European Agreement on the Transmission of Applications for Legal Aid: Motion.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Collins)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the terms of the European Agreement on the Transmission of Applications for Legal Aid which was opened for signature by the Member States of the Council of Europe on 27 January, 1977, copies of which were laid before Dáil Éireann on 25 March, 1988."

The object of the European agreement on Transmission of applications for Legal Aid is to provide procedural machinery to enable residents of Contracting States of the Council of Europe who wish to apply for legal aid in civil, commercial or administrative matters in another Contracting State to do so via a transmitting authority in the State in which they are resident. The agreement does not affect in any way a person's entitlement to legal aid in any State. It is concerned with procedural and administrative matters only.

The provisions of our civil legal aid scheme, which is administered by the Legal Aid Board, are not confined to nationals of the State. It is open to any person, whether resident here or not, who requires legal aid in connection with a matter which is before our courts to apply to the board under the scheme. Accordingly, signature of the European agreement on Transmission of Applications for Legal Aid by Ireland would not create rights to legal aid that do not already exist under our existing scheme of civil legal aid. No amendment of the terms of the scheme of civil legal aid and advice is necessary to enable Ireland to ratify the European Agreement.

The European Agreement was opened for signature on 27 January 1977 and it entered into force on 28 February 1977. So far it has been ratified by 13 of the Council of Europe member states — Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Turkey and the United Kingdom. Switzerland has signed the agreement subject to ratification. Non-member states of the Council of Europe may also accede to the agreement, and Finland has done so.

The main benefit arising from signature, is that the European Agreement on Transmission of Applications for Legal Aid will facilitate people in Ireland who wish to pursue their entitlements to legal aid in other countries that are parties to the agreement. In practical terms this will represent a considerable improvement for people in Ireland who want to apply for legal aid in those countries. At present such people are at a considerable disadvantage. They are faced with problems of getting accurate information on legal aid facilities in foreign countries, with establishing lines of communication, and this is often compounded by language difficulties.

I would now like to outline briefly the main provisions of the agreement. Article 2 is the principal provision. It creates administrative machinery for transmitting applications for legal aid between the contracting States. This involves the designation of "receiving" and "transmitting" authorities in each State. In our case the Legal Aid Board, which administer the scheme of civil legal aid and advice, will be the relevant authority to forward applications for legal aid to the receiving agencies in other countries, and to receive and take action on, applications for legal aid coming from the other contracting states.

Under Article 3 the transmitting authority is required to assist the applicant for legal aid in ensuring that the application is accompanied by all the relevant documentation required by the receiving authority in the other country. This assistance includes providing any necessary translation of documents. Documents forwarded under the agreement are exempt from legalisation or equivalent formalities under the provisions of article 4. Under Article 5 no charges may be levied by the contracting States in respect of services rendered under the agreement.

Article 6 contains provisions in relation to the language in which documents are to be drawn up for transmission. In effect, English or French are the main languages involved. Article 7 provides for an exchange of information as between the contracting states on their rules concerning legal aid.

The Legal Aid Board have indicated that they favour signature of the agreement by Ireland. Signature will assist the board in handling applications under the civil legal aid scheme received from people resident in other contracting states. As I have indicated, the main benefit for people living in Ireland is that machinery will be in place to enable them to process their applications for legal aid to other European countries which have ratified or acceded to the agreement, and that they will receive all the assistance they require to make their applications.

I would now like to give a few examples of the practical benefits of the European Agreement in particular cases for Irish people. Suppose an Irish wife who has been deserted by her husband is served with papers relating to her husband's petition for a divorce in England. The Legal Aid Board will be able to assist the wife in such a case by sending the relevant documents to the legal aid authority in England, so that the question of her entitlement to legal aid in England in connection with the proceedings can be considered.

Again, if a wife here who is legally aided, wishes to enforce an Irish maintenance order in her favour abroad, the Legal Aid Board will be able to use the provisions of the agreement to help her to secure her entitlement to legal aid in connection with the special enforcement procedures provided for by the "Judgements Convention" of the European Communities. Effect was given in this country to that convention by the Jurisdiction of Courts and Enforcement of Judgments Act, 1988. Under that convention a maintenance creditor wishing to enforce a maintenance order in another EC country is entitled to legal aid to bring the application for enforcement before the foreign court, if she or he was in receipt of legal aid at home.

As regards the impact of this on the work of the Legal Aid Board, I realise that the board's resources are under some strain at present, but it estimates that the number of applications it will have to process under the European Agreement will not be significant, and will be confined mainly to requests involving the United Kingdom and Ireland. From what we know of the operation of the agreement in other European countries, the volume of cases involved has been small.

From an administrative point of view, ratification of the European Agreement on Transmission of Applications for Legal Aid will be a positive assistance to the board, because the board already receive requests from people resident here about legal aid entitlements in other European countries. The framework provided under the European Agreement will enable the board to deal with such requests more effectively.

Some expenses may be incurred by the board. Although these would be negligible, and should be confined mainly to incidental translation costs I have been advised that the agreement is not one that is saved from the requirement of Dáil approval by the provisions of Article 29.5.3º of the Constitution, which exempts agreements of a technical and administrative character from Dáil approval. Since the terms of Article 5 of the agreement require that the State bear the cost of any services rendered under the agreement — for example the cost of translation of documents — the Government has authorised me to seek Dáil approval of the terms of the agreement, in accordance with the provisions of Article 29.2.5º of the Constitution.

After such approval, the Minister for Foreign Affairs will arrange for signature of the agreement, on behalf of Ireland and for lodgment of the necessary Declaration designating the Legal Aid Board as the transmitting and receiving authority for Ireland. In accordance with Article 10 of the Agreement, its provisions will enter into force one month after the date of signature.

I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. S. Barrett

As this agreement is concerned with procedural and administrative matters only we, on this side of the House, will not be opposing it.

I have no doubt but that this agreement will prove to be of positive assistance to many of our people wishing to avail of legal aid in other countries. I refer in particular to people who find themselves in the unfortunate position — where there is divorce, Irish style — when husbands pack their bags and disappear, leaving wives and families stranded. I sincerely hope that the terms of this agreement will help those unfortunate wives and families, enabling them to pursue their rights.

The Minister said that our Legal Aid Board will be charged with dealing with the technicalities involved under the terms of this agreement, contending that there will be very little such work involved. The problem is that we continue to burden existing boards with extra tasks, with the idea in mind that there is very little work involved. What happens is that such boards find themselves with more and more work and less resources available to them. That is the problem with civil legal aid here. We have totally ignored the fact that a large section of our community is deprived of their rights to defend themselves in court and obtain a fair hearing because they do not have the money to engage a solicitor or barrister to pursue those rights. The position of such people is deteriorating constantly. All of us in public life come across such people frequently. More and more people come to us seeking advice. All we can say to such people is that this is really a matter for the courts. Inevitably they reply that they do not have the money to take such action.

We live in a democracy. However it must be recognised that, at times, that system is an expensive one to live under. Nonetheless, if we call ourselves democrats, there are certain rights we must protect. Slowly but surely we are arriving at a position here when, unless one has money, one is unable to pursue one's rights, particularly in regard to civil matters, in our courts. That is a danger for democracy. We must recognise that the sooner we implement a proper system of free civil legal aid the better, thereby protecting the democracy we all cherish. At times it is heartbreaking to encounter individuals, particularly in the family law area, who have been awaiting help for months on end and many others who will not receive such help at all. Indeed the civil legal aid scheme we have has not even been established on a statutory basis. If my recollection is correct it was established when the present Minister was the incumbent of that office in 1979. Yet for the past nine years — and I do not blame merely the present Minister — there has been nothing done to pursue the recommendations of the very comprehensive Pringle report. Indeed there are more and more problems being encountered which prevent the present inadequate system being operated properly.

I recognise that every Minister for Justice sitting at the Cabinet table seeking money for his Department is faced with a dilemma to obtain an adequate allocation for the commitments of his Department, such as pay for the Garda Síochána, prison officers and so on. I appreciate his dilemma in that respect. When one looks at this year's Estimates one finds the same pattern emerging. For example, one notes that the probation and welfare service has been subjected to a decrease in their allocation from last year. Yet we continue to pay more and more prison officers and gardaí, probably the very people who could keep people out of prison or, when they are released, prevent them from re-entry but we are depriving these officers of the necessary resources. In other words, we are straying away from preventive action.

We are told that there is no money available for such matters as civil legal aid. However, money will be found some day when a large number of our people decide to march in the streets demanding their rights to have somebody defend them in courts and have those rights upheld. As legislators we must point out to the Minister and his colleagues in Government that, no matter what the consequences, there are certain services for which we must pay. If the money has to be found elsewhere, so be it.

Again examining this year's Estimates, I note that there is a large increase under the subhead for office equipment and so on in the Department of Justice. While I am sure there is a valid reason therefore I shall be questioning the Minister in that respect. When it comes to the probation and welfare service, or civil legal aid, one finds there is no money allocated. We had better get our priorities in order. We had better decide whether we will look after the rights of individuals or merely deploy more machines to write to people informing them that we regret we do not have the necessary funds available to do so, or that we do not have the necessary funds to provide them with the services for which they pay their taxes. It is somewhat like the position prevailing in the local government area, when an individual may receive up to 50 letters informing him or her why a pothole cannot be filled. There are plenty of people to type such letters but nobody to fill the potholes. That is the way this system is developing. We are getting more and more used to the provision of facilities informing people why they cannot have that to which they are entitled while, at the other end of the scale, we do nothing to ensure that a large section of our community are given an opportunity of using our courts and getting proper legal representation.

While I welcome our entering into this agreement the reality is that adherence to its terms will involve us in additional expenditure. We cannot ask those people already inundated with requests for help, to take on an extra task without providing them with the necessary resources. We do not want a situation where we will be dealing with applications from abroad from people looking for free civil legal aid in this country when the people here cannot get it.

The Minister should put the present scheme on a statutory basis. We should bring forward a comprehensive civil legal aid and advice scheme as outlined in the Pringle report. We must be realistic but we should at least introduce an overall plan even though we may only have a certain amount of money to implement it. We should give a commitment to implement it 100 per cent next year. That would show that we are committed to the scheme and we could commence the development of centres around the country. At present, vast numbers of people in rural areas do not have any access to civil legal aid and we must do something about this. Those involved in the present scheme are becoming more and more frustrated.

The last report produced by the Legal Aid Board was in 1986. They do not have the resources to produce a report for 1987. The 1986 report outlines the problems they have encountered and it is worth giving a brief summary of their conclusions. They point out that there is a serious failure to meet the demand for legal services. I have already made that point and I do not want to labour it although I could say a lot more about it. The decision of the Government to reverse an existing commitment to open law centres in Dundalk, Portlaoise, Castlebar and Letterkenny is a major setback. They are reversing decisions and not implementing a scheme to provide further centres in other parts of the country. The report warns that the moneys provided under the Funds of Suitors Act, 1984, will terminate at the end of 1988, which gives rise to great concern. We must now decide where the money will come from to service the present scheme. The shortage of staff is of grave concern to the board and to people seeking their help. Indeed, because they are running short of money, they have to temporarily close some of the present centres. We must be realistic and take heed of what we are told by the people who serve on legal aid boards. I am sure that many of them have better things to do with their time rather than being continually frustrated by the fact that the present scheme does not operate on a statutory basis.

I hope the judicial separation Bill will shortly become law. Other Bills dealing with family law will be introduced which will cause further demands for civil legal aid. However, we have no plans to provide resources, centres or staff to help people to get their rights under all these Bills. There is not much point in introducing legislation of this nature if people cannot avail of the provisions. The board have also been asked to deal with adoption cases but they do not have the resources to do so. We must face up to the fact that while it is grand to be signing European agreements and being part of the development within Europe, grand to say that there are structures in place at present and that this will only mean a little additional work for the staff involved, we are ignoring the fact that they are already inundated with work. We are ignoring the fact that we do not have a scheme on a statutory basis and there is no evidence to show that that will change in the immediate future. There is no evidence that there is a commitment to produce a more comprehensive scheme, even on a phased basis, despite the fact that a committee reported back in 1977.

We are not developing any new centres, vast areas in the country are devoid of any civil legal aid and there is no evidence that we intend to provide additional funding, even for the miserable scheme at present in operation. While I welcome the fact that we are becoming part of the European agreement, we should avail of this opportunity to call on the Minister and his colleagues in Government to address the problems we are highlighting on behalf of people who are frustrated daily trying to work in these centres. I am sure other Members will make similar points. The centres try to provide a service and they regularly meet people who are being deprived of their right to avail of our judicial system because they do not have the money. We do not want a democracy where only those with money can avail of the courts. That is no way to run a democracy and we must face the fact that certain things must be paid for. This is one of them and the sooner we realise we have these obligations, the better for all.

Naturally, we support the motion.

Miss Colley

The Progressive Democrats welcome this agreement as we would welcome any evidence of co-operation within the European context. Any move which seeks to alleviate the problems facing people with legal battles in a different country should be welcomed. On a technical note, before I continue I would like to ask the Minister when he is replying to indicate — which he has not done in his speech, therefore I assume it is not the case — whether Ireland will be ratifying the agreement without reservation. The agreement provides for reservation when they are being ratified.

Mr. Collins

Without reservation, yes.

Miss Colley

I thank the Minister. The question that has to be posed, even though this is a motion which does not relate directly to the provisions of civil legal aid in Ireland is, if there is any real civil legal aid in Ireland? In reality there is practically none. Most centres have to close on a regular basis. Much of the country is not covered by civil legal aid. What I think if it is true is an appalling indictment of the service is that recently lottery funds have been used apparently to shore up the funds of the legal aid service.

Many people are moving backwards and forwards to Europe. Many of our young people when they cannot find employment here are moving to Europe for employment. They are being encouraged to do so. They are being prepared in school to a certain extent to do so, and doubtless some of them will find themselves in legal wrangles. They may have returned here by the time the matter turns up, but the fact that more and more people are travelling on these routes means we are going to have more and more cases brought requiring civil legal aid either here or on the European mainland among those countries which are party to this agreement.

Recent trends in employment, or rather unemployment, mean that employment legislation is an up and coming area of law, one which is developing daily not just in Ireland but in Europe. It provides the courts, not necessarily the main judicial system but perhaps employment tribunals in many cases, with much more than they would have been used to in the past. Certainly in Ireland people are being involved in these cases and the more they travel to Europe and take up employment there, they are going to find themselves involved there too. That is probably a growth area where many people are going to need civil legal aid.

Unemployment itself means that far more people qualify for legal aid. They now consist of a much greater percentage of the population than they used to, yet even as I speak they are not being served. How can we extend that? While in principle it is a good idea, how can we hope to extend it to others? How can we hope to extend even the administrative machinery which is inherent in the Legal Aid Board and their services to those people who are not in this country or Irish people who have business in places abroad?

Frankly, I do not believe what the Minister says about the impact of this agreement on the work of the Legal Aid Board. We can expect this area to mushroom. Let it be said once more, we are facing the impact of 1992, the single European market and all its attendant ramifications which will include the increase in the amount of litigation as between parties, say, in Ireland and abroad. Doubtless some of them will be unable to afford legal representation. The impact of this agreement on the Legal Aid Board is hugely under-estimated by the Minister in his speech.

I see the Legal Aid Board are to be designated both as the transmitting authority and the central receiving authority. That also begs the question as to whether the Legal Aid Board should be put on a statutory basis in conjunction with their designation of these authorities. It seems somewhat remiss that we should be designating a non-statutory board who may disappear overnight at the whim of the Government, a board whose future is not secure, to liaise with other countries on this very important matter. Also, when we sign this agreement we are taking on responsibilities towards the machinery which the agreement includes. We are saying we will continue the operation of this machinery, that we are committed to it, yet we are not committed enough to put on a statutory basis the board who are supposed to carry out these duties.

On reading through it, the agreement seems to be not specific on how information regarding the differing laws on legal aid will be transmitted. How will that information be communicated as between states? Is it simply between the receiving and transmitting authorities? That seems to involve a great deal of extra work if applications are simply to be put in every time somebody wishes to obtain legal aid, with no evidence as to whether he or she might qualify for such legal aid. It seems there is a case to be made for having some central bank of information regarding the legal aid provisions in all the countries which are party to this agreement. That would save time and administrative problems in those countries. It seems excessive to have to put in applications, translate the applications, send them to the receiving authority in the other country and then find that there was no question of qualifying for legal aid at the outset. There is a good case to be made for having at least some guidelines as to the rules in each country before you start out.

I note the Minister says that the translation facilities will be provided by the Legal Aid Board. I am just puzzled by that because I am certain they do not have translation facilities as matters stand and the embargo also still stands. I presume the Minister will see that this is done on a contracting out basis. Because of some small experience I have in talking to people who do this kind of legal translation, I know it is quite an onerous and strenuous occupation. It is precise and it is going to be quite costly. Therefore, the more applications there are, the more translation will be involved. Some provision should be made for that so we will not have that as a barrier to our complying with the agreement. The agreement provides for designating the status of one or other official language. Perhaps the Minister would like to let us know when replying the status, if any, of the Irish language under the agreement.

In conclusion, it has to be said that there is a certain element of sleight-of-hand in this motion being proposed to the House. I am absolutely in favour in principle of co-operation on a European front in a European context with extending legal aid across borders. However, it is totally unrealistic with the kind of service we have at present to pretend we will be able to offer it to those who are in other countries or that we will be able effectively to transmit the applications of Irish people here to other countries when the personnel involved in the legal aid centres are snowed under with work and are regularly closing their doors for months on end because they cannot cope with the work they have at present. We see there was a plan to open four new centres in early 1987 but that was put back. That is an indication of the state of the legal aid system.

I think it is timely that the Minister takes on board the real difficulties in the system, puts the board on a statutory basis, and commits this Government and this country to a proper system of civil legal aid which reflects the rights of the citizens of this democracy.

Mr. Taylor

It is just a cynical exercise to introduce this motion into this House. An international convention such as this convention of the Council of Europe ought to be based on reciprocity of availability of services between subscribing member countries. Quite clearly that does not exist. It should be noted that this convention was introduced in 1977 and now ten years later the Minister introduces this motion in the House. I wonder what the reason for the delay was in introducing it by successive Governments? I put it down to some reticence on the part of successive Governments in introducing what would appear on the surface to be a reciprocal arrangement, giving even approximate equality of rights in the legal aid field to residents in the different countries who would be subscribing. That patently does not exist and not to put a tooth in it the civil legal aid scheme in this country is appalling and, as has been said, is virtually non-existent.

It is all very well to facilitate our own citizens, and it is very helpful to say that they will be able to avail of their legal aid rights in other countries by using the good offices of the Legal Aid Board, but we also have to think of the response from the other side. This is not a one-way but a two-way transaction. There will be applications coming into this country for civil legal aid. I am afraid that any British, Spanish, Belgian or other residents who go into the legal aid board in their own country and needs to avail of the civil legal aid service in Ireland will get quite a drop when they get their response. They are going to be pretty annoyed to say the least when they find out what the situation is here in this country.

Quite frankly I think it is a bit much to put forward this motion before the House, until such time as we are in a position and prepared to offer something like an equivalent service to residents of the other European countries looking for their rights in this country. In my opinion it is nothing short of a scandal that we have gone on year after year, decade after decade, denying the openness of justice to ordinary people who cannot afford to avail of the luxury. I have said it before in this House and I will say it again, the old adage still applies "justice is open to everybody just like the Ritz Hotel". If you can afford the expensive costs and fees you can have your justice — all the courts and all the fashionable lawyers in the land are open to you. If you cannot afford it and have to rely on free civil legal aid services in this country I am afraid it is going to be a very difficult situation. Justice, in truth in this country is not open to everybody. It is open to those who have the money to pay for it to call up that expertise that is available if you have a substantial cheque book account behind you. That is the situation. What we need is not this motion but an improvement in the legal aid service. In his speech the Minister points out and gives some examples of the practical benefits of this agreement and he says:

The Legal Aid Board will be able to assist the wife in such a case by sending the relevant documents to the Legal Aid authority in England, so that the question of her entitlement to legal aid in England in connection with the proceedings, can be considered.

Of course, that is fine, we can use the Legal Aid Board here as a letterbox and send the correspondence across. From what I know of the civil legal aid service in England, which is excellent, and has been in the position for decades to offer such services, people will find ready advice available virtually on a free basis. There will be no problem at all with regard to the divorce proceedings going on in England but there will be something very much lacking in the service in Ireland. The wife's documents will be sent across to the legal aid authority in England but let us remember that as a resident of this State she will want to know the implications of the law in this country of a divorce that might be granted in England. What will be the implications of maintenance or alimony that would be granted there? The wife will want to know what her position will be here in this country, and that is the one thing she will not be able to find under any civil legal aid scheme. Of course the English will give her all the advice she needs in connection with English law but Irish law is quite different and access to that kind of information is denied unless she is in a position to pay for it.

I think it is a bit unfair to put at our easier disposal social services and in particular, this service of free legal aid that is available on a generous basis in virtually all other European countries without at the same time and by the same token giving a reciprocal service to the citizens of those States who need to avail of it here. I do not agree with the Minister's statement that most of these cases will simply involve England. Certainly many of them will, but I think the Minister is not taking into account the effects of the incredible level of emigration from this country. There has been a massive emigration of spouses and other family members to Germany in particular, the Benelux countries, to Italy and so on. The fact that there is a large Irish emigrant population in those countries, increasing all the time, is bound to increase the need for the delivery of legal aid services in those countries. It is just a surprising coincidence that within the last few months I have had occasion to deal with three or four women who were in the process of divorce proceedings arising from the Benelux countries. Divorce documents were coming from the Belgian and the Dutch courts in their language and it was extremely difficult to get the documents translated and find out what the implications were. I think the translation service will be availed of quite substantially and I agree with Deputy Colley in that regard.

I think we must accept that it will not be a matter of filling a form in the Legal Aid Board office and sending it off and that would be the end of that. Things do not operate quite that simply. The transactions tend to be ongoing and there will be replies coming back from the other office raising further queries and looking for more information and the position about witnesses. These things could go on for quite some considerable time, as legal affairs do in all countries, and it could be an ongoing situation. Clearly, additional staff would be needed in the Legal Aid Board office to handle this on an ongoing basis and to have ongoing files on each and every case. As the case develops further information is required and the person here will be totally reliant.

Also an increase in the volume of legal work abroad arises from the high volume of people who go on holidays to Spain, Italy, Greece and so on and get involved in accidents. That is by no means an unusual occurrence. Road accidents, bus accidents or accidents in hotels give rise to legal claims and give an increasing line of activity where people would need to avail of the service.

I am glad the measure has been brought in in so far as it goes, but I feel we should look at ourselves and think of what the attitude of the legal aid boards in European countries and the attitude of the Ministers for Justice, the Minister's opposite numbers will be when the harsh reality hits them about what is on offer in this country. I make a special appeal to the Minister to try to ensure that we get some kind of civil legal aid system up and running so that we are not brought into a state of total disgrace when comparisons are made between our service and that in the other European countries, and so that at least we are able to give as good as we take. Self-respect demands that. It would be damaging to our self-respect if we were shown up in European eyes in the Council of Europe. These matters are debated and commented on in the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. These conventions are reviewed from time to time and questions are raised about them. I, as a member of the Council of Europe working on and producing these conventions, would feel pretty embarrassed, as would any Irish member, if debates were made in Strasbourg in public highlighting the discrepancies and showing us up for a nation that is just taking what is on offer in the way of social service abroad while not being prepared to give at least the equivalent to those who need to avail of our legal services here.

Mr. McCartan

On behalf of The Workers' Party, I wish to signal at the outset that we support the motion and welcome the fact that it is being discussed in the House today with, it would appear, the agreement of all parties. It is a useful and worthwhile development that we are bringing our legal aid systems into contact with the legal aid systems existing elsewhere in Europe, particularly with regard to the countries that are signatories to the European Convention.

I would ask the Minister at the outset to account for the delay in bringing this motion before the House. I presume it is to the credit, in part, of this Government that they have, within a short time of assuming office, brought this very useful and important convention to the attention of the House to have it passed and accepted by the House. A lesson was no doubt learned from the proceedings of the last number of years in extradition cases where it had been overlooked by previous Governments to bring before the House international conventions and agreements that would be a charge on the Exchequer and, by reason of the Constitution, must be brought to the attention of the House in the first instance.

We should be advised as to why, since February 1977 when this agreement was available to be ratified and taken up by this Government, it has not seen light of day until now. That point in part helps to underscore in some respects the rather crocodile tears that Deputy Barrett, on behalf of the Fine Gael party, has sought to shed this morning in his very commendable but rather late in the day realisation of the sad state of affairs of legal services for the poor and indigent in this country. Fine Gael have had the opportunity on many occasions since the institution of this scheme in 1979 to put matters right and have singularly failed to do so.

The second point that has to be made in welcoming this agreement is to realise that the legal aid services will come to the attention of and under the scrutiny of our international partners in Europe. The history of legal aid, be it on the criminal or civil side, as it has been protrayed internationally, has been one of deceit and misrepresentation by successive Governments abroad. It is worthwhile to recall that in the sixties the Fianna Fáil Government of the day and the Taoiseach as Minister for Justice in the Cabinet on occasion indicated abroad that Ireland had a legal aid system, a misrepresentation of the realities here at home. It was often repeated at international conferences that we had met our modern obligations to civil liberties and indeed to democracy, as has been said by other speakers this morning, by the introduction of the Criminal Legal Aid Act, 1962. That Act was not acted on until three years later, in 1965, and the whole operation of criminal legal aid was never fully implemented until people were obliged to go to the Supreme Court and force, through legal action, their right to be legally represented on all occasions where the threat of imprisonment could arise from criminal proceedings.

In the context of civil legal aid it is also worth remembering that no action was taken by any Government until Josie Airey——

Mrs. Barnes

Or the legal profession, either.

Mr. McCartan

——went to the European courts and compelled the Government to act. It was not by any magnanimous gesture by the Fine Gael or Fianna Fáil parties in Government towards the poor and the unrepresented that they acted but because they were forced to do so by legal action, first, in the Supreme Court with regard to criminal legal aid and, secondly, in the European Court in the context of civil legal aid. What did they do in regard to civil legal aid? They set up the Pringle committee. Many people balked at the idea that a man who had presided so effectively in the non-jury courts over the years might not have done the job with regard to civil legal aid. It has to be conceded that the report produced one of the most comprehensive, well thought out and structured proposals with regard to the presentation of legal aid.

It was a very sad occasion in the past year when Mr. Justice Pringle came to Buswells Hotel to mark the tenth anniversary of the publication of the report and had to speak so sadly of how much of what had been proposed then had been utterly and totally ignored by successive Governments. It must be remembered that Mr. Justice Pringle talked not just about the opening of law centres which would deliver a service but about the introduction ultimately of the comprehensive scheme of legal aid centres that would deliver an education and a system that would make people alert to their rights and would help them in the bringing of actions to improve their positions — it was not simply the delivery of a legal service to process actions or remedies before the courts, important as that is.

Since Mr. Justice Pringle has reported and since the scheme was established in December 1979 the history has been disgraceful. I do not believe there has been a greater scandal in all of the issues, functions and responsibilities that the Minister has to deal with than the way in which civil legal aid is run today. The question has to be begged as to how it is ever hoped to meet any of the obligations posed for this country under the terms of the convention we are discussing today. The Minister has identified that for the purposes of Articles 2 and 3, the Legal Aid Board will be the receiving and transmitting authority. To suggest that it will not have a great impact on their work and their responsibilities in view of their scarce resources is again peddling the long history of misrepresentations and deceit that has surrounded ministerial involvement in the delivery of legal aid.

If one looks at the most recent report of the Legal Aid Board, the report of 1986, one will see that it makes what can only be described as very sad reading. It is a report which from cover to cover highlights insurmountable difficulties and which pleads on every page for help. The board operates with great commitment and a desire to see legal aid properly developed and properly worked. Law centres are staffed by some of the most committed lawyers this country could ever hope to encounter. People who have given up the option of a very lucrative private practice have gone into the legal aid service in the hope and belief, initially at least, that they would be doing something useful and meaningful for the many poor people who otherwise would not have access to or relief from our courts. One talks with such people on a weekly or daily basis and their spirit is totally destroyed because they are working under conditions that no other Government Department would expect their employees to tolerate. The day is rapidly coming when the Government will not have available to them any young or newly qualified people prepared to put up with the unbelievable conditions in our law centres.

Mr. Fennelly, in his report of 1986, pointed out that it was a matter of regret to the board that it was obliged once again in an annual report to headline the fact that although thousands of people had been provided with legal aid and advice since his last report was published that it could still go nowhere near meeting public demand for these services; that the principal piece of hard evidence of the inadequacy of the service was the fact that several law centres, particularly over the past 12 months, had had to close their doors to new work for months on end. Mr. Fennelly also said that the primary reason the legal aid service was unable to meet the demands made on it was that the financial resources necessary to respond to the demands had not been made available. In the section dealing with the proposals to open new law centres he highlighted the fact that a Government gave authorisation for the location of new centres in major urban areas over 50 miles from any existing centres, in Dundalk, Letterkenny, Portlaoise and Castlebar, and then welched on that undertaking and refused to come up with the funds. Mr. Fennelly went on to highlight the fact that the moneys made available in 1984 under the Funds of Suitors Act would now run out at the end of 1988 and these were the only funds made available to the board since its inception to allow for any expansion which would have included the opening of the centres in Tralee, the second centre in Cork, and one in Tallaght. Those moneys will go.

The staffing difficulties are covered at length. No other Minister would ask staff to work with the incredible workload and under such conditions as the staff and lawyers are expected to work under in these law centres. To ask for help or aid from them is an impossibility at this stage. One would be dealing with people who are at their wits end and do not know where to go from here.

The Minister was made aware of all this when we talked about the European Convention for the Enforcement of Judgments, when it was raised by me on the Adjournment debate here in February; the problems are known to him. In the midst of this, when we thought that the Minister might listen and take cognisance of the position of civil legal aid here, we see that in the Estimates published in the last few days, grant-in-aid for the Legal Aid Board is to be reduced by 1 per cent of what was allocated in the current year. There is no prospect of improvement, of development, of anything being done to meet the demands made by the chairman of the Legal Aid Board over the years in the terms contained in his reports. The amount of money is to be reduced. In real terms what that means is a reduction of up to 10 per cent in the workability of the moneys made available to the law centres over the next year. It means there will be no new centres and that there will be the closure of centres for months on end simply to catch up with the back-breaking workload. It means the embargo on staff that has decimated the numbers working in the office will be left in place. There will be no new staff employed to fill the many needs. Many of the centres in towns around the country will not be serviced or will be serviced in the unsatisfactory way in which the scheme has worked to date.

None of that is reflected in a glib pass-age in the Minister's statement where he suggested that he realises that the board's resources are under some strain. What a ridiculous understatement of the situation. It is not just under some strain. The system is in tatters, almost at a standstill and likely to collapse entirely in the coming year because the Minister has not just failed to increase the allocation but has reduced it substantially in real terms.

In the midst of all of this the Minister's motion this morning suggests that this is the type of scheme that we should bring forward to our partners in Europe, telling them that we have a service available to assist in the transmission and reception of legal aid from the other contracting parties. We do not. That must be said loud and clear here this morning. The idea that we have such a service must not be peddled by the Minister when he goes back to Europe saying that we are taking up this agreement. I hope that by the time the budget comes in January the Minister, having listened to what has been said here this morning, will have taken serious steps to redress the appalling conditions that surround the delivery of civil legal aid here and will have something positive to tell us, the board and all the people working in the service, so that we can then, in a truthful way, and with some pride, approach our international obligations under the Treaty.

Mrs. Barnes

I welcome this motion this morning for two reasons. First, it raises the whole question of the lack of free civil legal aid here and rips aside the curtain of respectability that we have built around it, revealing the reality behind it. Women here have to rely almost entirely on European directives, on European conventions and on European legislation to bring us into a mainstream Europe that really and truly not alone protects the rights of European citizens but also, through pressure and resources, insists that those protections can in fact be satisfied even when people cannot afford it themselves.

Deputy McCartan went through the history of the lack of free civil legal aid here and the long struggle to bring it in. This is not the first time that I have castigated the lack of political will on all sides to give the right kind of resources and priority to free civil legal aid here. I want to particularly highlight this morning, to the embarrassment and shame of this House, that it was the one lonely, solitary case of a woman in Cork, Mrs. Josie Airey who, by herself, under incredible strain and with no resource here to protect or support her, wrote to Europe in desperation, and her plea was heard. In fact Europe was appalled at the need for civil legal aid here particularly as it affected women, and the lack of political will or will on the part of the legal profession itself to take any steps.

The one thing I always admire about the legal profession is how wary and how right they are to protect their judicial responsibilities without any interference from the State. One thing which causes me to be a little cynical at times is that if the same amount of energy and pressure was applied by the legal profession into pushing for the resources they need to implement a proper legal system for everybody regardless of income I believe that legislators would be put under pressure and would have to listen. That would not leave the legislators off the hook but all I am saying is that all professions with their commitment to what they are trying to achieve should raise hell when this does not prove possible. One of the most outstanding examples in this regard is the denial of free civil legal aid.

Another cynical thought which struck me this morning, and indeed Deputy Taylor referred to this fact, is that there will be a far greater need, in the all European sense, for access to free civil legal aid in other countries and for us to supply it because of the mobility of our work-force and those who travel to Europe for their holidays. We should ensure that a structure exists to meet those needs. The thought which struck me this morning is that we have had to look to Europe for jobs and I would not like to think that some of our less well off people in desperate circumstances might be forced to emigrate in order to get free civil legal aid because it is not being supplied in this country. As of now it is not being supplied to any degree which would be considered satisfactory. The Minister needs to go much farther than he indicated in his speech, that he realises that the board's resources are under some strain at present.

It is a scandal that the board are under strain and that there is a lack of facilities and a shortage of personnel in our free civil legal aid centres. It is more than a scandal, it amounts to a denial of justice. If we were to talk about democracy, one of the foundation stones of democracy should be that we guarantee justice for all our citizens. This we are patently not doing. I would like to quote one figure from a recent ESRI report on poverty in this country. It stated that the percentage of the population living in poverty in Ireland is steadily rising and that Ireland now has more than 1,200,000 people living in households where the weekly income is below £48.70 per adult equivalent. This means that a married couple without children have less than £82.80 per week. The report further shows again and again that households with children make up two-thirds of that number. It also goes on to show that households where the lone parent is a woman are next on the list.

Who needs to seek free civil legal aid in this country? Josie Airey is a sterling example — a woman deserted, abused, battered and left with the responsibility for caring for her children without an adequate income to support them in any basic sense. There are thousands of such households in this country. It is bad enough that we cannot at any stage provide enough resources for our free civil legal aid centres having been forced by Europe to set them up but the fact that we can reach the end of the eighties, heading towards 1992 with full European integration, and not feel constrained to raise our standards to European standards and not marginalise people out of the legal system through the denial of free civil legal aid, is an embarrassment and a shame that I do not think any of us can live with.

That is not the worst part, it is not our finer feelings that I am thinking about but rather of the day-to-day struggle of women in particular who are caught up in bad marriages and who have a need for free civil legal aid and of our failure to fulfil our promise or pledge to set up free civil legal aid centres in the remoter parts of Ireland. The few that we have are under such severe strain and so over-loaded with work that they have to say to people no matter how desperate their cases are that through no fault of theirs they cannot take their cases and that they will have to wait. Many of those people are in bad circumstances and are therefore in desperate need of legal support and aid.

I have met women, as have I am sure other Members of this House, who find it impossible to pay the bus fare from Dublin's remoter housing estates into one of its central legal aid centres. What about those women living in rural areas? I do not think we can sit there as legislators and live with the fact that we have been forced by Europe to supply the small skeleton structure we have in existence and with the reality that not alone is free civil legal aid being denied to women, in particular living in households such as the ones I have described and who have the greatest need to have recourse to free civil legal aid, but that we feel we do not have to justify why we are denying it to them.

Another dimension, and this also has a European aspect, is the whole question of foreign divorces. I know of cases where the first indication the woman received, particularly from husbands working abroad, is when divorce papers were served on her. It is enough of a shock when they are served in one's own language and one can at least understand what the impact of the papers is, but can you imagine the impact on a woman being served papers in a language she cannot understand and having to operate through a court she knows nothing about? As I said, there is no point in us talking about being part of mainstream Europe in regard to the provision of free civil legal aid unless we are prepared to invest, firstly, on behalf of our own citizens and, secondly, in regard to the European Agreement we are now entering and should fulfil. We need the back-up resources, translation facilities in particular, as most of us do not have two or three languages. Again, I am coming back to those who will be most affected, a great number of whom have not had the privilege of learning languages. In their day-to-day struggle for survival the last thing they would do is try to learn a language, the language which they would have to understand when dealing with the divorce papers served against them.

Let me conclude by making two points. The first is that we could provide a free civil legal aid service to those who are at present denied it by integrating such a service into the community information centres which are already set up and which are working well all over the country. That will not make the Exchequer destitute.

On every possible occasion between now and budget day I will highlight the need for more resources for the free civil legal aid service here. We were dragged before the European Court on such issues as equal pay, equal opportunity and human rights and I have no doubt that we will be embarrassed by being dragged before the European Court on the issue of free civil legal aid proving once more that our citizens cannot trust their Legislature. It is possible that some citizens will bring the Government before the European Court for their failure to provide a proper free legal aid service as is available in other European countries. That service is being denied, unjustifiably, to our citizens.

I do not want to see the Government being brought before the European Court due to their neglect in regard to this issue. There is a political will to deal with this and I appeal to the Minister to insist at Cabinet level on adequate funds being made available for free civil legal aid. At a time when there is a debate in regard to the distribution of national lottery funds we should consider allocating resources to the free civil legal aid scheme. We were told that resources would be made available from those funds to the arts, culture and sport but I should like to appeal on behalf of the 1,200,000 people who are in need, that some of the lottery funds be devoted to guaranteeing the rights of such people. They should be given a basic sense of citizenship which the rest of us can afford. Such funds should be allocated to assist those people rather than being given for GAA pitches, tennis courts or golf clubs.

Mr. T. Fitzpatrick

The purpose of the agreement is to facilitate residents of one contracting State in making application to another contracting State for free civil legal aid. In other words, we are saying to the other contracting States that we will assist their citizens in making application for free legal aid that is available here. Governments of the other contracting states are saying that they will facilitate citizens of their countries in making application to Ireland for assistance under the free legal aid scheme in operation here. That sounds very good and it is an improvement so far as it goes but if we are seriously offering under this agreement citizens of contracting states free legal aid in return for reciprocal assistance for our citizens we have a bit of a cheek. We are engaging in a bit of conmanship.

I should like to make it clear that the Legal Aid Board are doing the best they can. Those who are assigned a barrister or solicitor by the board to do work get an excellent service. They are treated courteously by the board and their case is looked after. However, the board do not receive adequate funding, do not have sufficient staff or proper accommodation to make any impression on the demand by citizens for free civil legal aid. When I practised as a solicitor I represented people who were anxious to avail of the free legal aid scheme in the UK. That was about 25 years ago but at that time there was an efficient free legal aid scheme operating in the UK. That scheme covered what are commonly known as running down actions and all types of civil litigation. The free legal aid available here is confined to family law but it is not adequate to cover the demands made on it. It does not pretend to deal with the volume of family law it is asked to deal with and does not deal with running down actions or commercial law.

I am in favour of Ireland signing this agreement and I hope that as a result of that action we will be shamed into providing a proper system of free legal aid for our citizens. If citizens of other states apply through their Governments for free legal aid here they will find that it is not available and as a result we will be brought before the European Court. In that event we will be forced into adopting a suitable free legal aid scheme. If the agreement means anything it is that the existing board will have more work thrust upon it. If it does not mean that there is no sense in doing what we are doing; this is just a sham, a pretence. If this puts more work onto an already grossly over-worked and understaffed free legal aid board it means that the ordinary resident who relies on free legal aid, especially in family law, will fare worse than at present instead of better. We would also be held up to ridicule by countries like the UK and other European countries who have a genuine system of free legal aid.

During the debate on the Courts Bill which abolished juries and introduced regulations curtailing representation in certain legal actions for personal injuries and so on, I stated and now repeat that if the effect of that Bill which was not concerned in any way with the administration of justice but was concerned solely with reducing insurance premiums, will be to reduce the level of administration of justice it was a bad day's work. The effect of the Courts Bill will be to make it more difficult for litigants with an arguable case to get legal representation. There is an obligation on the Government to provide a proper free legal aid system.

In the event of someone knocked down by a car it is now harder to get a medical report as it is more expensive. Now, more doctors want an undertaking from the solicitor that whether a plaintiff wins, loses or draws, they will be paid. It is now more difficult to get a professional witness such as a medical man, an engineer or an architect to come from rural Ireland and spend a day or two away from his practice giving evidence in court. These professional witnesses are now demanding undertakings from solicitors that they will be paid for their time in court irrespective of the outcome of the case. It will take a little time for the problems relating to absence of free legal aid to surface but within the next two or three years the complaints will have moved from the insurance area and they will relate to people with an arguable case being unable to get representation. Open and shut cases will still present few problems and wealthy people will not be faced with many problems but the man of no means or of moderate means will find it much more difficult to get a solicitor to take his case, running the risk of having to pay fees to doctors for reports and for attendance at court and to a barrister. Few barristers will take a brief and live with a case unless they are satisfied they will get paid. They are the sorts of problems Deputies will hear about at their clinics.

If the signing of this agreement and the entry into this convention brings to the surface the absence of a proper free legal aid scheme it will have done a good day's work. I appeal to the Minister to consider the matter carefully and heed the advice he must have received from the free legal aid board. I am sure they are telling the Minister that they are very much in arrears with their work, that they have not enough staff to discharge their obligations and that their office accommodation is miserable. Will the Minister look into that and provide a reasonable scheme of free legal aid because the consequences of the other measures we have passed in this House will bring to a head the sort of complaints I have mentioned? This proposal will also add more work to the existing staff of the free legal aid board and the position of people who need help will deteriorate instead of improve.

Mr. Abbott

I welcome the motion and congratulate the Minister. I disagree with some of the speakers who feel that the system is jammed up and that this proposal will not see the light of day. I see the whole process as being a very effective one in which an aggrieved party, for instance, a wife with a husband in England, can make an application to the Legal Aid Board and they can merely transmit the application to their counterparts in Britain. There will be no translating expenses in a case like that. Indeed a party to a marriage where a person speaking another language was involved would probably not need a translating service and the necessity of translating in that case would probably not be insisted upon by the applicant.

In a case where a husband has absconded to England there will be great benefits. Having looked into the logistics of tracing an errant husband or wife in Britain I have been impressed with the facility there in relation to making an application to court. If a husband is in the British army it is possible to have his number traced and also his location. If the husband is registered for social welfare purposes it is possible to get the equivalent of his PRSI number in Britain and make an application to have the papers served on him at the address to which his payments are made. It has been the case that people like me have been endeavouring to inveigle English solicitors to take on cases on an instalment basis and asking people in Ireland to make most complex arrangements with solicitors to have the case carried out for them in England. The road will now be open for these people. Many women in my constituency have been waiting for this type of scheme for many years and will be greatly assisted by it. There will be immediate relief, as long as the Minister, the Department and the Legal Aid Board maintain this as a form filling exercise and transmit the cases to the British Legal Aid Board. It should be done in the simplest possible way, although if people want to make work out of it I am sure it can be done.

In spite of the fact that the Legal Aid Board are quite short of funds and may not have all the facilities they would want and we would wish to give them, the move is a very desirable one. I represent a rural constituency where there may not be quite as many of these problems as elsewhere. The number is still quite significant and I look forward to working under this legislation and producing results for constituents. That is what matters at the end of the day.

Mr. J. Bruton

We should consider why legal aid is necessary. It is necessary because people cannot get justice without hiring lawyers. The law is so complicated that the citizen cannot understand it and cannot represent himself before a judge. If the law is so complicated that the citizen cannot represent himself and has to hire a lawyer for the purpose, that is because the law has been made complicated by this House. It is important to go back to the fundamentals. The cost of legal aid derives from the Floor of this House because it is we who make the law so complicated that people are unable to represent themselves.

It is worth recalling that in Britain legal aid costs in the region of £400 million. In a period in which the consumer price index increased by 59 per cent, the cost of legal aid in Britain increased by 300 per cent. Money is being poured through legal aid into a system of justice which is inherently inefficient and expensive. This is something which was drawn very much to the attention of the Irish public by Commissioner Peter Sutherland at a recent meeting at the Irish Centre for European Law. He asked how the Irish legal system compares in the provision of rapid, efficient and authoritative judgments with other legal systems. How do Irish legal costs compare? He asked what is to prevent the Irish legal system from becoming a centre of excellence within the European framework. If the Irish legal system were reformed and made more efficient, I ask what is to prevent it from being the system that people would choose for the settlement of international legal disputes, rather than the system in London, Brussels or elsewhere. Increasingly contracts are being entered into which have a multinational dimension and people have the choice to arbitrate disputes relating to those contracts in any one of a number of courts. If our legal system continues to be so expensive and cumbersome people will choose to arbitrate those issues before another justice system somewhere else in Europe and Irish money will be going to other countries to have disputes settled which might be settled here if our system were more efficient, with the consequent inflow of other people's money. Our legal system in the context of 1992 should be seen, if it were reformed and made more efficient, as a possible earner of foreign exchange. The legal system needs to prepare for 1992 just as much as manufacturing or service industries.

Our present adversarial system of justice is possibly one of the worst ways of achieving justice one could imagine. It is predicated on the basis that one person exaggerates one side of an issue and then a second person exaggerates the opposite side on the opponent's behalf; then a third party, the judge or jury, decide which of the two exaggerations is correct or whether the truth lies between the two exaggerations. Three parties are involved in settling something, whereas under a system of arbitration one person would do, if the individuals were allowed to put their own case. It might be said that this is idealistic and fanciful talk outside the realm of the practical. It is not.

The Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal is an excellent and efficient body. They settle issues of liability, deciding how much a person should be paid in compensation for a particular injury. They deal with exactly the same sort of issues as the High Court, except that in the latter case the injury would have been caused by a civil wrong. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal also decide issues of liability. They will decide whether a person contributed to his injury by starting a fight in which he may have come off worst. They decide issues of relative blame, just as the High Court does. It is not simply a question of putting a figure on damages; there are also questions of liability. How does the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal compare in terms of efficiency with the High Court? Very well indeed. I have been told by a practitioner for whom I have very high regard — if I mentioned his name here I think everybody would recognise him for what he is in this regard — that he knows that a case in regard to exactly similar circumstances can be settled in half an hour before the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal that would take the High Court a whole day to settle. Part time barristers go before the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal early in the morning. Everybody gets a chance to say his piece, including the injured party and anybody who believes he might be paid too much, and the matter is settled in half an hour. People may not be entirely happy but they have got what they were looking for. In the case of the High Court an amount of paper work has to be done before the case is heard, possibly two years later. Eight people used to be involved but that has been reduced somewhat as a result of welcome changes made by the legal profession.

There is still a substantial number of people speaking on behalf of all sides. It is no wonder that the same case that would take half an hour before the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal takes five or six hours before the High Court. It clearly indicates that in terms of speedy access to justice — and it is a fair adage that justice delayed is justice denied — our legal system does not really measure up. One might ask why that is. It is the case because the law is made unduly complicated by the legislators, for a start, and people cannot easily read the law. It is also the case because much of our law is based on precedent and law reporting here is deplorably behind-hand and as a result it is not easy for people to find out what are the precedents of a particular case. Certainly, an intelligent individual trying to find precedents with regard to his case would have immense, if not impossible, difficulty in so doing.

It is also the case because our Constitution provides — I think in Article 40 but I am not sure — that people must have a right to have their cases heard before a court. It is argued that there is no way that any tribunal could be introduced which would, if you like, say that people must settle their problems inexpensively and in so doing forego the right to have their cases heard in court. If people go to arbitration and know that if they do not like what the tribunal gives them, they can always go to the High Court, one might as well not have a tribunal at all because it will not have the effect of trying to settle things.

The question that I would ask and I appreciate that it is in the nature of being fundamental, is, given that it is immensely difficult to get justice in this country, surely we should be looking at a fundamental reform of our legal system in so far as this matter is concerned, given that poor people cannot get justice — either they cannot get legal aid because the legal aid system is blocked up and can deal only with matrimonial or family law cases in so far as it deals with any cases and just does not listen to other civil wrongs issues because the money is not available to do so or, alternatively, they cannot get justice because they are not poor enough to qualify for civil legal aid but are too poor to afford the price of going to court. People who have good cases cannot go to court but if they do, they may expect to get very large damages. The whole thing has immense complications because it has become almost a lottery — if you do go to court you expect to do rather well from it but many people must be paid out of your damages because the system is so inherently expensive.

Firstly, I want to thank the spokespersons for the different parties for the generous welcome which they gave to the motion before us. I will deal, as best I can, with the different issues raised on the motion proper. There were quite a number of other matters raised which I do not feel I should deal with today but nevertheless I should like to say to Deputy Bruton that I found his comments enlightening and invigorating. There is much commonsense in what he said and there is much food for thought for all of us in his contribution. I accept much of what he said and perhaps now is the time to move a little further than what we have moved to ensure that we never forget that laws are primarily made for people and courts are there to function for the people and that everybody else is there to help the people. I think that is very important.

Regarding Deputy Bruton's contribution, I know we will have another opportunity and another time to have a wide-ranging general discussion on the particular matters he raised. There would be a lot of public support for the Dáil going down that road carefully: we cannot go too quickly. I would not use the phrase used by Deputy Bruton's colleague, Deputy Barrett, that it would be McDonald type legislation — nobody would want that. I am sure Deputy Bruton or any of us would not want that but certainly we should not be afraid to look for change. I certainly would not be afraid to look for change and I hope we would get cross-party support from most Members of the House. It is something we can bear in mind. I would have a lot in common with what Deputy Bruton is offering here today. I feel at this stage——

Mr. S. Barrett

A debate on the abolition of juries would have nothing on it.

Mr. Collins

May I say to Deputy Barrett that it certainly would not? I thank Deputy Barrett and people in his party and others in this House for the considerable help we got in enacting that legislation which was around for a long time. I publicly thank them again for that support because I think that legislation is working well. I know people had divided thoughts and opinions on that legislation and we heard some of them expressed here again today. From my discussions with the people involved and people who can give a fair and honest assessment without the jaundiced eye, things are moving as this Oireachtas intended they would move. In the event of a time ever coming when this Oireachtas has to review the operation of that legislation, I gave a guarantee that we would come back and have another look at it. I stand over that guarantee and I would not be afraid to move down part of that road.

I should like to say to the House that when the Legal Aid Board was being established I was put under extreme pressure as Minister for Justice of the day to introduce a scheme on the same lines as that operating in the United Kingodm which at that time was costing in the region of £20 million. I was castigated in this House for not having a scheme similar to the one operating in the United Kingdom. Today, that scheme is costing, as Deputy Bruton said, in excess of £400 million, a price which even the British Government cannot afford. They are now reviewing the whole civil legal aid position in the United Kingdom and are establishing it on a different basis altogether. Having said that, I think the Oireachtas was wise at the particular time in not having a situation which was advocated in this House as the records will show, where people could walk in off the streets to any solicitor and take them on on a fee for an appearance at a particular time. We must remember that we must cut our cloth according to the measure. We are not a very rich little country. We are giving a very limited service in this regard and I say that quite openly. I am not telling you anything you do not know.

Before we get involved in that area I want to express the appreciation of this House to Mr. Niall Fennelly and to the members of the Legal Aid Board for the job of work they are doing. We understand their difficulties. They are difficulties which they are living with and which he and his predecessors have lived with since the board was established in 1980. We would all like to have a situation whereby there would be more centres throughout the length and breadth of the country. We would like to have a more extensive scheme in operation but we are not in a position to afford it. That is part of the problem and until such time as we are we will have to hope that our finances will improve.

In recent days the Book of Estimates was published and it is fair to say that the legal aid scheme has not been reduced substantially in any way with regard to moneys being provided under the particular subhead, bearing in mind that schools and hospitals have been closed and other services have been pulled back to the limit. I say that because of the recognition the Government have for the work of the Civil Legal Aid Board and what they are trying to do. I would like to see, as any Minister for Justice would like to see, the scheme extended and better funded and the staffing increased considerably. I am sure that case could be made by any person in the Oireachtas sitting here on this seat if they were replying to this motion as I am this afternoon. Of course we want that but in the meantime we have got to recognise the realities of the situation. I want to say a very sincere word of thanks to Niall Fennelly, Senior Counsel, and to those on the Legal Aid Board with him who are spreading their resources as best they can to ensure that the service is there.

I appreciate that the services available under the scheme have been under strain for some time and that the development of services under the scheme, which I introduced in 1980, has not been as rapid as I or any Member of the Oireachtas would have wished. This is due entirely to the present difficult economic circumstances. The Government are committed to the scheme and I hope that additional funding will be made available for the expansion of services under the scheme when we have overcome the present serious position we are in with regard to our public finances.

It is easy to exaggerate the position about delays in services under the civil legal aid scheme. This is a very easy thing to do and although some law centres have to restrict the services they can offer to new clients from time to time, the board have always been able to take on emergency cases without any delay, for example, cases of marital violence requiring immediate recourse to the courts. That remains the position at present at all but one of the board's 12 law centres. The exception is one of the three Dublin law centres which has to refer new emergency cases to the other two Dublin centres for the present. Applicants for legal aid whose cases do not require immediate action before the courts may have to wait for a period ranging from one to 12 weeks at present. These are cases that do not require immediate action before the courts and we know that even people wishing to consult private practitioners cannot walk in off the streets; they have to make appointments to see a solicitor and they cannot be accommodated straightaway.

The financial position of the Legal Aid Board was reviewed recently and sufficient funding will be available to finance the operation of all the board's 12 law centres in 1989. It has been suggested during the course of this debate that the Legal Aid Board law centres cannot cope with the existing volume of work and as a result of that they will not be able to deal with additional clients who come to them for assistance under the European agreement. I want to put on the record of the House — and I hope it is reported as fact — that the board have been consulted and they consider they will be able to cope with the extra work involved arising from their proposed designation as a transmitting and receiving agency under the European Agreement on the Transmission of Applications for Legal Aid.

The number of additional applications for legal aid from the 13 European countries who are parties to the European agreement, coming here as a result of Ireland's ratification of the agreement, is likely to be small. People resident outside the State are already entitled to apply to the Legal Aid Board for legal aid in connection with court proceedings under the terms of the civil legal aid scheme. The transmission of such applications through an official authority in the foreign country to the Legal Aid Board, together with all the necessary documentation, should help to reduce the work of the board in dealing with such applications. As regards requests for legal aid in other contracting states originating from people in Ireland, the board already receive such requests and they regard ratification of the European agreement as a helpful development for them in dealing with such requests by providing special machinery for processing such requests to the relevant foreign legal aid authorities.

A query was raised by Deputy Barrett, and I think Deputy McCartan, as to how Irish people will know about this agreement and how they will be able to take advantage of it. When the agreement comes into force I visualise that it will be necessary for the Legal Aid Board to assemble the information and documentation they will require to enable Irish people to avail of the provisions of the agreement, in connection with legal aid applications to other contracting states. Indeed, the board might wish to arrange appropriate publicity about their proposed new role under the European agreement.

I am aware that there is some concern generally in European circles that enough is not done to bring facilities that are available under the European conventions, such as the European Agreement on the Transmission of Applications for Legal Aid, to the attention of those who could avail of them. A meeting of European Ministers for Justice which I recently attended studied the problem of improving the implementation of European conventions and agreements and recommended that measures be taken to improve co-operation and exchange of information between central authorities designated under various treaties and to bring the existence and functioning of these treaties to the knowledge of all those for whose benefit they are designed. These are aspects which my Department intend to discuss with the Legal Aid Board following signature by Ireland of the European agreement. At European level I expect that the European Committee on Legal Co-operation of the Council of Europe will take an active role in implementing the recommendations made at that conference to which I have already referred.

Deputy Barrett, Deputy Colley and others referred to the non-statutory basis of the civil legal aid scheme and said that this is an impediment to Ireland's ratification of the European Agreement on the Transmission of Applications for Legal Aid. They said that the scheme could be terminated at any time by the Government of the day and basically they urged that a statutory scheme be introduced. I am advised that the non-statutory basis of the civil legal aid scheme is no impediment whatsoever to Ireland's ratification of the European Agreement on the Transmission of Applications for Legel Aid.

The present Administration are entirely committed to the continued operation of the civil legal aid scheme, as have all Administrations since the scheme was introduced in 1980. It has always been the intention to place this scheme on a statutory footing, after experience had been obtained with the operation of the non-statutory scheme. A Bill is being drafted in my Department to do this and I should like to bring the necessary legislation before the House as quickly as possible, having regard to other legislative priorities and the resources available in the Department. I understand there are ongoing discussions between my officials and representatives of the Civil Legal Aid Board and their solicitors to see how we can get over whatever difficulties are there. I have been told that this Bill will not be ready before Christmas but I have urged that it be speeded along as quickly as possible.

Deputy Colley referred to the question of translation and I should like to refer briefly to this. The board already have experience in this area and they have engaged outside professionals to advise them on this. It will be a matter for the board to make whatever decisions they want to in that regard. This is not new to them. They are aware of it.

Miss Colley

It is not new staff being taken on?

Mr. Collins

No, it is a contractual arrangement. A bit of a song and dance was made by Deputy Mervyn Taylor who regarded the exercise as cynical. I do not know how he can regard these matters as cynical. He wanted to know why there was a delay and why it took ten years. He seemed to forget that he was Deputy Government Whip for a long period, during which the delay took place. I am putting it very simply to him that the delay took place, first, because we did not have a civil legal aid board in existence until 1980 and when in 1984 the Minister of the day decided to do what we are doing here today he had to consult with the Attorney General who sat on it for three years. That is what the delay was all about and there is nothing cynical in that.

I could go further than that to prove a political point to Deputy Taylor but I do not think that is necessary. It was not the fault of the Minister of the day or of the Department of Justice. It was just that the Attorney General of the day could not make up his mind whether Article 29.5.3º of the Constitution was the overriding factor in this area. That was the reason for the delay. Obviously Deputy Taylor is going to too many meetings of the Labour Party Administrative Council where lots of things are happening with the Militant Left which probably upset him and would lead to any normal person becoming slightly cynical. On a more serious note, I want to thank Members for their generous welcome to this motion and to say I think we have done something worthwhile this morning.

Question put and agreed to.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 20 Oct 1988

European Agreement on the Transmission of Applications for Legal Aid: Motion.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 20 Oct 1988