?
I am not aware of that. On this matter the Government acted on the advice of the Attorney General.
Under what power are the Government acting in this situation?
I assume that the Vote for the Office of the Attorney General would have the capacity to carry a charge of this sort.
Are the Government not aware that the Attorney General's Vote can be applied only to the objects which are defined by law as being the Attorney General's functions and that those functions do not include the engagement of counsel or solicitor either for private individuals or for groups of private individuals? Therefore, any expenditure purported to be imposed on that Vote for such purpose would be illegal.
I am not so aware but I would have to take into consideration the views of the former Attorney General on that matter. I will seek further advice and if necessary I will presume that the matter may be dealt with by way of Supplementary Estimate or of some other mechanism.
Could it be admitted, then, that so far as the Government are aware there is no legal power to confer this benefit, a benefit with which we on this side of the House are in complete agreement? Were the next-of-kin of the victims informed that there was no legal power to do what we have heard is being done?
That matter was not adverted to. The Government's concern primarily was to provide this service for the families concerned as expeditiously as possible. Until the Deputy raised the matter here now, I had assumed that the Vote for the Office of the Attorney General would be adequate to carry this charge but I am not at this stage accepting that the Government have no legal power to pay these costs. However, I will seek further advice on the matter.
Perhaps, then, we might be told——
We cannot have a debate on the matter.
—— why, since it is anticipated that the Vote for the Attorney General will carry the legal expenditure involved, he has told the Government that it would be inappropriate for him or for the Chief State Solicitor to have any part of engaging the legal representation?
That was the Attorney General's advice and my understanding of the basis of that advice is that he has a responsibility to place the facts and the general situation before the tribunal and that in that situation it would be more appropriate for the families concerned to be independently represented.
While no one is questioning that——
I am calling Deputy Cluskey.
I have not finished yet.
We cannot have a debate on the matter.
Is it the position that three solicitors have been appointed to represent the relatives of the victims of the disaster?
That is so.
Does this situation meet in full the wishes and the requests of those relatives?
I am informed that is the position.
I understood that they were seeking a panel of at least six on the basis that they would be at a considerable disadvantage vis-à-vis the proprietors of the Stardust establishment who would have full legal representation concentrating solely on their interests while the relatives would have only three legal representatives to deal with the large number of people involved.
A question, Deputy, please.
Were the relatives of the victims not seeking a minimum of six solicitors?
The point put forward by the Deputy was made by the representatives and I am informed and assured by the committee who are now in being and who are representing the relatives that the addition of this latter firm will render the situation completely satisfactory from their point of view. They have assured me personally on this. The Deputy will be aware that there are now three firms of solicitors available to the relatives. Each of those firms will have a separate team of counsel, both junior and senior. Therefore, there will be a fairly strong representation on the relatives side.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Is the Taoiseach aware of the long-standing practice whereby when a solicitor and counsel are assigned to an accused person in the criminal courts — I know this case is different but the principle is the same — the person concerned contacts a solicitor who contacts counsel? The solicitor and counsel then attend court and say whether they are prepared to act for the accused. They are then assigned to the accused person as the solicitor and counsel selected by himself. Would not this have been a much better procedure to have adopted in the present case? It would have engendered more confidence in justice being done and in being seen to be done. With the exception of the firm of Lysaght, Dockrell, Shields and Farrell, the other two firms are regarded by the relatives——
This is a statement.
(Cavan-Monaghan):——as having been assigned to them as Government counsel. Would the Taoiseach agree that this may lead to a lack of confidence among the relatives in this regard?
The Deputy has made a number of points and I shall deal with the last one first. The difficulty was that there were more than 300 families involved and this meant that the normal process of consultation with them was not really available to the Government.
(Cavan-Monaghan): There was a meeting held.
That was subsequently. As the Deputy points out, there is no similarity between this tribunal and people being represented in the courts.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I did not say that. I said that the principle was the same.
There is a considerable difference between relatives of victims being represented at a tribunal and a criminal trial. However, I wish to assure the Deputy that the Government's intention was to provide a service for the relatives and to provide that service on the most acceptable basis possible. The two persons chosen were chosen entirely and exclusively on that basis. The Community Law Centre were already very much in contact with a number of the families concerned in the normal course of their work and the Government were satisfied that this group would be entirely acceptable to the local families. The other firm were selected entirely on the basis of their general familarity with the area and their knowledge of it, but when it was drawn to our attention by the committee which has now been formed that they felt that they were entitled to some selection of their own, the Government acceded to that point of view and have added the firm selected by them to the panel. All in all, the Government have done everything possible to ensure that the relatives do have satisfactory legal representation at the tribunal. I want again to point out that in other tribunals this service was not made available by the State to the relatives concerned.
Were there any reservations of any nature expressed by the relatives committee as to the two original solicitors appointed? Would the Taoiseach not agree with me that, as was indicated a moment ago, with over 300 families involved that would mean one solicitor trying to deal with over 100 cases not all the same but with considerable differences in many of the cases, and that that representation would appear to be totally inadequate? Would the Government review the situation as to the number and also the form of selection of solicitors appointed on behalf of the relatives?
First of all, no reservations at all were expressed by the relatives or their committee. Their point of view was that they would have wished a firm that they would select not necessarily to represent them but to be available to them.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Let me just say this. That would not be sufficient to enable each of them to discuss the case with them each day.
I am trying to reply to Deputy Cluskey's second point. The point is that there is a commonality of interests between all the relatives and therefore it would be undesirable that the tribunal would be overcrowded and overburdened with representation. There will be a lot of senior and junior counsel there already and it was felt that the three separate teams, both of solicitor and counsel, would be satisfactory from the point of view of the relatives concerned and I am assured very positively that that is now the position.
I am allowing one linal supplementary to Deputy FitzGerald.
Would the Taoiseach not accept in retrospect that it would have been wiser to have consulted with the relatives on the representation before making any appointments? Would he accept the assurance from this side of the House that, if the former Attorney General proves correct in his assertion that in fact the Government are proposing to act beyond their legal powers, the fullest support will be given by this side of the House to any vote or change in the law necessary to facilitate the representation being provided?
I appreciate that offer and will gladly avail of it should the need arise. However, as of now I am not accepting that there will be any need for any additional powers of action by the Government to discharge these costs.
On the question of consultation I think the House will understand that it just was not possible. We were anxious to set up the tribunal as quickly as possible and that it should meet as quickly as possible. and in the time available, if the relatives were to be represented at the first meeting of the tribunal, it was necessary to act very quickly. We did that and I am quite satisfied that the two firms of solicitors selected, particularly the Community Law Centre and the other firm, were totally acceptable to the relatives and the community. But the issue which subsequently arose and which we are now dealing with very fairly was the question of the relatives, or a substantial number of them, being entitled to nominate somebody for themselves, by themselves.
I want to ask one further question.
I allowed numerous supplementary questions on that question. I am calling the next question.
Why were former questions almost identical to this transferred to the Department of the Environment?
(Interruptions.)