Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 1 Apr 2015

Vol. 873 No. 2

Topical Issue Debate

Community Development Projects

I am grateful to the Ceann Comhairle for the opportunity to raise this issue and I thank the Minister of State for being present.

The VEC halls on Clogher Road in Crumlin and in Inchicore are among the education and sports facilities that were introduced when some of us were members of Dublin City Council, DCC. A condition of their introduction was that they had to open their doors in the evening for community use, particularly for football and dancing clubs, martial arts, arts and crafts and active retirement groups. This meant that people in the community who could not avail of the facilities during the daytime found that these centres could be part and parcel of what they did in the evening, and they have become a great asset to community groups. People can stay local and get involved in activities locally without having to journey elsewhere to participate.

Over the past few weeks, Pobal has withdrawn funding from these centres, which means they will only be able to open between 9.30 a.m. and 4 p.m. to facilitate the students in the colleges in Inchicore and Crumlin. While that is welcome, a commitment was given when these sports halls were opened that people in the community would have access to them in the evenings, and this change is hugely disappointing. I requested confirmation of the commitment to community access from the Minister of State in writing and I received a letter from him yesterday. I understand that the Department felt the proposal made by the groups running the centres was not adequate and did not contain sufficient detail. All is not lost; there is a window of opportunity. The Minister of State stated in his letter:

I want to assure you that the Department is committed to securing the community use of these facilities and will continue to work with the CDETB to enable this outcome. The contract with the CDETB was extended to the end of June [I welcome that], which will enable work to continue with the ETB to address matters concerning the Department, with the aim of allowing longer terms of operation of the contract and to ensure viability for the services to continue in the community.

I welcome the final line in the letter, which is important. I stress that if these centres are prevented from opening in the evenings for community use, it will be a huge loss. It will be a reversal of the commitment made when they were built.

I thank the Minister of State for attending. I appreciate that as soon as I called him on receipt of the letter from the City of Dublin Education and Training Board, CDETB, he acted promptly. It is the least I can expect from a Labour Party Minister. I do not know what exactly are the issues between Pobal, DCC and CDETB, but I have a copy of a reassuring letter which was sent to both sports centres. Will the Minister of State give a guarantee, notwithstanding the fact that there are three months for negotiations among the three bodies, that the community services available on Clogher Road and in Inchicore will be retained with the same opening times and availability for the community as heretofore?

The first I heard about this was when I attended a drugs task force meeting in St. Andrews Hall last week and somebody said Pobal had pulled the funding for the centres. I replied that Pobal is only an agent for European funding or governmental funding. Where does the funding come from? Is this money from the European Social Fund, which finds its way into the system where Pobal intervenes? What is the difficulty being experienced? Public meetings have been demanded. I have received text messages from roller skaters who are worried that they will be unable to roller skate any more, while other community groups are being called to meetings by councillors from DCC. I would like the Minister of State to verbally back up the commitment I have received in writing that this is not a funding cutback and that the funds are available, but there is a complication between the three bodies. He might put our collective minds at rest in order that we can tell people not to bother going to public meetings to shout and roar, because they will be shouting and roaring about the wrong issue.

I too heard about this issue late last Thursday evening. Many people panicked, as could be expected, and I tabled the Topical Issue matter early yesterday evening. I thank the Minister of State for the letter he sent and for responding quickly. When I asked a subsequent question, he responded to me quickly again. I rang the CDETB earlier when I realised this matter would be taken in the House to clarify its position. Mr. David Treacy said that everything was okay, and he is confident. He said that their application might have been too soft, whereas Pobal was expecting a more comprehensive response regarding where the community resources go. However, he is confident that the money is available and everything will be okay, and I hope the Minister of State will confirm this.

This is a complicated way of funding these facilities. It is provided by Pobal but the application has to go to CDETB and then to DCC before being returned to Pobal. My understanding is that there is potential to have the grant paid directly to DCC rather than going through this complicated process. While the buildings belong to the CDETB, the staff are employed by DCC. I hope we will get good news.

If the Deputies will forgive me, I will depart from the script that has been circulated. This matter involves substantial funding. A sum of €600,000 will be paid over three years. In many ways, Pobal is a gatekeeper, and we have to make sure this money is spent correctly. The provision of such funding over a three-year contract is a fantastic asset to local communities. This is the first time this contract has come up for renewal, while approximately 140 contracts come up for renewal on a regular basis. Pobal, therefore, acts as the gatekeeper to make sure the criteria attaching to the funding are met. There will be no reduction in funding. The money is available and we want to spend it, but we want to make sure that happens in the best interest of the communities and, therefore, the criteria must be met. For example, there must be transparency in how the money is spent and in respect of community access to the facilities, which are jointly managed by DCC and the ETB.

The four of us were members of Dublin City Council and I worked with Deputies Eric Byrne and Catherine Byrne on the provision of both these centres, because I was chairman of the VEC when these developments were proposed. They are fantastic facilities. I am concerned by Deputy Eric Byrne's comment that councillors are calling for public meetings on issues for which they are responsible. While the contract is with the ETB, DCC is also involved.

Councillors have representation on the education and training boards. When I was a councillor, I took full responsibility for the electoral mandate I had and dealt with the problems raised regarding this issue. I am quite satisfied that we can resolve it, but there must be engagement, and there must be a contract. All four of us will agree that we must ensure that the money involved, which is over €600,000, is spent in the interests of the two communities. I am happy to work with the Deputies if there are further issues of concern, but we must ensure when we are spending taxpayers' money that it is spent in the right areas, with the right intentions for the outcome of those communities. I will work with members of all parties and none to ensure that happens. I thank the Deputies for raising the matter. There are issues that need to be raised with the local public representatives regarding their own governance of it. The Deputies will have dealt with those issues at council level before, but the contract is with the CDETB and with Dublin City Council, which operates it. I want to see those two centres and those two communities thrive, and I will do everything I can to assist.

The next topical issue is in the name of-----

I have a couple of seconds left.

Sorry. I call Deputy Byrne.

I thank the Minister of State for his response. He might, if he has access to the information, write an outline of his response to the sporting, cultural and adult groups that are using the services to reassure them, despite the scare tactics that have been used on the ground, that there is no need for them to attend public meetings.

These are three-year contracts. I was surprised that so many bodies were involved in the funding stream. I used to think the VEC had it in the morning, during class hours, and then Dublin City Council took over afterwards. The funding stream seems to be more complicated now, with three or four agencies involved. My first question is whether the Minister thinks we could streamline that funding. The more fingers in the pie, the more complicated it gets. Second, could we not make it a permanent relationship, so that the building is permanently available to the community?

I thank the Deputy. The Minister of State will have noted that. We have to move to the next topical issue.

I thought there was-----

We are entitled to-----

My apologies, the Deputy has one minute.

I am delighted with the reply and we can confidently say that they will be open, because there may just have been a lack of understanding about how to meet the criteria Pobal was looking for. If all sides sit down, that will be easily sorted.

I also want to raise the question of funding. Is there a possibility that the funding could be better streamlined, that is, that the grant could go directly to Dublin City Council? The CDETB owns the buildings of Inchicore sports centre and Clogher Road. About ten years ago, they agreed to a procedure whereby Pobal would pay the CDETB as a middle man and then the money would go to the DCC staff and so on. Would it not be better to sit down and use this opportunity to see how the process can be streamlined so that we know exactly where the money is going and if there is a more direct way of dealing with it?

I thank the Minister of State for his clear response. I also thank him because I know he understands what this community needs and what these halls mean to the community. I must also stress that the reaction has been felt strongly on the ground locally. In some ways it has also been fuelled by many negative things, which were not related to this. There are concerns and it is important to let us know as soon as these are resolved, because there can be a negative reaction when people hear for the first time that money is being withdrawn. As the Minister of State said, this has nothing to do with money. This has to do with an application, which was declined for some reason, whether it was put together wrong or did not give the proper information. I agree with him that we have to be very careful giving out substantial amounts of money regarding who it goes to, how it is used and, above all, how the community benefits from it.

My sincere apologies to my colleagues for that error.

Deputy Catherine Byrne is correct. It is €650,000.

I am a little cautious about streamlining. It is the flexibility of the community service programme that makes it work well. There is flexibility in the services where numbers of groups come together but there is one overall manager. In this case, the CDETB has taken on the administration of it. The way this is managed varies across the country. Sometimes when one streamlines something, one loses the benefit. There is often one community group that manages it for five or six other groups, like the hub of a wheel. There is a flexibility within the service. The Department and the taxpayer pay for this; Pobal does not give the money. As I explained earlier, Pobal is the gatekeeper. It ensures that the criteria are met, and that the taxpayers' money is safeguarded and spent in the right manner.

There must be engagement from the CDETB. The letter that went out, which I saw myself, scared people on the ground. This is very much a process. There has been an extension to June, but the contract must be fulfilled. The contract is quite specific and it is safeguarding that service for local communities. The Department of Social Protection is paying out €650,000 on behalf of the citizen and the taxpayer over three years. We want to make sure that money is spent in the best interests of those communities. I will contact the CDETB and urge it to get the application in on time and to move things on. We are not trying to save any money here. We are quite happy that a good service can be supplied to the residents the Deputies represent and I will work with all the Deputies to try to ensure that service is maintained. However, the required level of openness and transparency must be met when these large sums of public money are being spent. I thank the Deputies for raising the issue and look forward to working with them on it.

Post Office Network

I thank the Minister of State for coming to the House. I am very concerned. I hope he will be like the previous Minister of State, who got rid of the script and spoke honestly. He knows, given where he comes from, that post offices are the vital lifeblood of rural Ireland. Deputy Healy-Rae tabled his topical debate at the same time as me and he is also very anxious about it.

I have two documents in my hand. One is the policy of the Department of Social Protection regarding post offices. It wants the majority of its transactions, bar 3%, done by electronic payment by 2015. The Taoiseach told Deputy Fleming and myself recently that this is not happening at all. He said so many post offices were closed under Fianna Fáil, while only 20 closed on his watch. That is not the real issue. The real issue is that the Department wants to have most of its business done by electronic means by 2015. That is only a few people out in the sticks who do not have broadband or anything else. There is a cat-and-mouse game going on here. I want the Minister of State to be honest and tell us what he is going to do about it.

We have nothing without post offices in rural Ireland. They are the last bastion. We have already lost the Garda stations and schools, and the post offices are vital. The post offices could do business through e-transactions if someone funded them. They have submitted proposals to the Department to be funded to do e-transactions. They could replace banks and other services that have been taken away from rural Ireland. It could do a great deal for tourism and the development of the rural economy. The former Minister, Mary Hanafin, in fairness to her, in the last Fianna Fáil Government ring-fenced social welfare payments. If this had not happened, the post offices would have been closed long ago. There would have been mass closures. The Taoiseach can play games all he likes but he is not telling the truth. He is telling the truth when he says that only 20 have closed, but if this policy is accepted, the game is over for post offices in rural Ireland. We want to get the ball on the pitch here. We want to play the ball fairly, openly and, above all, honestly, and deal with the situation because post offices are going to disappear before our eyes. That is not good enough and the Minister of State knows it from rural Ireland as well as I do.

We have raised this Topical Issue today because the Minister for Social Protection issued a letter to all pensioners over recent weeks encouraging them to have their money sent to their bank via direct debit rather than through post offices. This time last year, before the local elections, the then Minister, Deputy Pat Rabbitte, made an announcement that there was a whole-of-government approach to the future of post offices. In February this year, some nine or ten months later, it was announced there would be a review. What was said previously was only to get the Government over the local and European elections.

Whatever the election cycle, a letter has been issued from the Department of Social Protection to pensioners advising them or encouraging those who have been receiving payments for a long number of years to have their money paid by direct debit into the bank rather than through the post office. This is in direct contradiction of what the Taoiseach stated in the Dáil, what the Government has said and what the Minister has said to me on numerous occasions in the House. How come a Department sanctioned this letter, which is in total contradiction of what has been said by Ministers and the Taoiseach in the House? If the Department continues to pursue this policy, it will mean all the post offices in the country will close. The Department should examine how An Post needs to change to ensure the transaction can take place in post offices in the same way as it can in banks. It should be borne in mind that if the Minister for Social Protection continues to send letters to social welfare recipients encouraging them to use banks, it will be the end of the post office network.

Go raibh maith agat.

I was as surprised as the Deputies to see copies of the letter. It is important to point out a working group has been established under the stewardship of Bobby Kerr. When I received a copy of the letter the first thing I did was go to the working group because it includes representatives from the Irish Postmasters Union and various stakeholders with an interest in pulling together a plan for the long-term sustainability and viability of post offices. Progress has been made and good work has been done by the group. There is good, open and honest conversation. I cannot say what the outcomes will be at this early stage because a report will issue shortly on the actions of the group. The Government has made a decision to work proactively across Departments to examine how all Departments can work together, including the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the Department of Social Protection, to lend their weight to the sustainability and viability of post offices.

I sit on the working group and I take this very seriously. It is important to point out that while the script states this was a trial, as far as I am concerned every Department must be on the same wavelength as the interdepartmental decision to ensure the long-term sustainability and viability of post offices. As I stated several weeks ago, and Deputy Moynihan was in the Chamber when I did so, Friday at the post office on Tory Island is the only day when people meet, and the post office in any rural area provides an opportunity for people to meet. The Government is working towards this.

The Deputies have raised important issues. I have taken this matter seriously. It has been raised at the working group and is being taken seriously at that level. The message today must feed into the Government decision that each Department is on the same wavelength in terms of the long-term sustainability of post offices. Perhaps banking in post offices is an option. We can be critical of what happened with these letters, but they did not suggest that people change from post offices. It was not mandatory or prescriptive, but it is information in black and white and I accept this. It is important the issue has been raised at this juncture with regard to the working group. It is also important to point out each Department must be on the same wavelength with regard to where we are going. The Government is taking this seriously and it is important we continue in this vein.

The Minister of State is from rural Ireland and he understands. If it was not the intention of the letter, why was it sent? Why were people told to reply via freepost? When something is sent via freepost, the postmistress or postmaster gets nothing for it. This is a concerted attack on post offices. I welcome the fact a report is being worked on but the Department of Social Protection must be reined in and restrained. Its policy statement of 2013 stated it wanted all but 3% of transactions to be electronic by 2015. This is the death knell for post offices and the social aspect in rural Ireland about which the Minister of State spoke and about which we all know. There is deception going on here. I do not say the Minister of State is involved, rather departmental officials and whoever. Yesterday the Taoiseach announced in a blaze of glory that he will send all his Ministers and Deputies to visit small businesses in rural Ireland to see what the Government can do and that they will not be discriminated against in the new constitution. We are discriminating against self-employed postmistresses and postmasters who do Trojan work and give employment, pay rates and taxes and look after people. Unless this codology is dealt with, we will have no post offices. If this is implemented in one single swoop, they will be gone. The letter should not have been sent out. Apologies should be sent out. The biggest insult is that replies are to be sent via freepost to ensure the postmistress or postmaster does not get a cent from it. It is undermining and closure by stealth. Brostaigh ort leis an situation sin.

I thank the Minister of State for going off script. I hope the script given to him by the Department will not go into the record of the House because one line in it is deeply offensive. It states the letters were issued as part of a small trial to determine the best means of communication with people about their payment options. This is not correct. The letter was basically telling people to go to the banks because the Department wants to get rid of the post offices. Have the letters stopped? Will the working group make a decision to stop the letters? Will no further attempt be made by the Department of Social Protection or any other Department to undermine the post offices in the way this letter sought to do?

No one was more disappointed than I was when I saw the letter.

Good work is being done by the working group. Its meetings are long and people are putting much time into it. Sometimes when something such as this happens, it helps to keep focus on an issue. I hope that happens by the Deputies raising the issue publicly and by me trying to be honest and upfront not just in not giving a standard reply for the sake of it-----

-----but as someone who lives in rural Ireland and who is from a parish where the lifeblood of the community on a Friday, or any other day of the week for that matter-----

-----is for people to come in to the post office. The post office network knows it will have to change with the times, and opportunities exist for banking in post offices. This is where the conversation is going.

Empower them then.

I will ensure the Deputies' observations, contributions and concerns are fed into the working group.

Has the letter been stopped?

It should be stopped.

With immediate effect.

It should not have been sent.

Legislative Measures

I have chosen to raise this issue with the Minister of State as it is very emotive and poignant for many people throughout the State. The Health Act 1970 acknowledges the moral imperative of the health services to make arrangements for the supply without charge of drugs, medicines and medical and surgical appliances to people suffering from prescribed diseases and disabilities of a long-term nature, in effect establishing the HSE administered long-term illness scheme.

There is no doubt that this scheme is of monumental benefit to the thousands of people who depend on it to cover the costs, which would otherwise be onerous, associated with treating their individual medical conditions. However, one aspect of the terminology used in the existing legislation that specifies the qualifying conditions for accession to the long-term illness scheme is contentious, perturbing and for many people stigmatic. The legislation in question is the Health Services (Amendment) Regulations 1971, which prescribe diseases and conditions for the purposes of section 59(3) of the Health Act 1970. The regulations list serious and often life-limiting conditions, including phenylketonuria, cystic fibrosis, spina bifida, hydrocephalus; haemophilia and cerebral palsy.

One condition stipulated in the regulations, but which I have yet to mention, stands out for many people. Under the regulations, "mental handicap" is the tag used to encapsulate conditions such as Down's syndrome and global developmental delay. This archaic, offensive and hurtful label has caused untold emotional suffering to those affected by these conditions and their families for many years. It is a tag that has no place in the world in which we now live. I raised this issue with the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, earlier this month. I asked her in a parliamentary question whether her attention had been drawn to the offensive nature of this terminology and whether had she any plans to review and amend the secondary legislation by which this term is shamefully legitimised. Even though I comprehensively illustrated the derogatory and insidious nature of the label, together with the negative connotations with which it has become associated, she unfortunately responded by telling me she had no plans to amend the terminology used to denote the conditions covered by the long-term illness scheme.

As I was not satisfied with the response I received, I chose to highlight this issue again by asking a question that was referred to the HSE for direct response. In its reply, the HSE professed that with regards to the long-term illness scheme, it no longer employs the term "mental handicap", which dates back to the 1970s. It said that it opts to use what it described as "the correct term" of "intellectual disability" instead. The HSE also gave me a commitment that it would review the wording of the long-term illness scheme on its website to reflect this development. I think we were all delighted to hear of the HSE's decision to drop a label which can only be described as a sordid and unmissed relic of the past. While the simple and sensible action taken by the HSE might involve no more than the rewording of existing HSE documents, the importance and significance of this move should not be overlooked. It was a momentous victory for disability rights advocates throughout Ireland, for those who rightly refuse to be ill-defined by their disabilities and for those who dedicate their lives to challenging the perceptions and preconceived judgments of others regarding intellectual disability.

I call on the Minister to amend the Health Services (Amendment) Regulations 1971 so that this obsolete, draconian and deeply insensitive term can finally be removed from Irish statutes once and for all. This would end the shameful practices of the past, which merely served to stigmatise and marginalise further those who suffer from intellectual disabilities. It would afford them the fairness, dignity and respect they thoroughly deserve. These are our children, friends and loved ones. We should cherish them equally and we should amend the regulation.

I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. I have continually spoken about the use of inappropriate language and highlighted the need to change our language when the circumstances are correct. I will continue to do so long after my career in politics ends. Therefore, I agree with everything the Deputy has said.

The Health Services (Amendment) Regulations 1971 use the term "mental handicap". This old-fashioned term is no longer in general usage. It is not an appropriate term to be used nowadays as it offends many people. The contemporary term used in this country now, including by the Department of Health and the HSE, is "intellectual disability". As the Deputy has rightly said, this term is far more significant than anything that he and I, and maybe others in this House, might find when we look through Acts that were commenced over 30 years ago. Indeed, he will appreciate that these regulations were made over four decades ago - in September 1971 - by the then Minister for Health, Erskine Childers, who later became President of Ireland. While it might seem baffling now, it appears that the use of the term "mental handicap" was considered appropriate at that time. I understand that the representative body, Inclusion Ireland, used to be named the National Association for the Mentally Handicapped of Ireland. I recall the change of name, which happened relatively recently.

I do not believe a person like Erskine Childers would have meant to cause any offence in the making of regulations in 1971, which is a long time ago. Some Deputies in this House were not even born at that stage. With the passage of years, the language used from previous times can appear offensive and inappropriate, even if it was not so in those days. As I have said, "intellectual disability" is the commonly used term in this country now. I agree with the Deputy's view on the term "mental handicap", which is completely old-fashioned and offends many people, especially self-advocates. As the Deputy may be aware, there are other terms used to describe "intellectual disability". However, "intellectual disability" is the most commonly used term internationally and is widely used in medical and teaching circles in Ireland. For example, there is a nursing degree in intellectual disability nursing. There is also a National Institute for Intellectual Disability.

The Department of Health used to have separate units for mental handicap and physical disabilities, but they were merged over ten years ago. Now that the Department adopts a non-diagnosis-specific approach to disabilities, its policies apply to people with all disabilities. It uses the definition of "disability" set out in the Disability Act 2005, which is a far more relevant Act than the 1970 Act. The 2005 Act describes disability in terms of its effects on the individual, rather than in terms of particular types of disability. The national disability strategy and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities take the same approach.

I agree that the terminology used in the 1971 regulations is old-fashioned and offends many people. I think it would be best for acceptable contemporary terminology to be substituted for old-fashioned language when legislation is being revised. I am about to run out of time. We might be able to deal with this matter further in the supplementary part of this debate. I remind the Deputy that a far more impactful Bill, the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013, will come before an Oireachtas committee in May. If I were asked to prioritise legislation, I would say that the Bill in question will have a far more profound effect on our lives as we age. I refer to the lives of those who were born with a disability and those who will acquire a disability during our lifetimes. The Bill in question will change fundamentally how we think and amend all the relevant legislation that has gone before it.

I am well aware of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013 and the delays with it. I know families who have been campaigning for it and are frustrated by the delays in bringing it forward. The Minister of State's concluding comments could be interpreted as making a judgment on which rights we will provide for in the first instance. I would say out of respect that I know the Minister of State did not mean that. The Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013 will have major effects. There are family members out there who have told me they were in tears as they filled in the form for long-term illness care because they had to label their child with "mental handicap". Other people told me they decided not to avail of the scheme because they refused to have their child labelled with "mental handicap".

This is not the Ireland of 1971; it is the Ireland of today. The Minister of State's remarks suggested that the use of this term was confined to the time of Erskine Childers. If she visits the HSE website today, she will see the list of conditions that have to be fulfilled by people in order to qualify for the long-term illness scheme. Those conditions include "mental handicap". The Minister of State can download the form from the HSE website.

I checked it again today and the term "mental handicap" is still on the form. According to the Minister of State, the contemporary term to be used is “intellectual disability” but it is not on this form. I am sure also that she and the rest of us use that term in everyday life. However, it is used in officialdom in this form and on the website. I accept the Health Service Executive has said it will change the form but it still has not happened.

One can change the form for the new language but the Act still states mental handicap is a qualifying condition for the long-term illness scheme. Most regulations can be changed at the stroke of a pen and ministerial order. Is it possible these terms can be changed in the Health Services (Amendment) Regulations 1971? This label is deeply offensive and hurtful. We are both on the same page that this should not exist. As the HSE can deal with it, can the Minister of State deal with it in the original legislation?

There has been no delay in the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013. I accept there has been a 20 year actual delay in publishing it. The Government, however, has drafted relevant legislation and sent it out for the most widespread consultation there has been. This has involved not just the organisations but individuals and academics internationally. There has been no delay on our part. We are determined to get this legislation right because it will have a greater impact on people’s lives. It will not just affect those with intellectual disabilities but people with Alzheimer’s and dementia. It will be about an individual’s will and preference as they go through life. I do not accept the Deputy’s concern about the delay in the legislation. There is no delay in it and Committee Stage will be taken in May.

If the change to the regulations could be done at the stroke of a pen, it will be done. The commonly used term is “intellectual disability”. When I speak to parents or children at a passing out from second level education or the move from first to second, I do not use the term at all. We need to start looking at them as people who have a difficulty that we need to support. The type of label such as “intellectual disability” should not necessarily be used and most parents appreciate that too. If the change to the regulations can be done through ministerial order, then it will be done. There is, however, forthcoming legislation such as the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013 which will have a greater impact and take more time to bed down. I am determined to get it right as it will have a greater impact than previous legislation in this area. The Disability Act may have to be changed, as the Mental Health Act has already been amended to take account of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013. I accept we are all speaking from the same page. Unless one is standing in the shoes of a person affected by this issue, one cannot empathise to the extent one would wish.

Domestic Violence

The situation in respect of civil legal aid has now reached an absolute crisis point. People deemed eligible for civil legal aid have a waiting time for a full appointment with a solicitor of between six and 18 months. In my experience of people attending my constituency office, many women experiencing domestic violence are those seeking legal aid. For a person charged under criminal legislation, all he or she has to prove to receive legal aid is that they qualify financially. However, for many women and children suffering physical and emotional abuse, they do not get this Rolls Royce treatment.

Both civil and criminal legal aid are provided by the State. This should be with a level of equality and fairness across the board. The High Court determined several years ago that people should not wait longer than three months. Unfortunately, this is now got around by the Legal Aid Board, itself under workload pressure, by offering what is known as a triage appointment. This is a preliminary meeting best described as an introductory meeting. It does not assist the applicant for legal aid in any way. It is merely a lip-service appointment. The delays in terms of getting legal representation will still be the same at between six and 18 months. Some women seeking legal aid are dismissed by being told to just get a barring order. Not everybody is in a position to bring an application for a barring order. The reasons for this differ from social or family pressures, as well as not actually being able to face having their spouse barred and issues around children being aware of what is going on. The only option for people living in the misery of marriage break-up who cannot afford to deal with matters privately is to seek representation from the legal aid board.

To put the delays in context, a person may wait for up to 18 months just for a first appointment. If, following on from that, a legal process has to be started, that will take a further year to 18 months. During that time, women are in many cases condemned to live under the one roof while domestic violence is ongoing. It can be very frustrating and even a dangerous time as relationships continue to deteriorate. In many cases, women are seeking legal aid as they are in an abusive and violent relationship.

The delays in the District Court in Dolphin House are particularly bad. I welcome, however, the Minister’s recent announcement about the construction of a new family court. Former Supreme Court Justice, Catherine McGuinness, said:

Most District Court judges have a very long list and very little time to listen. Not listening is a symptom of this lack of resources.

The delay from application to the hearing of the case is approximately 16 weeks. The courts are listing between 18 and 22 matters per court per day.

We cannot continue to have women forced to return to violent or abusive relationships due to the lack of options and supports because of the lack of civil legal aid.

On behalf of the Minister for Justice and Equality, I thank Deputy Mitchell O’Connor for raising this important matter, a subject which is a priority for the Minister.

The Legal Aid Board provides legal services for persons of limited means in certain civil matters subject to a financial eligibility and a merits test. I am informed by the board that domestic violence cases are treated as a priority and, as such, processed without delay. A contribution may be payable by the applicant. However, applicants can apply for a waiver if it would cause hardship to pay it. Such applications are invariably granted in domestic violence cases to ensure this would not cause a delay in providing services.

Legal services are provided through an extensive network of law centres or via a private practitioner panel.

Domestic violence cases are referred to a solicitor on that panel if one is not available within the law centre in order to avoid any delay in providing legal services. I have been assured that the board is not aware of any undue delay in the provision of legal services by the Legal Aid Board for domestic violence cases but if the Deputy has a specific instance in mind, she might let me or the Minister have the details.

Cosc, the National Office for the Prevention of Domestic, Sexual and Gender-based Violence, endeavours to facilitate co-ordination across the justice, health, housing, education, family support and community sectors. The office drives the implementation of the national strategy on domestic, sexual and gender-based violence. Cosc is currently developing a new national strategy which is expected to be published in May or June 2015. Under the strategy, Cosc has run an annual funding programme for awareness raising around the country. Just under €300,000 was provided in funding in 2014. It is expected that around €280,000 will be provided in 2015. Cosc also funds 13 programmes for perpetrators of domestic violence and €484,000 was provided under this in 2014.

Work is being undertaken on the preparation of the general scheme of a reformed and consolidated domestic violence Bill. I understand that the Minister for Justice and Equality intends to bring the draft general scheme to Government by the end of April. Finally, the Deputy may also wish to note that work on the general scheme of a criminal justice (victims of crime) Bill is at an advanced stage. The Bill is expected to be published in mid 2015.

I will contact the Minister of State's office. I am definitely aware of cases where there is undue delay in the provision of legal services to victims of domestic violence by the Legal Aid Board. I must emphasise the issue of domestic violence. SAFE Ireland published a report on Monday that stated that the legal system in Ireland often regards domestic violence as a nuisance rather than a crime. If a criminal turns up at court, they will immediately have access to a junior or senior counsel if they do not have the ability to pay. I can assure the Minister of State that many women who have presented to me in my constituency office have not received immediate legal aid or junior or senior counsel. In many cases, rape, assault and battery within a relationship are not being treated as criminal offences. Even when the gardaí call to some homes where domestic violence has taken place, it is dismissed and rubbished and the woman is told to get over it or that it is not that bad.

I urge the Minister of State to look at the report and recommendations of SAFE Ireland. I can assure him that I have met mothers who have been beaten and raped. I know one woman who was slashed across her face, and received something like 50 to 60 stitches, in front of her young son. This is not acceptable. It is clear that not only do delays need to be addressed, the system needs to offer real support to women suffering domestic violence. The CEO of SAFE Ireland, Sharon O' Halloran, said that women are being worn down by the system rather than supported by it.

I again thank the Deputy for raising this incredibly important matter. I assure her that domestic abuse and the plight of victims of crime are matters of great importance to the Minister. As the Minister said in her opening remarks in Seanad Éireann on 3 March 2015, the Government is committed to introducing consolidated and reformed domestic violence legislation to address all aspects of domestic violence, threatened violence and intimidation in a way that provides protection to victims. The draft general scheme of the legislation is being finalised and it is intended that it will be considered by Government shortly after Easter. Following approval of the general scheme by the Government, it will be forwarded to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Justice, Equality and Defence for pre-legislative scrutiny. Work is also continuing on the drafting of a general scheme of a criminal justice (victims of crime) Bill. This Bill is expected to be published in mid-2015.

Persons seeking the assistance of the Legal Aid Board regarding domestic violence matters can be assured of the board's commitment to providing a prompt service in this area. I will look at the report. At no time and in no way, should any victim of domestic violence or any other kind of violence in our society ever think that they are being treated as a nuisance at any stage of the criminal justice process. I make a commitment to read that report and I look forward to the Deputy's constructive engagement in the process regarding the legislation the Minister intends to bring before this House shortly.

Top
Share