Vol. 476 No. 2
16 Ms O'Donnell asked the Minister for Equality and Law Reform the impact, if any, the opening of law centres in Tullamore, County Offaly, and Newbridge, County Kildare, has made in relation to waiting lists for free legal aid; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6642/97]
17 Mr. O'Malley asked the Minister for Equality and Law Reform the number of people who have registered with the Legal Aid Board seeking a divorce; the percentage of those seeking free legal aid; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6645/97]
99 Mr. Flood asked the Minister for Equality and Law Reform if he intends to extend the free legal aid scheme to those people taking action on the grounds of discrimination in both employment and non-employment areas, including travellers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6850/97]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 16, 17 and 99 together.
I am happy to be in a position to inform the House that completion of the final phase of the development plan for the Legal Aid Board, the opening of the law centres in Tullamore and Newbridge, has recently occurred. I am sure those centres will make a significant contribution to the work carried out by the board.
The opening of the law centre in Tullamore on 27 January 1997 had an immediate impact on the waiting list in the law centre in Portlaoise. When the centre opened 62 persons were transferred from Portlaoise law centre to the Tullamore law centre. Also, it is expected that the new centre will reduce the numbers of persons who would otherwise be seeking legal services at the Portlaoise centre. In addition, since the centre opened some 18 persons have applied to the Tullamore centre from areas traditionally catered for from the Athlone law centre. This trend is expected to continue. It is also expected that persons who previously would have sought legal services from Nenagh law centre will now apply in Tullamore for the provision of services.
There was a pre-existent waiting list at the Newbridge law centre which was previously operated on a part-time basis from Finglas law centre. This list was taken over by the Newbridge law centre when it opened. The opening of the Newbridge centre should, accordingly, enhance both the service generally and reduce the pressure on Finglas law centre. In addition a number of existing clients transferred from Portlaoise to New- bridge when it opened and it is expected that persons who previously would have sought legal services from Navan law centre and some of the Dublin law centres will now apply instead to the Newbridge law centre.
The introduction of divorce will affect the numbers seeking appointments with Legal Aid Board solicitors. As of 26 February 1997 1,062 persons had registered with the Legal Aid Board seeking appointments with solicitors of the board on the coming into force of the Family Law (Divorce) Act, 1996 on 27 February 1997. The figure of 1,062 represents slightly less than 41 per cent of applicants for legal aid at the end of February.
There is a charge for the services of the Legal Aid Board. At present, the minimum charge amounts to £23 for this service. However, the board may, where the maximum income contribution is assessed at £23, either waive the contribution or accept a lower contribution if it considers that it would cause that person severe hardship to pay the maximum contribution. This provision also applies where the applicant is required to pay both an income and capital contribution. Therefore, applicants for legal aid are required to pay at least a minimum contribution which may be waived or reduced, should the board consider it necessary.
On the question of extending the Civil Legal Aid Act to people taking legal action on the grounds of discrimination in both the employment and non-employment areas, including travellers, the position is that legal advice is available to an applicant seeking the assistance of the board in respect of an alleged case of discrimination in either the employment or the non-employment areas, where the applicant meets the criteria for the grant of legal service as set out in the Civil Legal Aid Act, 1995 and in the regulations made under that Act. Legal aid is available in similar circumstances where the proceedings in question are to be conducted in the District Court, the Circuit Court, the High Court or the Supreme Court. Also, the Civil Legal Aid Act, 1995 contains a provision in section 27-(2) that enables me, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, to make an order to extend legal aid to tribunal hearings. It would be my intention to consider the question of the operation of that provision in due course taking into account progress, workload, the situation of the Legal Aid Board and the demands the introduction of divorce will make on that service and the Exchequer position.
What effect will the 1,062 cases have on the waiting list? How soon will those cases be processed?
The addition of 1,062 cases will involve a substantial increase in the workload of the law centres, depending on where they are. I cannot give any prognostication as to how that will work out over time. The law centres are reasonably equipped to cater with the additional workload. The funding provided for them was substantially increased and the number of solicitors working in them has more than doubled. As time passes, and the procedures proceed and the divorce jurisdiction develops, this matter will have to be kept under ongoing review. We will have to monitor how it works out. It probably will impact more heavily in some areas than others. It may be necessary to move staff from one centre to another, if there is a lightness of pressure in one area and a weight of pressure in another. The Legal Aid Board does that as it becomes necessary. The divorce procedure is in place but it is only beginning to get under way. We, as well as the Legal Aid Board, will monitor the matter closely.
Is it intended to extend the private practitioners scheme as part of the response the Minister indicated?
That is a separate question.
It is an extension of the question.
I understand the Legal Aid Board is having ongoing consultations in a number of quarters to ascertain the possibilities to extend the private practitioners scheme. If Deputy Keogh wishes to table a question on that, I will give her a more detailed answer.
It is up to the Legal Aid Board to appoint counsel to represent its clients. Is representation given by a senior counsel or a junior counsel or is that at the discretion of the Legal Aid Board? Is a system of appeal open to the appellant if he or she is not satisfied with the way a case has been dealt with by counsel?
That appears to extend beyond the bounds of the question before us.
Is the Deputy asking if there is an appeals procedure for a person who applies to the board for legal aid and does not get it?
Is representation given by a senior counsel or a junior counsel?
I will answer that in a moment. If a person applies for legal aid and his or her initial application is turned down or granted on circumstances which are unacceptable to the applicant, he or she can avail of an appeals procedure. The level of representation they receive depends on what is involved in a particular case. For example, if a matter could be dealt with by the District Court it would be handled by one of the highly skilled and professional solicitors employed by the Legal Aid Board or, in the small number of cases where the relevant scheme applies, a private practitioner. On the other hand, counsel would be employed if a case involved Circuit or High Court proceedings or an appeal to the Supreme Court. Depending on the complexity involved and whether a case was heard by the Circuit, High or Supreme Court, a junior counsel or possibly a senior counsel would be briefed if the situation so warranted.
It often happens that the female party involved in a case may not have access to adequate finances. Is consideration taken of the fact that one party can be represented by senior counsel while the Legal Aid Board may only be able to afford to employ a junior counsel or solicitor to represent the other party?
The Legal Aid Board will provide whatever level of representation it considers appropriate and necessary.
Does that include employing senior counsel?
It does not necessarily follow that senior counsel has any particular magic in these situations. The level of representation that is appropriate and necessary is provided. Whether or not a person receives legal aid, representation in the District Court is generally carried out at solicitor level. It is true that junior counsel occasionally appear there but, by and large, solicitors are the advocates in that court. In the Circuit Court, the usual form of representation involves junior counsel but many solicitors appear without counsel. Occasionally a senior counsel might appear in the Circuit Court but this is by no means usual. In the High Court, representation is carried out mostly by junior counsel but the extent of the presence of senior counsel is greater there. In the Supreme Court, representation is usually, though not necessarily, at senior counsel level.
Solicitors have a right of audience in all courts of the land, from the District Court up to and including the Supreme Court. However, this right is not exercised in the higher courts to a major extent. I believe this to be regrettable but it is the position.
Is the Minister satisfied that the staff of the courts are adequately trained to deal with the new cases? Is he confident that the initial difficulties have been overcome or will there continue to be difficulties in this area?
I do not have any responsibility for the staff of the courts. That matter falls within the ambit of the Minister for Justice and the Deputy should consider tabling a question to her Department in that connection. However, I do not believe there should be any particular difficulty. While not identical, the procedures have much in common with those involving judicial separation. The latest information available to me is that, as far as the Department of Justice is concerned, there is no dispute involved. However, that is more appropriately a matter for the relevant Minister.
