asked the Minister for Justice if he is satisfied with the operation of the criminal legal aid scheme; the controls he exercises on the administration of the scheme; and whether he has any plans to improve the operation and efficiency of the scheme.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Criminal Legal Aid Scheme.
24.
I am generally satisfied with the operation of the criminal legal aid scheme introduced under the Criminal Justice (Legal Aid) Act, 1982, but my Department are examining the scheme to see what changes may be needed in the present arrangements for providing criminal legal aid, including changes that might be needed to eliminate possible abuses.
Under the scheme, the grant of legal aid is a matter for the courts and the Supreme Court has ruled that accused persons have a constitutional right to legal aid in certain circumstances. My functions relate to the making of regulations prescribing the form of legal aid certificates, the rates or scales of payment of fees, costs and expenses for lawyers providing legal aid under the scheme, and the manner in which solicitors and counsel are to be assigned pursuant to such certificates. Some 16 sets of regulations have been made, mostly concerned with fees and expenses, and copies are in the Library of the House. Expenditure under the scheme is subject to the scrutiny of the Comptroller and Auditor General.
When the examination of the scheme which my Department are now carrying out has been completed, I propose, in consultation as necessary with other Ministers and the Government, to consider whether changes should be introduced.
I should like to take this opportunity to say that it has emerged that there are some errors in the figures given in reply to a Parliamentary Question of 4 February 1986 from Deputy Prendergast relating to the earnings of various barristers and solicitors under the scheme. Data which would normally have been available from a computer had been accidentally deleted and a great deal of work had to be done manually in a very short time to compile data needed to answer the question. As a result, some of the figures were not subjected to the normal checking and a number of discrepancies have come to notice since.
Naturally, I regret that this occurred but I think it right to say that it occurred because of a laudable, though in the circumstances a misguided, attempt to ensure that the question would be answered on the particular day, no matter what the problems. In fact, something of the order of 4,000 transactions had to be examined in the course of the assembly of the data and, because of an unusual combination of circumstances, the difficulties that had arisen were not brought to the notice of anybody at senior level. A full re-check is now necessary and that will take some time, probably a fortnight. When this has been done I propose, in consultation with the Ceann Comhairle's office, to seek a suitable means, if necessary by inviting Deputy Prendergast to put down a further question, to provide a new set of figures for publication in the Official Report.
It appears that the position is worse than I thought. The Minister has said that he is responsible for the manner in which the moneys are paid and the cases are assigned to solicitors and I want to know if he is now saying that the amounts awarded to a number of solicitors at £120,000, £96,000 and £77,000 are incorrect? Will the Minister say whether they are likely to be higher or lower than was suggested?
I am not saying that the amounts awarded to the various people were wrong in the sense that they were improperly expended. I am saying that the account given in the House, because of the accidental erasure of computer records and other matters I mentioned, was inaccurate. There are some discrepancies in each direction and when we have done the final re-checking I intend to seek a suitable means of putting the corrected figures before the House.
I take it that it will not affect the broad scale of the allocations, that there will be adjustments to them? The Minister is nodding his head and I take it that means they do not. I asked the Minister what controls he exercises on the administration of the scheme. I asked this in particular, because I asked a question on 11 February regarding the number of cases dealt with by the solicitors who received these enormous amounts of money and the number of adjournments involved in those cases. The reply I received pointed out that it would take a disproportionate expenditure of time and money to compile the information sought in regard to the number of cases dealt with by the five solicitors mentioned in the question during the tax year 5 April 1985 or the number of adjournments in those cases for which each solicitor was paid a fee. If the Minister does not know how many cases he is dealing with when we talk about sums of the order of £120,000 and £96,000 or the number of adjournments in such cases, then I suggest that he knows nothing. Does the Minister know anything about these cases? Is any control being exercised? It should be a fairly simple matter to say how many cases went to a solicitor who collected a sum of £120,000 and how many adjournments were involved. Is there a total lack of control in that respect?
This is a fairly straightforward matter and I am quite satisfied that there are controls operating in respect of the scheme. In the question to which the Deputy referred he was not simply asking for the number of cases but was also asking for the number of adjournments involved. As was pointed out to him, that matter would require quite a degree of examination in order to establish full and correct information. As I pointed out in my reply, I have some particular functions in relation to this scheme, not the least of which is prescribing the form of legal aid certificates, rates and scales of payment of fees, costs and expenses and the manner in which solicitors and counsel are to be assigned pursuant to the certificate. There is a very tight control on the scheme and 16 sets of regulations apply. However, my function in the matter does not extend to telling any of the lawyers who are designated under the scheme how they should conduct their business in any particular case.
The Minister has now said that he would have no difficulty in telling me the number of cases involved but that there is a difficulty in relation to the adjournments. I should like the Minister to tell me why he did not give me the number of cases in his reply. He said it would take too much time but at least it would have been half the information sought. I know the adjournments are a different matter but I can only conclude that very little control is being exercised by the Minister in that area——
That does not seem to be a question. I do not take any pleasure in reminding the Deputy that he has been around this House longer than I have been but that he still does not seem to have learned how to formulate a question——
I asked a simple question regarding the number of cases dealt with——
That sort of impertinence got the Minister moved from his last job.
I am sorry if Deputy Haughey thinks I am impertinent; I know he does not suffer impertinence gladly. However, facts are a different matter and if Deputy Woods had sought information which could be given within the time span normally accepted in this House for giving an answer he would have got one.
I was merely seeking information regarding the number of cases involved. If a solicitor is paid a sum of £120,000 at least we should know the number of cases involved.
The information sought in the question would have taken a considerable expenditure of time, effort and money.
When that amount of money is involved the Minister should know all the details.