Vol. 448 No. 3
24 Dr. Woods asked the Minister for Equality and Law Reform the percentage of the clients of the Legal Aid Board who are women; and when the civil legal aid scheme and the Legal Aid Board which administers it will be put on a statutory footing. [1979/95]
88 Mr. E. Byrne asked the Minister for Equality and Law Reform whether he will expand the remit of the civil legal aid scheme to cover tribunals; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2159/95]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 24 and 88 together.
I am advised by the Legal Aid Board that it does not maintain information on all applicants for legal services in a manner which would enable it to give the precise percentage of its clients who are women. However, from experience they estimate that about 75 per cent of its clients are women.
The Bill to put the scheme of civil legal aid and advice on a statutory basis has been drafted, and I am glad to be able to inform the House that it will be published very shortly.
Legal advice on civil law matters in general, including matters which may become the subject of proeedings before tribunals is available under the scheme since its establishment in 1979. However, legal aid is not available for the purpose of proceedings before tribunals. That policy, which has been maintained by successive Governments since 1979, has been the subject of review in the context of preparation of the legislation concerning the scheme. The policy details enshrined in the legislation will be announced in the normal way by way of publication of the Bill.
The Minister said in reply to an earlier question that he expects to have the Bill within a matter of days. Can the Minister assure the House that the board will be independent in its operation and in the appointment of its staff? It is important that the board should operate as an independent semi-State body under the aegis and general guidance of the Minister and arrange for the appointment of its staff.
The Minister, in accordance with the usual practice, must await the publication of the Bill to see what the precise nature of these structures will be. Suffice to say that the board has always operated independently to the extent that there was no interference by me or any previous Minister for Justice who was responsible for the civil legal aid service, so far as individual applications for approval for legal aid in a particular case was concerned. Obviously, there would be no independence so far as the administration of the board is concerned for the simple reason that one is dealing with the expenditure of substantial amounts of taxpayers' money for which I am answerable to this House.
Under no circumstances could I avoid answering questions on expenditure of money or on procedures in the Legal Aid Board by saying that the board is independent and that I wash my hands of its affairs. Public money is being expended and the position of the Legal Aid Board could not be compared with the position of a semi-State body which is running businesses and so on. The Legal Aid Board is an arm of the State funded by the taxpayer. The Minister is answerable in the House to the Members. When I was an Opposition backbencher I raised questions about this and I have no doubt my colleagues opposite will do likewise and I must answer them.
I trust the Minister will understand the fears on this side of the House, particularly following the direction — mentioned here last week — to staff not to inform their superiors on the board of a discussion which had taken place with an official from the Department of Justice. That was an extraordinary event. I trust that under the provisions of the forthcoming Bill that will not take place again because it would lead to the destruction of the board. The board is ultra vires the Department unless there is some extraordinary case. I am a little uneasy about the reply the Minister has given and I would ask him to give much thought to the matter before finalising the Bill. We will have an opportunity to discuss that Bill shortly but I would like the Minister's assurance that the operation of the board on a day-to-day basis will be truly independent.
I am sure the Deputy will be pleased that the Bill to be published is largely in the form in which the previous Government approved it — very little change was made from the time it was approved by that Government, as a member of which the Deputy will be well aware of the structures of the Bill, I can put his mind at rest in that regard. Some of the quotes he gave on the Monaghan transaction are not in accordance with the facts.
I would urge the Deputy to exercise caution in accepting quotes, as he appears to do, from newspapers which are inaccurate in very many respects, not least of which was the statement that the chairperson of the board and six persons were about to resign, a statement that was immediately denied by the chairman. He has not resigned and neither has any other member. The procedures adopted by the staff of my Department, experienced, senior, knowledgeable people, were perfectly in order and undertaken in an exemplary manner. The taking of papers was done by prior arrangement with the chief executive of that board. The matter will be dealt with in greater detail in response to a later question, assuming that question is reached.
I am not quite clear on the exact effect of the legislation the Minister will bring before the House later this week. Will it provide that the Legal Aid Board will be independent in the exercise of its functions — for example, in areas such as choosing its staff? The Minister will be aware there have been many complaints about alleged ministerial interference in this area, some of which emanated from the Legal Aid Board itself. On the newspaper article referred to by my colleague, Deputy Woods, the allegation is that confidential files were taken away as a result of a visit that took place at a time when the chief executive and deputy chief executive were not present. The person who called from the Minister's Department asked the staff not to mention he had called and to give no details of his visit. Is that true?
I have already indicated that Deputies should exercise caution in repeating in the House allegations made in a Sunday newspaper which are, to a large extent, without foundation.
I simply asked a question.
I do not want to go into detail on another Deputy's question on this subject which will arise later — I have already dealt with this matter. Suffice to say that the procedures followed were perfectly in order.
Deputy O'Dea is raising the question as to the precise status of the Legal Aid Board under the new Bill. The Bill will be published in a matter of days. Deputy O'Dea will have the opportunity to examine it in great detail and I look forward to discussing it in the House.
On a point of order, the Minister indicated that in a democratic society he would be happy to respond to questions from backbenchers. We have heard much about this OTA Government, the Government of openness, transparency and accountability. I have tabled a number of questions today but I am denied the right to ask supplementaries because they have been taken with priority questions. Where can this matter be referred to so that the Minister of the day will take priority questions——
I must ask the Deputy to refrain. That matter may be raised at the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
May I ask——
I must call Question No. 27.
