Section 5 sets out the principal functions of the Legal Aid Board as being to provide, within its resources, legal aid and advice in civil cases to persons who satisfy the requirements of the Bill.
The amendments proposed by Senator Norris would make education, research, advice and information a principal function of the Legal Aid Board, would require the board to make arrangements for the dissemination of information in relation to the law and legal services and would seem to have the effect of extending legal aid to matters which are for the time being excluded from legal aid by section 10 (28).
On the issues of education, information and research, I could not accept an amendment which would result in such functions being deemed principal functions of the Legal Aid Board. While I accept that the board has a role to play in the area of education and information and that in the normal course of its operation it must be required to undertake research as appropriate, the principal function of the board must, as the Bill provides, be the provision of legal aid and advice in civil matters to persons of insufficient means. To accord any other matter an equal or greater priority would result in limited resources being diverted from what must be the principal function of the board, namely, that of providing legal aid and advice.
The board can best assure access to justice by addressing the priority of providing legal aid and advice to those most in need in society. As I indicated on Second Stage, over 90 per cent of legal aid cases relate to family law. I think Senators will agree that this is and should continue to be our number one priority.
The Pringle committee, whose report led to the establishment of the scheme of civil legal aid and advice, envisaged a role for the board by way of the supply of legal information to the public. However, at the time of reporting in 1977, the committee envisaged that law centres would be concerned principally with the provision of legal advice rather than legal aid. The practical experience of the operation of the scheme in the intervening 18 years has shown the opposite to be the case. Law centres spend by far the greater proportion of their time providing legal aid to members of the public for the purpose of proceedings before the courts.
As I indicated in my reply to the Second Stage debate, the National Social Services Board, which was set up in 1984, is a resource agency whose aim is to inform and empower individual citizens and communities by ensuring they are aware of all their civil and social rights and entitlements and of the services which exist to support them. At the time that the Pringle committee reported the NSSB did not exist, and in many respects the information and education role, which the committee envisaged would be undertaken by the Legal Aid Board's law centres, is today being provided through the citizen information centres registered with the NSSB. At present there are a total of 82 citizen information centres nationwide registered with the NSSB which receive an annual grant from the Department of Health in excess of £1.2 million.
It might be of interest to Senators to know that in recent years a review was carried out by the legal aid efficiency scrutiny team in the UK into the role which the legal aid service should play in the provision of information. It recommended that the first port of call for citizens seeking information and advice in relation to their civil and social rights and entitlements should normally not be a solicitor employed by the Legal Aid Board but rather an advice agency such as a citizens advice or information bureau. I share this view.
Undoubtedly, there is a role for the Legal Aid Board in the provision of information. It is already fulfilling that role by way of information leaflets about the services it provides and the centres from which it operates. It also produces an annual report on its activities and I understand that staff of the board engage in information programmes on behalf of the board as time permits. It may safely be assumed that, in the context of the present development of the service, it will continue to fulfil its role in the dissemination of information.
There is nothing in the Bill which precludes the board from providing information to individuals or organisations where appropriate. On the contrary, section 6 of the Bill provides that the Minister may by order assign to the board such additional functions as are considered incidental to or consequential on the functions assigned to it under the Bill. Section 37 of the Bill provides that the Minister may by regulation make provision for such matters. I am satisfied that the board can be relied upon to provide the necessary information to the public. If the need arises, it will be possible under the Bill as it stands to make ministerial orders or regulations to deal with the matter.
As I have said, the amendment could also have the effect of including matters otherwise excluded under section 28 of the Bill. This section precludes the board from granting legal aid in respect of proceedings relating to what are termed designated proceedings. These designated proceedings relate to matters which are at present excluded from the scheme of legal aid and advice, such as defamation and conveyancing other than conveyancing which arises out of a matrimonial dispute. However, in relation to such proceedings the provisions of section 28 (11) provide for a very significant and positive departure from the existing scheme. Under subsection (11) the Minister may by order deem any of those matters as no longer being designated.
I think that Senators will agree that the present policy of directing funds to those cases where funds are most needed, to increase the number of law centres, to provide proper staffing levels and then to assess whether the Exchequer, having regard to the various priorities, should extend funding to the board for all cases is the correct one. With regret, therefore, I must oppose these amendments.