Motions 22 and 16 are being discussed together. Senator Robinson to move Motion 22.
Private Business. - Civil Legal Aid Scheme: Motion.
I move:
That Seanad Éireann considers that the proposed civil legal aid scheme should be introduced by legislation setting out clear policy lines and protecting the rights of citizens; that an attempt to implement such a scheme by administrative action would deprive the Houses of the Oireachtas of their proper jurisdiction in the matter and would prevent the legislative establishment of an independent board, of proper community law centres with local management committees and of a panel of barristers and solicitors to ensure the adequate provision of legal services throughout the country.
The Seanad has two motions before it on the subject of civil legal aid. I would like to begin by saying that I am grateful to Senator Molony and to the Fine Gael group for allowing the motion in my name and in that of Senator Keating to be debated and then provide that the other motion will be moved formally. The other motion calls for the implementation of a scheme of civil legal aid, based on the recommendations of the Pringle Committee. Our motion is a more recent one and was tabled in direct and urgent response to the Government's press release of 2 May last, on the subject of the proposal for a civil legal aid scheme. This press release is relatively brief and it would be proper for me to read its terms, because we fixed the opportunity to debate the terms of this Government proposal to seek clarification from the Minister of State on its terms and to make some critical comments on the scheme, as it is outlined in this press release. The press release is as follows:
The Government have approved the features of the civil legal aid scheme which is to be introduced by the Minister for Justice.
The scheme is based generally on the comprehensive (as distinct from the interim) scheme outlined in the report of the Committee on Civil Legal Aid and Advice (the Pringle Committee). This means that it will not be confined to the three categories of legal cases set out in the interim scheme, that is family law, landlord and tenant and consumer protection cases, nor will it be confined to the lower income group envisaged in that scheme.
The upper limit of eligibility will be £2,500 of disposable income instead of the figure £2,000 set out in the Pringle Report for their comprehensive scheme. (Disposable income is gross income from all sources less certain allowances and deductions such as income tax, mortgage repayments, rents etc.)
The contributions to be paid by assisted parties to the costs will be as recommended by the Pringle Committee for the comprehensive scheme. These are payable out of income and capital. For legal advice cases the minimum contribution will be £1. At the minimum disposable income level (i.e. up to £10 per week) the income contribution towards legal aid will be £10 and higher contributions will be graduated by reference to the level of disposable income.
While the scheme will not be confined to the three categories mentioned it is not intended that legal aid will be available for every possible application: as is the case in other countries, some types of cases where legal aid is considered unnecessary or unjustified would be excluded. Examples of these would be applications to tribunals, defamation, breach of promise, insurance-covered cases, arbitration under the Landlord and Tenants Acts, licensing matters, planning appeals, debt collections and civil bills for sums below a limit to be specified.
The scheme will be administered by a Board and legal aid and advice services under it are to be provided by salaried lawyers employed in centres for the purpose. The Board, which will be independent in the discharge of its functions, will consist of a Chairman and eight members and will have the final responsibility in determining individual applications for legal aid, both as regards means and legal merit. The discharge of this responsibility may involve hearing appeals against refusals of legal aid by centres or by members or officers of the Board.
The aim of the Government is that the scheme should be in operation as soon as possible, but in any event by the end of the year. The scheme will be introduced initially on an administrative basis, that is without specific legislation, and the Minister proposes to enter at once into discussions with the legal profession on the implementation of specific aspects of it.
My first point in relation to that press release is that it refers to the fact that the scheme will be introduced as an administrative one and that there will not be any specific legislation. The Minister of State, in a radio interview following that press release, stated that the Government wished to have the flexibility of an administrative scheme and that it was not envisaged that there would be legislation, probably for a number of years. This raises an extremely serious issue. It is hard to believe that the Government would envisage introducing any type of comprehensive scheme of civil legal aid without grounding legislation. I believe that this raises constitutional issues. It seems to be an attempt by the Government to bypass the Oireachtas. How can an independent legal aid board be set up without legislation? How can criteria for the right to legal aid and availability of legal aid be set out without legislation? This is the first, very important point, and I would hope that the Minister of State will give us some indication of Government thinking in this regard. It is the Oireachtas which is given the legislative power under the Constitution, and it should surely be the Houses of the Oireachtas which set out the type of structure which was envisaged in the Pringle Committee, which, in fact, appendixed to its proposals the heads of the legal aid Bill. In other words, the Pringle Committee, saw it as a necessary prerequisite to the introduction of civil legal aid and that there would be legislation.
I will deal with this point more fully in reply when I have heard the Minister of State give an explanation of why the Government should see fit to seek to introduce the scheme by administrative arrangement, with all the dangers and difficulties of that, in that it cannot establish any independent board; it cannot give a right, as such, to legal aid and it may be dependent on the availability of Government funds in the future. It is easy to abolish an administrative scheme; it is easy to totally underfund it, so that it does not work, and therefore there are all those dangers in that approach. That is my first fundamental criticism of the Government's proposals in this area.
The second criticism I would make is of any attempt to describe the scheme, as outlined in the press release which I have read, as being a basic implementation of the recommendations of the Pringle Committee. That is claimed in that statement and yet, on examination, what the Government proposals do is leave out all the better aspects of the Pringle scheme and, instead, refer in very sketchy outline to a scheme which is very far removed either from the interim or the full proposals of the Pringle Committee. I would agree with the analysis made of the Government's proposals and the comparison made between the Government proposals and the recommendations of the Pringle Committee, which are contained in a discussion paper issued by the Coolock Community Law Centre entitled "Law Centres and Legal Aid". In page 40 of this discussion paper they refer to the claim made by the Government that the proposed scheme would be "based generally" on the comprehensive scheme of the Pringle Report. It says:
The claim that the proposed scheme is "based generally" on the comprehensive scheme in the Pringle Report simply does not stand up to examination, if we compare the two.
|
Pringle Report Scheme |
Proposed Scheme |
|
Panel system using private lawyers |
No panel scheme |
|
Community based law centres |
No community based law centres |
|
Tribunal cases included |
excluded |
|
Defamation cases included |
excluded |
|
Planning appeals included |
excluded |
|
Civil bill actions included |
restricted |
|
15 Members on legal aid board |
9 members. |
In fact, the proposed scheme has rejected all the more imaginative aspects of the Pringle Report recommendations. We do not consider that the scheme can meet the need for legal services to be available nationally, and involves a purely cosmetic exercise designed to give only the appearance of a national comprehensive legal aid scheme without actually delivering same.
That comparison between the main proposals of the Pringle Report and the very different approach of the Government scheme shows that far from being an implementation of the main proposals in the Pringle Report it is a most unacceptable watering down, an introduction of an administrative scheme to establish 15 legal assistance centres and to effect the employment of 30 lawyers. That is not a comprehensive system of civil legal aid. That is not to have begun to understand what community law centres are all about. This is the next major weakness in the Government's proposals —a total failure to understand what is meant by a community law centre, which forms an essential component of the Pringle recommendations.
The Pringle recommendations were for a minimum of six community law centres to start with and that this was to develop as a network in the community. There was also to be the panel system, which has been rejected by the Government. The major problem that we are left with is that 15 legal assistance centres do not begin to provide a genuine system of civil legal aid and advice throughout the country. If one looks at the situation in Dublin one would have to have seven or eight of those centres located in parts of Dublin and its suburbs and outer regions, leaving, at the most, about seven centres to be located in large towns or cities around the country. That is not providing a system of civil legal aid; that is not providing access to legal services for people. It is certainly not clear from that press release that there must be countrywide access to legal services. There must be a network of community law centres and a panel system, to ensure that there are no gaps, that there are not people who are too far distant from the centres to be able to have access to their services. What the Government are doing is very much a limited, urban-based provision of State lawyers providing services. It is very far removed from the general criteria and standards which the Pringle Report had identified and which must form an essential part of any scheme.
In looking at the question of the provision of legal advice we must examine what we mean by a community law centre. We have to ask a number of questions. What should be the basic aims behind a community law centre? What work should the centre involve itself in? How do we envisage law centres being established? Who should be involved in both the planning and the running of the centres? These are fundamental questions, none of which is relevant in the same way to the legal assistance centres which the Government seem to be envisaging, where you employ two lawyers who are paid for out of moneys provided by the State and they are located in this centre. That is not a community law centre. They have not begun to understand what a community law centre is.
When we are talking about community law centres we have to look at the various aspects of work of a centre. These would be broken down into at least five different categories of work. First of all, there would be the case work of the community law centre. It seems that the Government's scheme would envisage a legal assistance centre purely devoted to case work, where you would have lawyers employed and paid for by the State taking on a load of case work under the terms set out, in sketchy fashion, in the Government's press release. Case work is only one aspect of the work of a community law centre. Secondly, there would have to be the resources service to existing community organisations—the resource that a community law centre would be to tenants' associations, women's organisations, local community associations, the resource of knowing the rights of the people in that area, being able to seek advice on particular problems which are prevalent in that area, particular housing problems, or whatever it may be.
The third aspect of the work would be to help to organise self-help and community organisations within the area—a positive involvement by the community law centre in helping the people in that area to help themselves. I am thinking of a group of deserted wives in an area who can be encouraged by a community law centre to be involved to a considerable extent in self-help, in learning together and in meeting their own particular legal and social needs.
A fourth very important aspect of a community law centre is the educational aspect, the extent to which it is involved in educating people as to their rights, educating people as to what is meant by legal aid, educating people as to the way in which law can help them; there are so many people in this country, particularly in areas where their needs are greatest, who fear the law and who fear lawyers; who do not see the law as being helpful to them and who see it as an alien body associated with the Garda, associated with courts which intimidate and frighten them. A very substantial role of a community law centre is this educational role.
Finally, there is the need for a community law centre to be actively involved in research and in campaigning for law reform, based on the practical experience of the community law centre. If one were envisaging community law centres in this sense, as a component in a system of civil legal aid, we require legislation establishing, first of all, the legal aid board which would be the central board and which would set down the standards for these community law centres. The staffing of a community law centre is an essential feature of it. The experience in other countries and the recommendations made would make it clear that a community law centre should have a minimum staff component and that that minimum staffing would include two solicitors, at least, a community law officer, or a community worker—whatever one wants to call the co-ordinator with the local community—and an administrator. That would be a minimum staff of four people at that level, and obviously also secretarial assistance. The Government, in its proposals, referred to the fact that the centres would be staffed by two solicitors. There is a very narrow approach to the provision of the case load aspect of a centre. The equally important other roles of a community law centre in relation to its local community do not seem to have been understood or comprehended; the minimum staffing which would be envisaged would be at least four people and the legal aid board should be laying down this as a minimum standard.
Apart from the staffing requirement, there would also have to be the provision of a budget through annual grants to these community law centres to allow them to develop the research and educational aspects of their work, which is so important. This dimension of research and education is totally absent from the Government proposals and does not feature in the proposed scheme, I would like to place a great deal of emphasis on that.
I would like to refer to the one full-time community law centre which we have here in the Republic, which is Coolock Community Law Centre. It is very important to learn from the practical experience of a full-time community law centre and to see it as a model, not to be viewed uncritically—we can view it critically—but also to be seen as a practical model from which we should build. It is interesting to see the priorities which the Coolock Community Law Centre has established already. One of these is a very strong priority in its educational aspect of relating to the local community; in establishing a local management committee which is heavily involved in the management of the centre.
We can learn a lot from the practical experience of this full-time community law centre which is operating in the State, the Coolock Law Centre. It is interesting to see the emphasis placed by that law centre on the educational and research aspects that I had referred to. This is an aspect which is not contained in the outline of the Government's proposals. It does not seem to form part of the legal assistance centres which the Government propose to establish and, therefore, I am placing a lot of emphasis on it.
It is interesting to see that in its time in existence the Coolock Law Centre has published a number of different kinds of discussion papers, research papers, surveys and so on. I listed those that I have in my own possession—they may not even be comprehensive, but these are the ones I have in my own files—because I find their work extremely useful and very informative. They published a barring order survey—surveying the number of barring orders obtained—the problems, the degree to which the Garda Síochána can be called upon to assist where a barring order has been breached, and so on. They published a report on the whole area of maintenance of deserted wives and the problems for deserted wives of trying to choose between deserted wife's allowance or a social welfare supplementary allowance, depending on circumstances. They published the discussion, from which I have already quoted, on law centres and legal aid, a guide to employment rights, a leaflet on social welfare allowances, and a further explanatory leaflet on criminal compensation tribunals—another area people do not know about. They found a number of their clients were unaware of their rights and decided they ought to have this explanatory leaflet. They also publish a newsletter which comes out every three months or so, and I understand that No. 7 of this newsletter will be coming out in the very near future.
They have established a working local management committee which consists of representatives of the local tenants' association, community groups, women's organisations and so on. They are in a position to make a very lively and committed contribution. I understand that the Coolock Law Centre have formed themselves into a company limited by guarantee, that the local management committee form a central part of that company and will continue to form an integral part of the work of the community law centre, of their accountability, and of their whole impact and role in the local community. These are all very important values and are essential values for a community law centre.
I am not suggesting that every community law centre should approach it in precisely the way in which the Coolock Law Centre have established themselves. They had very considerable difficulties. For example, they sought to have a second solicitor for a very considerable time because they are working at the moment in what would be regarded as a substandard way. They have only one solicitor working in the law centre. Yet, their case load for 1978 is phenomenal. The new cases taken on totalled 510. Court appearances made by this one solicitor totalled 217, and appointments made during 1978 for the Coolock Law Centre totalled 1,115. What solicitor in private practice would tolerate that kind of workload? It is not good for a law centre to be reliant on one single solicitor to do the case work.
Therefore, the Coolock Law Centre have not had an ideal situation. They have been fighting for a second solicitor to bring them up to what is regarded as the minimum staffing of a community law centre-to have two solicitors. They have had to fight a battle for the salary of the community law agent, and are now able to plan for next year because of a special grant from the Department of Health. I understand the grant of £5,000 made under the general auspices of the Department of Health has begun to come through and this will secure the salary of the community law worker until next March.
They are still in very difficult negotiations about their premises. The present premises are totally inadequate. There are no toilet facilities. What solicitor in private practice would put up with that? There is a lively proposal, as the Minister knows, for a different section of the Northside Shopping Centre. I have the correspondence here but I do not think it is appropriate at this stage to quote from it, unless the Minister makes some reference to the question of the premises of the Coolock Law Centre, and in reply I might meet some of the points he makes. It appeared the Department of Justice were going to take a lease and make it available for the Coolock Law Centre, but they have declined to do this. It appears FLAC were given money, but they were not authorised to acquire the premises and pass them on to the Coolock Law Centre.
We have one full-time community law centre and they have had problems in relation to getting a proper complement of staff, getting their two solicitors; getting the salary of the community law officer and they had to beg and eventually throw themselves on the mercy of the Minister for Health who seemed to be able to find some money for them and they had to enter into very difficult negotiations about premises. Here we have the Government saying they are going to establish 15 legal advice centres, not community law centres but legal assistance centres, around the country, staffed by two solicitors. I believe their credibility would be a good deal better if the attitude towards the existing full-time community law centre stood up to examination and was not, as it appears to be, one of constant survival attempts by those who are staffing the Coolock Community Law Centre, a failure to appreciate the very valuable work they are doing, the enormously important impact they have made in their local community and the very strong feelings of the people living in that area who, for the first time, are getting legal advice, who are benefiting from the research, who have an accountability by the law centre to them and to the representatives of their organisations, who are prepared to come out in the street and demonstrate in favour of their community law centre. It is this kind of development that we want as the basis for the approach of establishing centres.
We do not want legal assistance centres merely staffed by lawyers paid by the State to provide legal advice. That is not enough. We want a network of community law centres. We also want a panel system. We must have a panel system if we are to have a countrywide system of civil legal aid and if we are not to discriminate against those in rural areas, or those in small towns where there is not a legal assistance centre. These are essential points I would like the Minister to deal with when he makes his contribution.
We also must hear a great deal more about the reasons given in the Government's press release for the exclusion of certain categories of cases. There are some exclusions which are very hard to understand, for example, the exclusion of tribunals. The casework that FLAC has encountered and the casework of the Coolock Community Law Centre show that very important areas are social welfare appeals, employment appeal tribunals, and planning appeals. Local tenants' associations or local community groups may wish to institute a planning appeal but may not be able to do so unless they can get the advice of their local community law centre. These exclusions seem to bear no relation to the reality of the problem.
Other exclusions are hard to understand—the exclusion of civil bills falling below a certain limit. What is the merit in that? It may be a small amount, but to somebody who is not able to afford a private lawyer it may be essential, for example, either to defend an ESB claim or to defend a debt which a widow finds herself liable to pay arising out of the death of her husband and the administration of the estate. The amount may not be big, but why should that person not be able to get the advice? Why should the criterion not be one of merit? If there is no merit in the claim, the person should not be entitled to civil legal aid and advice, but why have an artificial low cut-off in this way?
The eligibility criteria will have to be examined much more fully. To begin with, it would be important for Members to ascertain what the precise provisions of the eligibility criteria would be. For example, in talking about the upper limit of eligibility being £2,500 of disposable income, what is the position, for example of a married woman? How would her income be assessed? If a person has nominally a disposable income, but does not have £10 to put down for the legal aid, but needs a barring order or a maintenance order, how will that person be able to get over what appears to be a barrier to getting advice? Before responding on that, it would be better to wait and give the Minister of State an opportunity to clarify the eligibility limits and that aspect of the scheme.
I will summarise the major criticisms, and they are very basic criticisms, of the scheme as we see it at the moment. First, the suggestion that the scheme would be introduced without legislation is unacceptable. Second, the absence of a panel system is not a comprehensive civil legal aid scheme. It is a limited proposal to establish a number of legal assistance centres in areas of density of population and does not cater on a nationwide basis for equality of access to justice, access to the courts, and access to a remedy. Third, these legal assistance centres are not community law centres in any sense of the word, and therefore, are not an implementation of the Pringle recommendations. We need to think again of what we mean by community law centres and to base the whole approach on the need for community law centres which have this whole aspect of research and education in relation to the local management committees.
There is no reference in the Government scheme to local management committees. This vital relationship between a community law centre and the indigenous population of the area seems to be totally omitted from the Government scheme. There are the omissions of certain categories of cases which bear no real relation to the type of case load which a solicitor of this sort would have and to the kind of problems which would arise. If there are to be exclusions they should be dealt with by the Legal Aid Board. That is the body which determines the types of cases for which there should be availability of legal aid, if we are not going to have it as an availability across the board which of course, would be my preference. I am grateful to Senator Molony for allowing me to move this motion, and I now make way for him because he kindly offered to second it.
It gives me pleasure to second the motion tabled by Senator Robinson. I should perhaps explain that Motion No. 16, in my name and that of Senator Cooney called on the Government to introduce as a matter of urgency a comprehensive scheme of civil legal aid and advice as outlined by the Pringle Committee in their report, and has been on the Order Paper for over a year. With the announcement some weeks ago of the new system, it became dated. For that reason I was quite happy to let Senator Robinson introduce Motion No. 22. There is not any need for me to go into all the arguments. Senator Robinson has given a very good outline of the case in favour of the comprehensive scheme proposed by the Pringle Committee. One of the difficulties we have today is that we do not really know how the scheme, as already proposed by the Government, is going to work.
I agree fully with what Senator Robinson said about the manner in which the Government chose to in troduce the scheme. I do not think it is good enough that they say "we are going to introduce a scheme by an administrative laneway and it will be controlled by an independent force". Senator Robinson pointed out the difficulty about how people might be appointed to that board. The Government are in very real difficulties here. I would prefer it in many ways if the Minister had started this debate, contrary to the convention and manners of the House, by explaining precisely what the Government had in mind. Unfortunately I am going to be caught for time. I do not think I will be able to wait to hear what the Minister of State has to say.
I will forward the Senator a copy of my reply.
I will look forward with interest to reading the Seanad Report on the subject. I was astonished to read some newspaper reports after the Government issued their press release some weeks ago in which they said that the new scheme appeared to be an improvement on the comprehensive scheme as proposed by the Pringle Committee. No doubt the Minister will call on those words of praise for the scheme, but time will show that those words were written prematurely and in an over hasty fashion, and when the scheme as we think we know it, is introduced, it will be seen to be grossly and utterly inadequate.
The first thing to point out, as Senator Robinson did, is that there is undoubtedly not just a problem so far as legal aid is concerned, but there is a social problem so far as many people are concerned in dealing with the law and lawyers. If we are talking about legal aid in the sense that we want to provide everybody with access to justice, we must approach this in a completely different fashion.
The provision of 15 centres throughout Ireland is not going to provide access to justice for somebody living, for example, in Tipperary. There will not be one of these law centres or advice centres in Tipperary. This means that somebody from Tipperary who wants to consult one of these legal aid solicitors would have to travel to Cork, Dublin or Limerick, to get advice. The simple truth is that it is most difficult for those people most in need, to travel. The scheme, as envisaged, would be counterproductive in this sense.
Problems will arise in relation to a marriage, a matter of labour law, or in relation to any number of matters, and unless a person can gain access to advice easily, it is certain that he or she will not do it at the start. He or she will wait until the case has advanced, perhaps to a position where the marriage has irretrievably broken down perhaps to the position where, in a civil action, the parties are so entrenched that it is difficult to affect a reasonable and quick settlement. In doing that, we are creating problems for the centres that will exist presumably by the end of this year.
We must go back to the basic point, and Pringle saw this. They said if you want to provide access to justice, to provide a comprehensive legal system, you must do two things. You must first ensure that throughout the State offices are established where people can go to get legal aid and advice. In the report they considered the question of how this might be done and whether it was possible to introduce community law centres throughout the country. At chapter 4, paragraph 2, they write:
At present legal services in the State are provided almost exclusively by private practitioners. It seems clear that the provision of a comprehensive nationwide legal aid and advice service must involve the private practitioner. There are obvious advantages in using the established system of providing legal aid services for the purposes of the Legal Aid and Advice Scheme. There is an existing network of legal practices which effectively covers the country, and it would offer the widest choice of source from which to obtain legal aid and advice. However, because of the fact that a legal aid and advice service can sometimes be provided more effectively in underprivileged and densely populated areas by other means, in particularly by full-time legal aid centres, we consider that the provision of this service should not be the sole responsibility of private practitioners. On the other hand, we consider that a service provided exclusively by legal aid centres would be impracticable outside a few of the larger centres of population.
That is the case. I do not believe there is anything one can gainsay or take from that argument.
If you are talking about providing a comprehensive system, a real system, in which people can gain access to justice, you must provide a nationwide system. Fifteen law centres, whether they are community or legal aid or advice or whatever type centres, scattered around the country here and there will not provide that service. It is something like the Landlord and Tenant Bill that promised to abolish ground rents; it will be another month before we see the results of that. It is paying lip service to it, it is saying: "we have a system of legal aid, and therefore we need not bother our consciences about it any more". You may have a system but you are not providing a system whereby the people can gain access to justice. I believe that is the only criterion by which one can judge the effectiveness of the proposed system.
Senator Robinson dealt fairly extensively with the necessity to provide community law centres as opposed to legal aid and advice centres. This is very important. Le us consider not only the experience of the Coolock Community Law Centre but the experience of FLAC. They were originally set up to bring pressure to bear on the Government to introduce a comprehensive system, to provide some form of interim service and also—and this is the point that is important—to advise on areas of law requiring reform. The experience of the students in the free legal advice centres has caused massive changes not only in the way they now operate the free legal advice centres in the advent and development of the Coolock Community Law Centre, but in some other areas. I believe they have had a very substantial impact on the reforms that have taken place in our family laws. I believe, for example, that they have been major contributors to the new solicitor's course, which I know has been criticised, but which so far as its content is concerned, is far more socially concerned and socially aware than any law course or law curricula has ever been.
The other point to be considered, and again Senator Robinson touched on this, is the question of helping people to help themselves. I know, from my own experience in FLAC, that many people assisted in one case could understand and help themselves in the future, for example, in the whole question of family law related cases. Students found it extremely difficult to deal with them at the beginning because their courses did not have any content related to family law, except in so far as property and succession rights were concerned. But having had a year's or two years' experience part-time in FLAC, they were not only able to deal with matters themselves, but were literally able to advise professional solicitors who attended to assist at the centres as to how those matters might be dealt with.
I have no doubt but community law centres, properly set up, would make the job of solicitors within those centres easier. I believe people who are not qualified solicitors could help in cases and help resolve them. I believe also, as Senator Robinson said, that the people requiring legal aid would learn to help themselves in certain type cases that are common in the distressed areas of our cities and towns.
I regret that the proposed law centres will not be community law centres as was envisaged by the Pringle Report. I accept the Government's position that it is difficult to introduce a system but they appear to have put their heads in the sand and to have chosen to ignore the experience of other countries. They should have taken the advice given in the Pringle Report. That was not the advice of people who just sat around a table and discussed the matter amongst themselves. They sought knowledge of experience in other countries.
It is clear that the best law centre is the community law centre. It is also clear that the best way of providing people in cities and densely populated urban areas, in particular, is through community law centres. On page 88 of the Pringle Report, there is reference to a report of J.A. Green and E.S. Green, "The Legal profession and the process of Social Change: Legal services in England and the United States", in which they report:
In a neighbourhood law office, the full-time staff lawyer is given the opportunity to develop an expertise at handling problems unique to the poor. He is likely to develop, if he does not already have, a sympathy for the legal difficulties and personal ambitions of poor people. His consequent political interest is a manifestation of the same kind of identity that the corporate lawyer obtains from social intercourse with executive clientele. A lawyer does not see himself as one who represents just any person with any problem; he often sees himself as an advocate for, and in this sense, representative of the group that his practice serves.
That is the greatest case that can be made for community law centres. If we have advice centres that simply pump out legal advice to somebody who is given the licence of the Government to call to one of these centres, we are not servicing the people in the manner in which we think we are by providing a legal aid system. If the purpose of it is to enable people to have access to justice, we are not going about this in the right way.
There is obviously a problem in establishing a great number of these centres but I see no reason why, even on the basis proposed by the Government, the 15 centres now envisaged could not be staffed with additional staff and be given the resources to act as community law centres rather than as legal aid advice centres. I believe if that were done it would be to the betterment, not only of giving people access to justice, but to the more efficient running of a legal aid system itself. After that it is most important that private practitioners are used throughout the country on a panel basis. Any solicitor who is prepared to volunteer his services for this should be put on that panel and it should be used. There may be areas where solicitors are not inclined to go on the panel but I believe that if the system were properly run they would go on the panel. They did not go on the criminal legal aid panel to start with because it was not properly run. Since the beginning of this year changes have been brought about that have literally drawn solicitors from towns, and in some instances counties, that were not on it because it is now a system that can be operated at no extra cost to the Exchequer. Therefore, if we provide a panel system that can run along with the community law centres that have been proposed by the Pringle Report we will go some way to solving the problem.
I am in this difficulty that I do not know how this is going to work; I do not know how it is going to be set up. I doubt very much that an independent board to administer it can be established without some form of legislation. I would regret that it could happen without some form of legislation. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us on this.
I would like to say in a general way that I regret it has taken us so long to come this far. This is a matter which cannot be laid solely at the door of the Government. It goes back through successive governments who overlooked dealing with this problem, shelved it, delayed it and so on. I would regret it if this Government were to feel that by providing the service they now propose to provide, they are going to solve the problem. It will be a matter of considerable regret, because as I understand it two things are going to happen: this scheme will be introduced, inadequate as it is, and at that stage the grant to the free legal advice centres would be suspended. If that happens there will be a worse service in this city for people in need of legal aid and advice than there is at the moment. It is a pity that that should be the case. If the intention is to work this through administrative channels, to establish it and see how it works and to keep it flexible so that it can be changed this way or that way I would ask the Minister, while such experimentation goes on at least not to throw away the free legal advice centres as they presently stand. If their grant is withdrawn, it is almost inevitable that they will close down. With the administrative load that those centres have on their backs at the moment they could not possibly continue to operate without being grant-aided.
I would ask the Minister to bear that in mind and I look forward with interest to see what his exposition of this new scheme will be because it is very hard to talk about something when one does not really know exactly what one is talking about.
The function of legal aid surely is to ensure that the law is administered fully and without discrimination. The provision of legal aid does not mean the provision of an open sesame to justice. It means the provision of equal access to the legal system. I know that in saying that I am taking a much narrower view of the function of legal aid than the previous speaker did. But equality of access to any social legislation is a fundamental right whether it is access to education or to health and social welfare services or, in this case, access to the law.
In the area of social legislation legal aid has become, to quote the President of the High Court, Mr. Justice Finaly, not only a desirable social objective but a necessity. No one would wish to argue or disagree with that.
The first difficulty that I see in the successful operation of a legal aid scheme is to make the law acceptable in areas of social deprivation where the attitude that the law is neither relevant nor acceptable is common. This problem of alienation is the subject of comment in the report of the Committee on Civil Legal Aid and Advice which notes:
The underprivileged often see the law as an instrument of oppression rather than a statement of rights. One law for the rich and one for the poor is an attitude which will persist as long as there is discrimination in the administration of the law.
The second difficulty that I see is that legal aid without reform of the law, particularly reform of certain aspects of family law, would not in itself benefit many poor people who have legal problems in this area. The high rate of marital breakdowns is a problem which needs attention urgently, and not merely in the legal sense. For many women in this situation the law is the last resort. Legal aid, therefore, is ineffective as a social service unless it is backed up by a comprehensive system of other social services such as information, advice and counselling.
After all a marriage does not break down overnight. One does not wake up one morning and look at one's husband and decide that one cannot live with him any longer. It takes quite a period for this to happen, just the same as a husband does not become a wife-beater overnight. We should look at this in the broader social sense rather than in the narrow legal sense.
I agree with Senator Robinson in asking the Minister if he would elaborate on the situation in which a married woman would be assessed for legal aid if, for example, her husband has an adverse interest in her having access to the courts. If their joint income is over the limit of eligibility, is she entitled to be considered for free legal aid?
I welcome the Government's decision as it was set out in their press release to set up law centres to administer the scheme. It would not be fitting to talk about any law centre without acknowledging the pioneer work that has been done by FLAC in this field. I feel sure that the experience of this voluntary organisation of dedicated young people will be of enormous benefit in the organisation and the running of the proposed legal aid centres.
The report of the Committee on Civil Legal Aid and Advice also recommended that any such centres should employ one professional social worker and that lawyers on the staff should be trained in welfare legislation. I am not competent to comment on legal training but I would welcome an assurance from those Members of the House who may know if our law schools are providing such training.
One of the most useful functions of the proposed legal aid centres would be in identifying hidden need and providing the necessary feedback to the Law Reform Commission. I would expect that they would see this as part of their function to do this.
While I note what the Government have said about areas to be excluded from the proposed scheme, I feel that in this area of unmet need we might well in the future find ourselves in a similar situation to the present British one where it has been found that industrial tribunals have created a whole new field of highly technical law where usually employers were legally represented while claimants were not and it was found necessary to extend legal aid to include proceedings in the new employment appeal tribunal established under the Employment Protection Act, 1975.
The final difficulty that one sees in implementing an efficient and satisfactory scheme is the cost. Here we might usefully look at the British experience. In the 25 years or so since legal aid was introduced in Britain in the 1950s, its progress has been described as disappointing. The 25th Legal Aid Annual Report of 1974 and 1975 notes that schemes have been hamstrung by financial stringency and are now fast being emasculated by inflation. There is urgent requirement to restructure the financial basis for the schemes as the legal rights of many people are continuing to go by default. The percentage in Britain of married couples with children who qualified on income grounds for legal aid has fallen from 64 per cent of the population in 1954 to 25 per cent in 1974.
A study published in 1975 called "Legal Services in Birmingham" and published by the Institute of Judicial Administration makes the point when it concludes that the last seven years have seen the development in the United Kingdom of a major movement to meet the needs of the deprived which involves lawyers, administrators, social workers and community workers and that unless government funds are released soon to realise some of the objectives of that movement it will dissolve in disillusionment. I would hope that we would try to avoid a similar experience.
The need, therefore, is for a speedy, efficient and essentially a flexible system. This can be best provided for in the scheme which has been outlined by the Government. Legislation at this stage would mean delay in implementing what we are all agreed is an urgent social necessity and would restrict unnecessarily the development of the scheme and impair its flexibility and flexibility is a most necessary ingredient in a legal aid scheme.
I have no hesitation in welcoming the Government's decision to introduce the legal aid scheme in the manner which they have indicated. I think the proposals are broad and generous and I hope the scheme will have the success it merits.
The Pringle Committee made a recommendation as far back as December 1977. It was a bit disturbing that we did not learn of the Government's attitude to it until the press release of May of this year. Nevertheless, it is encouraging that at least there was some indication in the press release by the Government as to where they stand on the matter. It is also a bit disturbing to think that in such an area, despite the fact that there was great stress and great difficulty amongst people who needed legal aid, it would take so long to introduce a comprehensive civil legal aid system.
It is fair to say that, through the various submissions, the tone of this debate and of other areas of dialogue, including the Pringle Report, there is no question but that a case has been made for introducting civil legal aid. It is a question now of whether or not to accept a particular type of scheme. It is crucial that the type of scheme we set up will be beneficial.
Other Senators have addressed themselves to some inadequacies in that area so I am not going to develop that.
But from reading the press statement it seems that what we are really getting is an administrative situation. I do not know if that is what the Pringle Report is all about. I know that some people who have studied the report, including the ICTU, consider that the minimum needed to extend the availability of legal services are the recommendations in the Pringle Report. Any diminution of that would indicate, to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions at least, that the whole question of dealing with the implementation of a comprehensive civil legal aid and advice scheme is not being tackled correctly.
That brings me back to the point that has been raised by other Senators and by the press statement. What is really happening is that there is going to be an administrative system rather than a more professional approach with proper bodies and adequate means of communication and professional lawyers available and ready when the most deserving cases came before them.
The Pringle Report does satisfy a section of the population but it cannot satisfy many of our problems because of the cost factor. I know that there was mention of a disposable income limit in the press statement but I am not quite clear about it because it is merely a press statement. I am not too sure whether a medical card holder or people in receipt of certain social welfare benefits are covered by the Pringle Report or whether the Government have looked at this side of it. Social welfare recipients may also have legal problems that they need to solve and may not have any disposable income, so it is not clear to me what their position is. Perhaps the Minister might cover that point. It could be an oversight on my part but it does not seem to come across very clearly.
The statement, to some extent, has dealt with the test for financial eligibility but I am not so sure whether I fully understand what the position would be with regard to certain contributions, and so on, towards the service. That brings me back to the medical card holders. Could they meet the requirements set out in the Government's statement? If they can, in what way? If they cannot how can we call the scheme comprehensive? On the other hand, the question of the contribution that people in this area would have to make should be made clear. I do not think such people should be asked for a contribution but if they are asked to pay some contribution it should not be done in such a way as to deter people receiving certain types of social welfare from using the scheme.
I made my notes before I read the press statement and one of the questions I was about to ask was should we not be dealing with a level of disposable income? In fairness, the press statement answers that question to some extent. I am not quite clear whether there is something that would satisfy the social welfare recipients or whether there is some graduation where people might be a little better off in other areas of social welfare.
The question of £15 worth of advice in the report was an amusing one. In Britain when they first introduced this in 1974 the amount was £25 worth of advice. It was called the English green scheme. Even that was found to be inadequate after a full test. It is amusing to see, in this day and age, people with serious legal difficulties and who have no money, being deterred from pursuing their legal rights by being offered £15 worth of advice. I know this £15 is not meant to carry them through all situations but what is it meant to do? Is the idea to try to get the best deal one can for that £15? Even though one has a case in law should anything go wrong does one have to shoulder any costs over and above the £15?
In regard to the question of community law centres I agree that they should be established on a wholetime basis. One of the concerns is will they really be community law centres? Will they be located geographically so that they will not lose the community content? Community situations can only be dealt with if one is in a position to study the entire area and if the people can communicate in a community spirit and address themselves to such areas. If they are not set out in that way, the whole idea of community law centres is nullified to a great extent.
Having read the report I felt the people in the local community should be given a substantial amount of responsibility. This seems to be the kind of development we have in the country. Communities are growing up all over the place. People want to become democratised to run their own affairs. I do not think it was intended in the Pringle Report, but do the Government intend to give the running of these centres to suitable people in the community?
I am not in agreement with the idea of an interim scheme. Even though they were given certain terms of reference, I believe they dealt with it reluctantly. The Pringle Committee, as requested in its terms of reference, outlined an interim scheme for civil legal aid and advice. Although the committee dealt with an interim scheme it is clear from its report that it did so reluctantly. The committee's reluctance can be seen in paragraph 262 which states:
We are nevertheless inclined from the beginning to agree with those who said that it was impossible to establish legal aid priorities by reference to category of case.
Paragraph 271 states:
As we do not consider that any particular category of case is more deserving of inclusion in a comprehensive legal aid scheme than any other, we do not consider that it would be desirable even as an interim measure to confine legal aid to any particular case categories.
It seems that the restrictive nature of the interim scheme as outlined in the Pringle report would not answer the demands that exist for legal aid and assistance. It seems also that the introduction of an interim scheme would create unnecessary distress and confusion for those who may not have been eligible under the terms of the report. Whether that is altered by Government interference or not I do not know.
I, as a trade unionist dealing with a lot of problems of this nature, would not be in favour of the introduction of an interim scheme and would always be agitating for the introduction of a comprehensive civil legal aid and advice scheme. I see that as a matter of urgency. All we have to do is to sit in any of our own advice centres which are not strictly dealing with the questions of law to see the type of problems that come up there and how the people are deterred from actually pursuing their legal rights because of all the impediments that are put in their way, by and large, as a result of financial restrictions. It seems to me that the statement of the Government does not accept the idea of a fully comprehensive civil legal and advice scheme. We are at a stage where that can no longer be denied to the people. I certainly would be an advocate of it.
I would like to congratulate the Minister and the Government on the intended introduction of a civil legal aid system, limited though it may be. At long last we have actually got something. Governments have come and gone during the very long and weary struggle to arrive even at this point but we have arrived. It seems a long time since 1974 when the Pringle Committee was established. Of course the real congratulations are due to people like Josie Airey and to the hundreds of young people who devoted their free days and nights to helping the casualties of society and the poor of our cities who found themselves face to face with the law and unable to avail of it. They found themselves facing the fundamental defect of our legal system, which was the absence of a comprehensive state system of free legal aid and advice. This system that we are talking about now does not seem to meet that criterion of being a comprehensive state system of free legal aid and advice. It is, however, a beginning. Senators on this side of the House have indicated that they see it as no more than a beginning.
It is worth pointing out that the young people of FLAC and the young solicitors and barristers who helped them showed an amazing degree of social commitment which is inspiring. They are torch bearers in a society which often automatically condemns young people and, in particular, young university students. It condemns them often as being parasitical and layabouts. It must have seemed to those young people over the years and to the clients that they helped for so long that politicians were in fact the layabouts and the parasites for failing to see well-established and well-documented need, and continuing to fail until international pressure joined domestic pressure and finally got a beginning. A group who played some part in arriving at this point was the AIM group who worked so hard over the years to help so many women in family situations and marital breakdown situations. They were never in any doubt about the importance and the urgency of introducing a civil legal aid system. As late as the autumn last year they welcomed the very considerable advances that have been made in family law but stated that such improvements without free access to the law were "like offering a fortnight's holiday in the Bahamas without the air fare". It is an amusing simile but unfortunately it is difficult to agree with it because the present intricacies and inadequacies of family law in Ireland do not resemble any kind of a balmy paradise. Even though the State now apparently intends to offer some part of the air fare to some of the people, the destination remains very unattractive.
The contention that the legal system is very intricate and also very inadequate is borne out by several reports of the Committee on Court Practice and Procedure among a multitude of other reports and statements. It is quite obvious that radical reforms are needed in the court system and a critical look taken at the whole system. This introduction of civil legal aid, limited as it is, will obviously add to the already overburdened court system. It seems that it is going to be absolutely necessary to take a major look at the whole system of the operation of our courts. Otherwise, I am told, the thing may grind to a halt or at least operate so badly that it would amount to having a totally inadequate legal system. It would be useless to most people.
An aspect of this scheme that I would like to mention is that it has often been supposed that a possibility exists for a real flood of marital breakdown cases to erupt once a nationwide system of civil legal aid and advice comes into being. I believe that this is a real possibility and that, in fact, we may find ourselves having to face the problem which we have continued to sweep under the carpet, and that is the problem of the constitutional ban on divorce. Already we know that the largest single number of cases dealt with by the free legal advice centres have been those involving marital breakdown and have been those brought to them by women. Women bring 90 per cent of the marital cases presently before the courts, and women, of course, are those who should be among the main beneficiaries of a civil legal aid system. I would like to add my query to the other Senators who have asked what exactly is the position of a married woman who wishes to benefit from this system but whose husband's disposable income is above that limit. As you know it is a moot point. What are her rights, if any, to his income? I think that is something that will have to be clarified quite quickly.
To get back to the area of what this new system may reveal and may bring to our attention, women, as it is becoming obvious, are less and less willing to remain in unhappy or violent marriage situations. I do not believe that marital breakdowns are on the increase; I just believe that we are seeing the reality now as we never saw the reality before. We have a situation where the Catholic Church is giving what it considers some relief in some cases but the State has even been unable to discuss the problem and we have irregularities, the traditional blind eye being turned to the problem and the fervent hope apparently that if we do nothing the problem may go away.
I believe that this area of family law will be brought very much to the fore if we get a decent system of legal aid in this country. I hope that the short and inadequate press release which we saw in the newspapers represents only a beginning, but I would say that I would doubly welcome any system of civil legal aid if a side effect of that system was the beginning of a debate on the whole attitude of this country towards the marriage situation and towards the constitutional ban on divorce.
Equality before the law is in theory a bed-rock principle of western democracy, and our particular Irish version of that, the Irish cliche, is "cherishing all the children of the nation equally". The gap between lip service and reality is a vast one. We might adopt Rousseau's maxim and say "men are equal before the law" and yet everywhere we find that men are unequally treated before the law. Such reluctant concessions as have been forthcoming or are now forthcoming from our Government in these matters are forced from them only by the persistent planner or zealous reform groups. Like other Senators here I would like to give praise to the free legal aid people whose pioneering activities have compelled us, belatedly, to realise the needs of the citizens they have served so well over these last years. Legal aid in civil cases is but an entrance step in a process which will be complete only with the radical overhaul of our whole legal code and its recasting in favour of all the people, and not simply in the interests of the privileged, property owning and knowledgeable few. I do not shrink from the proposition that law reform at the end of the day will be nothing less than law revolution.
The Pringle Report and the proposed Government scheme are both in agreement that there is a need for civil legal aid and advice. The questions is, and Pringle is not entirely conclusive about this, what are the various dimensions of the need, how can we define the need, how can we best answer the need? To my mind the advice aspect is no less important, in that people need in the first place to be educated to an awareness of their rights. "Know your wrongs" was Daniel O'Connell's constant injunction to his followers. There is a tendency in certain high quarters to frown on the agitator. They regard him as a nuisance at best or malcontent or subversive at worst. In the context of the turbulence of the last ten years, in the context of security imperatives, that tendency to regard the civil rights agitator as a nuisance is perhaps understandable, but could it be that those who benefit by the legal status quo have the more fundamental fear that the citizens discovery of their legal rights may ultimately have far-reaching legal and social consequences? In short, it is the fear that the sleeping giant may awaken.
The advice aspect of legal aid is essentially an educational process. Pringle recognises the need for people to be informed: information about enlightenment and liberation from that timidity, that mixture of intimidation and awe which the law in its pseudomajesty evokes from the poor and ignorant. One of the factors that stand between the humble citizen and the pursuit of justice is the mystique with which the law continues to surround itself—the archaic rituals in our courts, the flummery of wig and gown, the esoteric jargon of legal practitioners. It is to be hoped that the educational process to be carried out by community law centres will include the inculcation of a healthy irreverence for the quasi-ecclesiastical ambience of our courts of justice. At any rate, the raising of the level of the citizens' awareness of their rights must be a prime objective of law reform and a vital task for community legal centres if they are indeed to serve the community in any real sense.
The whole point of law reform it seems to me if the equality of citizens before the law is to be promoted is to extend to the poor and ignorant what the rich and sophisticated have always enjoyed. Inter alia, this includes ready and confident access to professional legal advice and expertise in matters of social as well as of individual concern. If, for example, a threat arises to the amenities of what the auctioneers call “a desirable residential area”, if, to be specific, a rubbish dump or a highway development were proposed for the Rochestown Road in Cork, an eventuality the unlikelihood of which is in itself highly significant, concerted community action would be facilitated by money, education and the self-assurance of a well-to-do class. In all probability such a fortunate community would include residents who belong to the legal profession. If, on the other hand, a similar hazard were to face the denizens of a working class area, or more precisely, a workless class area, like Churchfield in Cork City's north side, an area already greatly disadvantaged by geographical segregation, then the response would be sadly different. The likelihood is that there would be no response from a financially and educationally deprived area, from people who are accustomed to see the law as irrelevant if not as a hostile force in their lives. But the contrast is even greater when the problems are individual rather than corporate. The poor and ignorant tend to have far more problems of broken marriages, desertion, child custody, and are infinitely more bewildered by them and are incapable of dealing with them than are the rich.
Nothwithstanding the curious minority report in Pringle, there is a consensus among all those at all concerned with social justice that the need for civil legal aid is incontrovertible. Legal aid and advice is not a luxury commodity like continental holidays or a yacht in Crosshaven. As much as health care or social welfare, it is what the State is morally obliged to provide for its poorer and weaker citizens. Like all public services it will cost money, probably a great deal of money. My colleagues in the legal field tell me that the £2 million per annum envisaged by Pringle for the comprehensive scheme was at the time of its publication even an unrealistically low estimate.
Despite the application of merit assessments there will undoubtedly be an increase in litigation and, to say the least, the legal profession will not be any the poorer by the introduction of the scheme. Yet there is no cheap way of doing the thing properly, and at least solicitors will have to show results and the merits of bringing or defending a case will have to be established. If despite all safeguards and precautions abuses do occur, it is better to tolerate frivolity and abuse rather than ignore and suppress grievances. It is infinitely more preferable that there should be marginal abuse rather than that the socially, financially and educationally unprivileged should continue to see the law and justice as alien and hostile concepts and the protective barricade with which the rich defend their privileges.
The legal profession itself, of course, should keep a sharp eye out for those of its members whose object would be to cash in on the scheme, and the profession should discipline them accordingly. More generally, any scheme of free legal aid and advice will place great demands on the existing legal system, which will have to make an adequate response. If the operation of the scheme shows up the inadequacies of the existing system, so much the better in the long run. Incidentally, is it not a paradox that the Law Society should be proposing to restrict entry to the profession at this time when, as Pringle points out, the scheme will certainly necessitate an increase in the supply of young solicitors and indeed when the scheme may be at risk because, as Pringle says of the non-availability of solicitors?
It is good to see the Pringle Report recommending a choice of solicitors and counsel. Without the right of access to the profession, the unprivileged citizen would find the community law centres in themselves inadequate to his needs. Only the right of access, only the right of choice, will properly protect the dignity and independence of the citizen and the confidentiality of the proceedings. The one thing that must be avoided, as Pringle is quick to suggest, is any suggestion of a legal counterpart of the old degrading dispensary doctor system. Besides, the private legal practitioner who participates in the scheme but whose main income comes from other areas in his practice is less likely to be under pressure than the solicitors of the community law centres when it comes to actions which could be potentially embarrassing to governments, actions, for example, showing up constitutional defects.
As other Senators have indicated, the bulletin issued by the Government Information Services on 2 May was disappointing in its brevity. One is not clear to what extent the Pringle recommendations are to be incorporated in the scheme. Apparently actions for defamation of character are to be excluded from the scheme, although Pringle rightly points out that a poor man's good name is as important as that of the rich man. Press reports, for example, The Irish Times on the day after the Minister's statement, gave more details, though yet it is not clear how far these are taken direct from the Pringle Report. The Government handout, for example, does not mention community law centres at all, though The Irish Times state that there are to be 15 throughout the State. Pringle specifically suggests two in Dublin, one each in Cork, Limerick and Galway. Certainly anyone who knows Cork City and its social topography will agree that a more realistic suggestion would be two centres on the north side and one on the south side.
Pringle is admittedly sound in its emphasis on the importance of the location of the centres. They should be in central, easily accessible places and there should be maximum contact and communication between the staff and local residents. Pringle is open to the suggestion that centres might extend organically out of successful existing social community associations. Unless there is real inter-action with the local community, unless solicitors work in cooperation with social workers and people from other related disciplines, and unless the proposed centres are situated in medias res, the danger is that they will defeat the whole purpose of the scheme by being seen as impersonal, out-of-town solicitors' offices, a sort of law shop or legal supermarket. Again it is essential that the centres should operate outside conventional nine to five office hours. A real involvement in community needs on the part of the staff suggests that the community has to have access to the centres in the evening. Apart from the fact that many workers will have difficulty in coming to the centres during the day, the presence of solicitors in the centres at evening hours would demonstrate the real interest of the profession and so help to counteract that psychological block which Pringle notes on the part of the socially underprivileged towards the whole process of law. Properly worked on a team basis there is no reason to suppose that this after-hours involvement would be unduly inconvenient or expensive.
Moreover, it is in the evenings that the centres could best carry out one of their vital tasks—Pringle speaks of the importance of programmes of education on legal rights. Here one envisages a regular programme of lectures on the citizen and his legal rights. The motion before the House is properly concerned that the proposed scheme is to be by way of administrative action initially and is not to be the subject of legislation. This is all the more remarkable in that Pringle itself assumes that legislation is the natural way to bring in the scheme and even suggests the heads of a legal aid Bill as an appendix. A spokesperson for the free legal aid people welcoming the Government statement expressed the hope that the scheme would be put on a firm legislative basis with all possible haste.
One cannot conclude without complimenting the Pringle Committee on an exhaustive, sensible and humane document, lucid, even stylish in presentation, and massively free from that impenetrable jargon which all professions, and particularly the law, tend to use as a prop to their mystique. Once again, all credit to the FLAC people and those other publicly-spirited citizens who have tried to bring nearer the day when all citizens will have equality before the law and equal access to the law.
I am grateful for the various contributions made on this very important subject and I am grateful to Senator Robinson and Senator Molony for their contributions, however critical. That is what democracy is all about. I am glad, too, that other Senators saw fit to contribute on this very important subject.
I shall deal generally with the motion before the House and then deal specifically with the various contributions made by the Senators. I think I should begin where Senator John Murphy left off by, like him, paying tribute to the Pringle Committee and expressing my appreciation of the excellent work done by it. The committee was under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Pringle. It was set up in June of 1974 to advise on the introduction of a comprehensive scheme of legal aid and advice on civil matters.
It is proper for the record of the Oireachtas that we should have on that record the names of the members of the committee in addition to the Chairman, Mr. Justice Pringle. The other members of the committee, to whom we are most grateful and appreciative, were Mr. Thomas G. Crotty, County Registrar, Kilkenny; Mr. Brian M. Gallagher, solicitor and former chairman of FLAC; the Honourable Mr. Justice Liam Hamilton; Mr. James J. Ivers, Director General of the Incorporated Law Society; Mr. Eunan McCarron, solicitor; Mr. T. Browne, representing the Department of Social Welfare; Mr. C.K. McGrath, representing the Department of Finance; Mr. J.C. McMahon, representing the Department of the Public Service and Mr. Pearse Rayel, representing the Department of Justice. They are the men who have contributed so much, representing the broad spectrum of the legal profession in addition to people who have a special expertise from the Government Departments named.
The task assigned to the committee was a very difficult and onerous one. That is evidenced by the fact that the committee itself, including its subcommittees, held more than 100 meetings. This was a wonderful piece of work by these men, giving their time on a voluntary basis. In December 1977 the committee submitted their report, which was long and detailed, to the Minister for Justice and, in fairness to both the Minister and his Department, no time was lost in having it examined with a view to submitting proposals to the Government on the matter. The Government published their proposals on 2 May for the introduction by the Minister for Justice of a scheme of legal aid and advice based generally on the comprehensive scheme outlined by the Pringle Committee. The aim of the Government as announced on 2 May remains the same, to have this scheme introduced by the end of the year.
Tributes were paid to FLAC. I publicly paid tribute to FLAC in the media, and once more we should do that. I should like to be associated with the tributes paid to that organisation. I do not think we can underestimate or in any way under-value the contribution made to the community by young people with a social conscience be they young solicitors, young barristers or whatever other discipline they may have been involved in. Their contribution to the community through that estimable organisation cannot be denied. No praise is high enough for them.
The motion in the names of Senator Cooney and Senator Molony was, I understand, on the Order Paper before the recent Government announcement about the introduction of a civil legal aid and advice scheme. However, in the light of the Government announcement, this particular motion, as I see it, has been overtaken by events. I propose to concentrate for the most part, therefore, on the motion proposed by Senator Robinson and seconded by Senator Molony. Before I make any specific comments on either motion I think I should say by way of general comment on both that there may appear to be a slight contradiction between the two motions. One motion calls for the introduction of civil legal aid, "as a matter of urgency". The Government's appreciation of the urgency of the matter was one of the reasons for their decision to introduce the scheme on an administrative basis. However, the other motion calls for the introduction of the scheme on a statutory basis. It is a legislative basis which is not compatible with the idea of introducing something quickly. With respect we say this.
Why not?
I will explain that in my speech. I think I will have convinced the Senator by the end of my contribution that an administrative scheme will give us the opportunity to introduce the scheme quickly and to see how it works. This is in no way to suggest that the scheme will not be enshrined in legislation. What we want to do is to introduce this scheme administratively to give us the opportunity to introduce it quickly. The Senator is as long in Oireachtas Éireann as myself and she knows how slow the legislative process can be; in addition to the availability of the Oireachtas there is also the question of the introduction of the scheme in a legislative form, the introduction of regulations under the scheme and so on. This takes time. I have only got to point to the British scheme, a copy of which I have here, The Legal Aid Handbook for 1976. That is a considerable tome. That is the sort of scheme we would have to introduce legislatively. I hesitate to say that that scheme could be introduced by the end of the year: in fact, I doubt very much if it could be introduced by the end of 1980. That is the problem with which we are confronted. That is basically the reason—and I would ask the Senators to accept that—we are introducing the scheme on an administrative basis in the first instance. By doing this it will give us the opportunity to see how the scheme works and as it develops over a period of two or three years to change the scheme rather than have to come back to both Houses of the Oireachtas to look for amendments to existing legislation.
There are other reasons for the introduction of the scheme on an administrative basis. It could be reasonably inferred from the terms of the motion by Senator Robinson and Senator Keating that the decision to introduce the scheme on an administrative basis was intended somehow to deny citizens rights which would be secured if the scheme was introduced on a statutory or legislative basis. I do not suggest that this implication was intended but simply that that inference could be reasonably drawn. There is no basis for it whatever. The Government announcement of 2 May made it quite clear that the intention is that the scheme should be introduced initially on an administrative basis. It is not the intention that it should always remain on an administrative basis and there is no question, therefore, of trying to deny rights which could be secured by statute. I believe the citizens' rights will be secured very securely and firmly by this administrative scheme. However, if the Senator feels that that does not measure up, then I can assure her and others who question the introduction of the scheme on an administrative basis that in time it will be enshrined in legislation. They will see then that these rights are secured.
Apart from the need to get the scheme into operation as quickly as possible the case for beginning, and I stress beginning, with an administrative scheme is clear. This is a new social service and I am sure it will be generally conceded that it is essential in introducing any such service to adopt a flexible approach; in other words, to begin with a set of rules which can be quickly and easily altered if, in the light of experience, it appears that alteration is needed. It would be unwise to attempt to put the scheme on a statutory basis from the beginning because it is not possible to say how a scheme based on the idea of centres staffed by salaried lawyers will work in practice. In my view it is better to begin with a framework which will be fully responsive to the practical demands of such a system than to impose a statutory framework from the outset based on assumptions which may be invalid. The design of legislation should, if possible, be left to a later stage when some experience has been gained in the operation of the scheme.
What we are asking is, for God's sake and for the sake of those people on whose behalf this scheme is being introduced to give it a chance on an administrative basis. Give it a chance. Let us see how it works. We have been without a scheme for many years. Is two or three more years to have this scheme on an administrative basis too much to ask?
All the Government are asking is, give us two or three years to see how the scheme operates on an administrative basis, then we will have a look at the possibility of having it put into legislative form. I do not think that is an unreasonable request. Those people who are critical because it is not being put into legislation immediately might ponder on that point. Of course, criticise the introduction of the scheme on an administrative basis. That is what democracy is all about, but be fair and just about it. Apart from the need to get the scheme into operation as quickly as possible the case for beginning, and I stress beginning, with this administrative scheme is quite clear. I do not want to enter into an area of acrimony if I can avoid it. If I am looking for a fair trial for the scheme then I have to be fair to those people who criticise it.
The terms of the motion by Senators Robinson and Keating imply that the Government's decision to introduce the scheme on an administrative basis is motivated by a desire to avoid discussion on this issue. There is no reason why the Government would wish to avoid discussion on this particular matter; the Government itself, in its manifesto, mentioned it. The Government is now giving the Seanad an opportunity to discuss it. There has been a wide ranging discussion since the Pringle Committee reported in December 1977. People from organisations throughout the community, in one way or another, have put their point of view forward since that time; we are discussing it now in the Seanad. It was discussed quite considerably on television and on the radio. There is no attempt to stifle discussion or debate on this particular subject.
The decision to commit substantial public resources, which are scarce, towards civil legal aid was not an easy one, and one which necessarily involved a very careful assessment of various options. The Government has now decided to introduce a comprehensive scheme and there is no need to avoid discussion. Both the Minister and myself have had discussions about the scheme with a number of interested organisations. In the space of three days, I met 14 separate organisations, on behalf of the Minister for Justice. That is an ascertainable fact; it is on record. In addition, the Minister met organisations. There was a wide ranging discussion with these groups on points of view which, whilst we listened to them, were not necessarily acceptable to us; we were not afraid to meet and discuss the matter with these organisations. To be fair to these organisations, subsequent to the announcement by the Government on the scheme on 2 May, there was a general air of acceptance by them of the Government scheme, with very little criticism.
I mentioned the Government's election manifesto. The Government has gone well beyond its manifesto commitment which was—
"Legal aid will be extended to civil cases where this is necessary; as a first step it will be introduced in the area of family law,".
The scheme will not be confined to family law cases, nor will it be confined to three categories of cases recommended by the Pringle Committee for the purposes of an interim scheme, which we are talking about here. These were family law, landlord and tenant, and consumer protection cases.
The scheme, is based on recommendations in the Pringle Report for a comprehensive scheme. There are certain modifications, we admit. For example, although legal aid will be available for practically all types of cases, the Government have decided that there should be certain exclusions. It would be an unjustifiably wide interpretation of the term "comprehensive" in the legal aid context to hold that the scheme should allow for no exclusions whatsoever. Exclusions are common to legal aid schemes applying in other countries which do not have the same limitations of resources as we have. The British scheme, which has been described by the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee on legal aid as "comprehensive by international standards", contains quite a few exclusions.
The Government have decided that certain case categories should be excluded, on the ground that the expenditure of public money on such cases could not be justified because the availability of legal aid could encourage litigation unnecessarily. Examples are defamation proceedings and breach of promise actions. Other cases are to be excluded on the basis that legal aid is considered unneccessary—examples being what the Pringle Committee would describe as "insurance-covered" cases and cases being heard by tribunals. What I have in mind here are mainly running-down actions, were a defendant is insured and the plaintiff with reasonably good prospects of success has no difficulty in securing the services of a private practitioner, in the anticipation that costs, eventually, will be met by the insurance company. There could, of course, be cases where an eligible person would fail to secure the services of a private practitioner, even if he or she had a good case, and even if the injury done appeared to be one which was insured against. A person in that rare situation could apply for legal aid under this scheme. This is a very equitable scheme. It is motivated by a will to give the people justice.
In the context of exclusion, the decision which attracted most attention is the decision that legal aid should not extend to tribunal proceedings. The reasons for excluding tribunals is simply that legal aid is considered to be unnecessary, because, broadly speaking, the procedures already outlined in the various statutes under which these tribunals have been established have been drawn up so as to render it unnecessary for persons appearing before them to have legal representation. Tribunals are intended to provide simplified and inexpensive procedures, and it is the policy to enable persons to conduct their business before such tribunals without the expense of legal representation. It would clearly be anomalous if the State, having provided for arbitration systems, designed to avoid the need for representation found itself paying lawyers to appear before them under a State scheme of civil legal aid.
The motion refers to three specific matters, on which I would now like to comment briefly—the establishment of an independent board, of community law centres with local management committees, and the involvement of private practitioners in the provision of legal services under the scheme. These were matters that were touched on by the various contributors to this debate. These three aspects received a fair measure of criticism, constructive criticism, motivated no doubt by a sincere desire to present the best possible scheme.
The Government announcement on 2 May indicated that it was decided that the proposed scheme should be administered by an independent board, as recommended by the Pringle Committee. This is subject to the modification that it would be a nine member board rather than a 15 member board. It is my belief that the smaller board would give greater administrative efficiency; a 15 member board would be too unwieldy. The smaller board would expedite the business of the board, and cut out the waffle. A nine member board should be given a chance. If it does not succeed, or breaks down for lack of members, then let us create a 15 member board, or a 25 member board. It is a hopeless solution to any problem to set up boards with large numbers on them; it makes for inefficiency, for slowness in work, for cloudy thinking and for all the other outlets that people find necessary to prove their inaction, rather than their action. A smaller board will make for activity and action.
The independence of the board was queried. I would like to say, on behalf of the Government, that the board will be independent; it will be independent of any outside or inside interference whatever. Of course, the Government will be nominating the members to the board from, no doubt, a panel of people who will be put forward by various interested organisations. I would envisage, without certainty, that the Government would select names from the panels submitted by organisations which have an interest in free legal aid in civil matters. That is the way it should be done and will be done. It is the proper and correct way.
There is no intention, to quote the motion in the name of Senators Robinson and Keating, "to prevent the legislative establishment of an independent board". Perhaps what is meant here is that it is not possible, for technical reasons, to set up an independent board without legislation. The question of whether the board can be set up administratively or not has been examined. I accept Senator Robinson's opening remarks in that regard. I assure her that the matter is being examined, and examined in depth, in the context of drawing up a detailed scheme. If it becomes clear that there are technical difficulties which cannot be overcome then, obviously, the question of setting up the board on a legislative basis will be considered and, of course, there will be more delay. If legislation is necessary, who is to say that the scheme will be introduced by the end of the year?
My original proposition was that a scheme introduced on an administrative basis could be introduced immediately, or certainly by the end of the year.
If the Minister admits that the board cannot be set up independently, would it not be better to introduce the legislation?
No, we are examining the prospect of setting up the board. The Senator may not have quite heard what I said.
The Minister admitted that the board cannot be set up independently.
No, I did not say that. I am saying that the possibility of setting up the board without legislation is being examined. If it requires legislation to set up the board then legislation will be introduced but with legislation, more delay. I might point to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal which was set up and is working well; it was set up without introducing legislation. It was introduced, as the Senator well knows, under a non-statutory scheme and is certainly independent in the discharge of its functions. The establishment of a board on a statutory basis would be a much less complex matter than the introduction of a whole scheme on this basis, but would involve delay which should, if at all possible, be avoided. The intention is that the board will be independent in the exercise of its functions, independent on the same lines as An Bord Pleanála, which is generally accepted by the community to be a board of the highest integrity, in the context of its untouchability.
And which was established by statute.
Which was one of the boards established by statute. Statutory or non-statutory, that does not deny us the right to have the title of independence. With regard to the establishment of centres again it is clear, from the Government's statement, that the intention is that services under the scheme will be provided by salaried lawyers employed in centres. The essential commitment is to establish centres. There are different types of centres. There seems to be no reason at this stage for asking for a particular type of centre, as appears to be suggested by the motion, to the exclusion of all others. How can we be sure that the particular type of centre suggested will be the most suitable one for this country? Even if it were suitable in one area, would it automatically suit in another?
This returns to my point that it would be unwise to impose any rigid legal aid model at this stage, on the basis of preconceptions which may be invalid. The concept of community involvement is not excluded but it must be allowed to stand the test of practical comparison with other approaches. As Senator Murphy said, in parts of Cork free legal aid centres are being set up in the local community and, by virtue of their establishment, spreading their influence out into the community and becoming involved, in that way, in community affairs. You will not find a legal aid centre set up by the Government remaining in isolation from the community; it will become a living, vibrant part of the community. I have no doubt about that. We are too small a nation to live in isolation from one another.
It is not unreasonable to say that if a community centre, or a law centre, is set up in a small community, in no time residents' associations, local religious organisations and voluntary organisations of one sort or another will get to hear about it and will spread the gospel. They will say that it is either a good community centre or a bad community centre. They will say that it is either a centre staffed by competent people that you should go to for legal advice or it is not. That is the way the word spreads and that is how a community centre will get its reputation, in a very short time indeed, whether it be in Cork, Limerick, Galway, Dublin, Waterford, in the Midlands or in parts of the west.
The major difference between what is recommended by the Pringle Committee and what has been decided upon by the Government is that the Pringle Committee envisage that private practitioners would be involved in the provision of services under the scheme from the beginning. The Government have decided to opt for a system based on centres and have done so for sound reasons. First, it is satisfied that the need for legal services will be adequately met by having centres located in the larger cities and towns throughout the country, staffed by salaried lawyers who if necessary would travel to other areas on a regular basis to provide the services to those who need them. It is a well-known practice that solicitors in a rural market town have outlying offices in the smaller villages which they visit on a weekly or monthly basis. That I am sure, is the way this system will work. All we ask is to give it a chance; let us see how it develops. If it is not developing properly then this is the right place to bring it back to and let us discuss it again.
Secondly, there is the question of maintaining a reasonable measure of control over the cost of the service. The introduction of private practitioners would involve the preparation of a much more detailed and complex scheme, the complexity arising, primarily, from the need to control expenditure in the interests of the taxpayer. This, needless to mention, would delay the introduction of the scheme. Caution in regard to control of the cost under the scheme is supported by our experience of the criminal legal aid scheme. To cater adequately for this caution in the civil scheme would, even if this were acceptable on wider consideration, involve unacceptable delay.
There would also be the question of negotiating the level of fees to be paid to lawyers. The Pringle Committee recommended that taxed costs should be paid in legal aid cases, less a percentage to be negotiated. It is significant that the two solicitors on the Pringle Committee and the Law Society representative dissented from the recommendation that there should be a reduction. This suggests, to my mind, that negotiation could take some time. Some private practitioners would make the point that they have a valuable contribution to make, which is not disputed; of course, private practitioners would have a valuable contribution to make. Some, no doubt, would advance other reasons why they should participate in the scheme from the beginning. In general, there is no need for undue concern that the views of private practitioners will be unknown.
The Minister for Justice has already had discussions and proposes to have further discussion with the professional bodies on the introduction of a scheme and will certainly be fully aware of private practitioners' views. In that regard I understand the Minister will be having further discussions with the Incorporated Law Society and the Bar Council of Ireland. I know that these men are responsible people and will look on this scheme with favour, will give it the opportunity of being introduced and will work it in a responsible fashion, as a proper attitude to social justice. I make that point because I believe that the Minister will be successful in his talks with these and other bodies.
To sum up, the Government's concern is to provide, at the taxpayer's expense, people of limited income with a practical means of access to justice, where there is genuine need. The needs of the legal profession, it must be agreed, must be secondary to the need of the people on whose behalf this scheme will operate.
The point may be made that the modifications proposed to the Pringle recommendation, even if they are all reasonable, still amount, in one way or another, to a reduction of the scope of the comprehensive scheme envisaged by the Pringle Committee, this is simply not true. The Government have decided to go beyond the comprehensive scheme recommended by the Pringle Committee in one very important aspect. That is as regards the means test to be applied. The Committee recommended that all persons whose annual disposable income does not exceed £2,500——
That is not going on the Pringle Report.
(Interruptions.)
That is right, and may be in two or three years' time we will be asking for the limit to be up to £3,500.
It is not going on the Pringle Report.
It is in the region of 25 per cent beyond what the Pringle Report recommended.
That would only cope with——
Chairman
The Minister must be allowed to speak.
What the Government propose to do, therefore, is to introduce a comprehensive scheme of civil legal aid and advice as quickly as possible for those in need of it. There is no question of attempting to deny Parliament the opportunity of debating the matter. The motion before this House has provided an opportunity for debate and both Houses will have a full opportunity of further discussion when the scheme is being introduced on a statutory basis. It is the intention that this discussion should take place when experience has been gained of the operation of an administrative scheme. At that stage, everybody will have a clearer idea as to what is really needed. A statutory scheme at this stage would frustrate the idea of doing something quickly for those in need and should, if possible, be avoided. The administrative scheme should be given a chance.
These are my general observations on the notes prepared for me before the debate, in anticipation of the criticism which might arise during it. If I may return to specific items mentioned by Senator Robinson, the most important item was the position of the married woman, where she is seeking, for example, a barring order against her husband. Where the woman is taking proceedings against her husband, his income will not be taken into account in assessing hers. For example, if the woman has no income whatever and the husband has an income, her income would in the circumstances be nil and she would certainly come within the scheme. I would like to assure those people who are worried and concerned about the matters raised by the Senators that, in fact, they would be very well covered by the scheme.
The Coolock centre was raised by Senator Robinson, and properly so; I would like to pay tribute to the work done by the Coolock centre in its area. It is certainly a community centre. I would probably be acting less than humbly if I did not say that I was partly responsible for the £5,000 which the Minister for Health provided very quickly to the centre on request, and having met with the Coolock people on a number of occasions——
How about their other requests?
Their other requests are being dealt with by the able staff of the Department of Justice. Senator Robinson raised the matter of bad accommodation, no toilets and so on. The Minister is prepared to provide the necessary funds to FLAC to enable them to obtain better premises. Senator Robinson did not mention that FLAC have indicated that as soon as the State scheme is in operation they proposed to cease their operations.
The staffing of the centres was raised by Senator Robinson. The centres themselves, again as part of the general evolution of the centres, will not be dealing exclusively with court cases. They will be dealing with civil legal advice in addition to civil legal aid. I would imagine that quite a large percentage of the cases dealt with by the centre will be in an advisory capacity and will not necessitate court appearances.
Senator Harte, quite properly, was concerned about the attitude of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and their attitude to the proposed scheme to be introduced by the Government and he was also concerned about social welfare recipients and so on. Social welfare recipients come well within the scheme; I can assure him of that. Value for money was my original point. If, for example, a person has no money, there would not be any hardship perpetrated on him or her on that account. If the legal aid cost £10 or £15 that person is entitled to the full process of the law, to the Supreme Court of this land. That is value for money in any person's language and that is the type of scheme it is intended to be. I think the scheme will operate to aid the less well-off sections of the community, the lower income group. It is a matter of a social fact, and an ascertainable sociological fact, as Senator Murphy has said, that a large percentage of people needing legal aid are of the lower income group, and this is a tragedy of this society of ours. Maybe it is that we hear more about them than the better off in the context of matters related to family problems. The centres will provide people with legal advice and each centre will not be confined to two lawyers, as Senator Robinson suggested. Each centre will have whatever number of lawyers is justified by the workload. This is part of the proper flexibility of the scheme. Educational functions have been mentioned by Senator Robinson. It would be unwise to impose any rigid rules in that regard on the advice centre.
The advice centre should be allowed to develop within the community. I am quite certain, given the Irish experience, that the local community will see the centre as a focal point, in the context of its legal framework. They will seek legal aid and advice, legal education, all the other relevant matters which are part of and peripheral to a legal aid centre. I believe it will become a real community centre in the real meaning of the word, as proposed by Senator Robinson. I can see that welcome evolution in time.
The question of the opening times of the centres was raised. Here again, this independent board would decide on the opening times and I would make the point to the board that will be constituted that the legal aid centres would remain open late into the evening to give people who are at work, or involved in housework or whatever, the opportunity to go along after their main chores of the day have been completed and take advantage of their entitlement.
Senator Molony mentioned the exclusion of private practitioners. I have already dealt with that in my speech. The matter of 15 centres being established was raised by Senator Molony. These 15 centres are only the beginning; when it becomes necessary to increase the number of centres—
Where will the 15 be located?
Subject to the independent board's assessment of the need for location of the various centres, there will probably be four or five in the city and county of Dublin, one or two in Cork, Waterford, Galway and Limerick and the balance in the midlands and the west, giving us a complement of 15 or thereabouts. If the 15 are found to be inadequate, having regard to the flexibility of the administrative aspect of the system, these 15 will be added to as required.
Senator Molony raised the question of people living in remote areas. These people can be catered for under the same system as rural solicitors operate at the moment. The truth is that, as I have already stated, rural solicitors have suboffices spread throughout their areas of practice. That is the way this system should be seen to work, will be seen to work and will work. Solicitors will travel from the legal aid and advice centres to areas where they are required. This is a feature of legal aid schemes in Scandinavian countries.
Senator Cassidy made the point that legal aid was ineffective unless backed up by law reform. As she is aware, the Law Reform Commission was set up for this very purpose. As she would equally be aware, law reform is not a function of the legal aid scheme. However, it comes within the general area of law reform and I take her point and it is noted.
Senator Harte raised the question of contributions. I have dealt with that. People who have medical cards, or people coming under the social welfare scheme, whether they be in assistance or in benefit, having regard to the disposable income will almost certainly come within the ambit of this scheme. I believe that to be the greatest feature of this scheme. Senator Hussey made the point that the accessibility of the scheme to those most in need, to those who can least afford access to the law is all important. I agree that sometimes people who are uneducated in matters of law are intimidated by the idea of looking for legal advice and going through the rather frightening process of the courts. Most of us are intimidated by courtrooms, by wigs and gowns and so on.
Senator Harte expressed concern that these centres be spread as widely as possible having regard to the needs of the population in the various districts. Senator Hussey, in her pithy but very reasonable contribution, made the point that AIM and other organisations in their own way are responsible for law reform on the family front. This is a matter of fact. They were to the van in relation to the calling for free legal aid and advice in a scheme to be operated by the Government. That organisation, and other organisations, have also taken part of the general call for this type of scheme.
I make one more appeal to the Senators. I would ask them not to put this motion to the vote. Give the scheme a chance; let us see how it works, and if the scheme falls down, does not operate, or in some way collapses, then the Government must take responsibility and answer to both Houses in relation to its inoperability. Once more I ask Senators to give us the opportunity to introduce what I believe to be a historic milestone in law reform in this country.
I would like to thank the five Members who contributed to this debate—Senator Molony who seconded the motion, Senator Cassidy—hers was the solitary but very interesting and worthwhile contribution from the other side of the House—Senators Jack Harte, Gemma Hussey and Murphy. We all spoke before we knew the Minister's contribution, and I am sure the Senators will forgive me if I spend most of my 15 minutes responding to what the Minister said and to his contribution to the debate.
I too would like to keep the temperature even and not in any way to be seeking confrontation or making unduly critical comments. I realise the Minister came into the House for a debate and I am grateful for the opportunity the House has had of discussing this proposed scheme for a system of civil legal aid. Despite the length at which the Minister spoke and the fact that he came with a prepared script, we are not really very enlightened. The Minister assures us that the Government are anxious to introduce the scheme at the earliest possible moment, but we have no idea of when that is likely to be. He begs us not to require——
I have never begged anything in my life.
The Minister of State went very near it. He appealed.
I appeal, I do not beg.
All right. The Minister of State appealed to us not to pursue this point about——
The Senator does not do me any favours by either lowering or increasing the temperature. It is entirely a matter for herself.
I do not think the Minister needs to be too sensitive.
I am not sensitive. If the Senator wants to attack me——
The Minister appealed to us not to press for the need for a legislative basis for civil legal aid because of the possibility that time would elapse, but so much time has elapsed. It is 18 months since the Minister and his Government got the recommendations of the Pringle Committee. Those recommendations were the basis of four years' work. The Committee was established in May 1974. The Minister paid tribute to the work of Mr. Justice Pringle and his Committee and I join with him in paying tribute. The report did a great deal of homework and appendixed the heads of a legal aid Bill. Eighteen months ago the Minister for Justice had this information. The Government have been very slow to respond to that information, and I have to agree with Senator Hussey that part of the pressure is the fact that Ireland is before the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. It was at that Court of Human Rights that the representative of the Government made a commitment to introduce a scheme before the end of the year. We have this very sketchy undertaking that the Government will introduce it on an administrative footing.
The Minister of State referred to the fact that, of course, the legal aid board which will be established will be independent, but we can use the word "independent". I know the Minister means, and I assume that this would be without question, that the Government are not going to interfere in the workings of the legal aid board. But how is a legal aid board going to be independent when it has no independent status, when its members have no security of tenure, when it has no statutory criteria on which to work? It makes all the difference to a body like that if it has a legislative basis. The kind of legislation needed, and we need it after a full debate in the Dáil and Seanad, is legislation which would establish this body called presumably the Legal Aid Board, to carry out the intent, to establish the criteria for access to legal aid, and the criteria for the establishment of community law centres and other centres. I would agree with the Minister here. By all means let us have flexibility. Let the legislation spell out that flexibility. At the moment we have only an indication that the Government are prepared to have an administrative scheme. What does that mean? How is this House going to have any role to play in the criteria of operation of that scheme? An administrative scheme does not require any involvement of the Dáil or Seanad. It cannot establish an independent board in the legal sense of the term. The only breakthrough I have seen in this entire debate is the possibility referred to by the Minister—and I do not want to misquote him on this—that there may be technical reasons. I believe there are technical reasons and they may require legislation. I sincerely hope it requires legislation.
I will now deal with the other points the Minister made. I agree entirely that we should not have any delay. Let us get this done as quickly as possible. As I understand it, the Dáil is about to adjourn on Friday week—the end of this month. I would like to know until when?
I have no idea.
Can the Minister give an estimate?
This is the very point I am making——
If the Government want to hasten——
The Senator just made my point for me.
If the Government really want to hasten the introduction, do we have to have an adjournment from June until the middle of October? This is facing reality.
That is an unjust——
No, it is the relevant point. The Minister cannot throw up his hands and say: if you want legislation this is necessarily going to delay the matter. It is not necessarily going to delay it. We had the Garda Síochána Bill here earlier this afternoon, necessitated by a particular problem. That was brought in quickly. It is very complex and I am sure people worked late night after night to work out a particular formula to meet all the problems that arose. We have had other Bills. We had the Whiddy Island Tribunal Bill because there was a felt need of the urgency. We could have a Civil Legal Aid Bill without any problem at all. It could go through this House with a useful contribution as to the criteria for the establishment of an independent legal aid board, for the involvement of the profession in a panel system, and for the establishment of the type of centres that are necessary.
I do not accept that the Minister is persuasive when talking about the sense of urgency that the Government have. How can they have a sense of urgency when they sat on this for 18 months? How can they use the excuse that they do not want to have legislation because it would mean further delay? This shows an internal weakness in the Government's capacity to bring forward legislation and order their business. There is nothing inherent in this that would require further delay. It is a question of priorities.
If we only establish an administrative scheme, and if a board is established under this scheme to administer it, we may not clarify the basic standards of the scheme which I and a number of other Senators referred to. We want to give clear legislative guidelines about the way in which we need to identify the unmet needs in our society and the way in which we provide for those needs through a proper perception of community law centres. When the Minister was making his contribution, he seemed to slip easily from one term to another, from the use of the word "advice centre" to "community law centre" and to say he felt the "advice centre" would evolve into a "community law centre". The Pringle Report separated very clearly and distinctly community law centres and the role and work of a community law centre from advice centres, which would be the provision of either part-time or full-time advice by a number of solicitors operating in a centre. That is a very narrow perception of the provision of civil legal aid. It is an out-dated perception of it for countries that have experience of civil legal aid.
For the reasons that were identified by a number of Senators, including Senator Molony, Senator Cassidy and others, there is a very important educational aspect. There are the attitudes of people; the fears, the lack of perception of people of how law can help them, and the reluctance to go to professional people who have a particular approach of merely representing in a narrow legal sense. When we talk about a community law centre, we have to talk about quite a different matter from a legal advice centre. We have to be talking about a community law centre which not only has a minimum of two full-time solicitors, but also has the community law officer, an administrator, and a strong local management committee. The stronger the local management committee, the better and more relevant the impact of that community law centre in its area.
I do not think it is enough for the Minister to say that he feels sure the centres envisaged by the Government will evolve into community law centres. Why do we not start with an understanding of the values and standards of community law centres? I am not saying that every centre has to be to a particular model and that no other possibility exists. I agree that there is a very real value in flexibility. We have to have a learning process. Once again we can learn from the experience of FLAC. I join with the other Senators who paid tribute to the immense work done by FLAC, to the breakthrough that has occurred in the example they have given us of the extent of the need that exists at present. I do not think the Incorporated Law Society, from their recent paper when assessing the need for future solicitors, have any perception of the real needs for legal services in our community. They used the phrase that the probability is that legal needs are being met under our present system.
FLAC has identified the extent of the unmet legal needs. Senator Murphy referred to the broader social and even political impact of community law centres in raising consciousness in an area of allowing for better education, better sense of the kind of group actions, or group research into law reform related to a particular area that could occur.
Another theme a number of Senators mentioned was the fact that any movement towards the provision of legal aid must necessarily also stimulate a need for greater law reform. I was sorry when the Minister, referring to this aspect of law reform, seemed to turn again to the role of the Law Reform Commission and say that since that body existed, that was sufficient. The responsibility for law reform rests fairly and squarely with the Government. They may seek advice and refer matters to the Law Reform Commission, but they have the major responsibility in this area and are not showing the kind of zeal for reform in the area of family law they tried to refer to in the early months of Government, as having been highlighted in their Manifesto. We have not seen the reform of family law or the reform of children's rights in this international year of the child. We saw the Government dodge an opportunity of reforming the Constitution and thereby confining it to the narrow issue of adoption.
A very important issue.
I do not want to undermine the importance of ensuring the constitutionality of the specific issue of adoption——
I do not think the Senator should confuse it——
What I am saying is that the Government failed to seize an opportunity there for the kind of reform of our Constitution that would be necessary in order to protect and safeguard the rights of children in our society and have a better balance in the Constitution.
The purpose of having a debate of this sort and the opportunity of hearing the views of Senators and of the Minister is to try to get specific information, to have it on the record and to inform ourselves more fully. I do not think the Minister has given us a great deal of new information, perhaps he does not have it to give. Perhaps it is very early yet in the Government's own consideration. We now face a long summer break. It would be helpful if we knew when it might be possible to have more specific proposals from the Government and when this scheme might be in operation. Perhaps we will have more news on the international front before we have any further commitment from the Government in this area.
I would like to end by thanking the Leader of the House for ensuring that these two motions were taken and for providing the time to debate them today. I thank Senators for their contributions and I thank the Minister. Despite my critical words, he was here, he made his contribution and I look forward to reading it when the Official Report comes out.
Question put and declared lost.
I move motion No. 16:
That Seanad Éireann calls on the Government to introduce as a matter of urgency a comprehensive scheme of civil legal aid and advice as outlined in the Report of the Committee on Civil Legal Aid and Advice.
I second the motion.
Question put and declared lost.
By declining that motion the Government have admitted they are not implementing the main Pringle Report recommendations.
Not at all.
We have already done it.
The Government have not done anything.
(Interruptions.)
There will be no more discussion.
The Seanad adjourned at 7.53 p.m. until 2.30 p.m., on Wednesday, 27 June 1979.