This is a purely technical and drafting amendment. It serves to ensure that the Minister for Equality and Law Reform will be required rather than simply empowered to appoint a day for the establishment day for the purposes of the Act.
Civil Legal Aid Bill, 1995: Report Stage.
Bill recommitted in respect of amendments Nos. 1 and 2.
Government amendment No. 1:
In page 4, line 29, to delete "may" and substitute "shall".
Amendment agreed to.
I wish to raise a point of order.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I call Senator Dardis on a point of order.
In respect of these amendments, I take it we are back on Committee Stage and that we can speak more than once on them?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
That is the effect of the motion proposed by the Leader of the House and agreed to in respect of these specific amendments.
Government amendment No. 2:
In page 4, line 32, to delete "known as", to insert "An Bord um Chúnamh Dlíthiúil or, in the English language,".
This is a drafting amendment which provides in section 3 for the title of the Legal Aid Board in Irish. The amendment follows the recent trend of incorporating both the Irish and the English names of State boards into the texts of Bills. The Irish version will be An Bord um Chúnamh Dlíthiúil.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments reported and agreed to.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Before commencing amendment No. 3 I remind Senators that they may speak only once on Report Stage, except the proposer of an amendments who may reply. We are taking the amendments as we go along. We will go back into Committee Stage for amendments Nos. 12 and 13, as amendments Nos. 1 and 2 have already been dealt with.
I move amendment No. 3. We had quite a long debate on Committee Stage about the composition of the Legal Aid Board. The case was made by the Independent Members of the House and by myself and the Fianna Fáil Members, who supported the amendment. We felt a representative of FLAC——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Senator cannot move that amendment. It has been deemed to be out of order.
On what basis?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I think the Senator has been so informed. If my memory serves me correctly——
Can you clarify the reason for that?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
It was explained to the Senator.
A Leas-Chathaoirligh, I proceeded to move amendment No. 3 because you asked me to. May I ask the Minister one question in relation to the amendment?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendment No. 3 cannot be discussed. It has been ruled out of order and we are on Report Stage.
I wanted to ask the Minister how he deemed it appropriate to appoint members to the board——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I do not think we can get into it.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendment No. 4. Amendment No. 5 is an alternative and amendment No. 6 is related. Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6 may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 7, to delete lines 16 to 19, and substitute the following:
"(1) The Board shall in particular—
(a) provide within the Board's resources and subject to the other provisions of this Act, legal aid and advice in civil cases to persons who satisfy the requirements of this Act,
(b) ensure that citizens are adequately informed and educated as to their legal rights as represented by the Board.".
This is another section on which we had quite a long debate on Committee Stage. I thought the Minister was amenable — he may have indicated that he was — to looking at the section again. The Bill, as it was initiated and as passed on Committee Stage, was far too narrow. Amendments Nos. 3 and 6 attempt to broaden the scope of the Civil Legal Aid Board.
The system which was in place before the Minister decided to put it on a statutory basis was similar to the system proposed by the Minister. Members who proposed amendments to this section feel strongly that now is an opportunity to broaden the scope of the Civil Legal Aid Board. The Minister made the point that within the limited resources available he saw the provision of civil legal aid to family law cases, which form the bulk of the cases dealt with at present, as being where the resources should go. That is a short-sighted approach. Unless we also look at empowering citizens to know what their rights are and carry out some research into the kind of cases taking place, we are doing nothing other than providing a kind of fire brigade service to people in difficulties.
On Committee Stage, I said I viewed the civil legal aid service in a much broader way and my amendments would expand the service to provide the kind of service the Coolock Law Centres and FLAC have suggested to the Members of the House. I ask the Minister to accept the amendment.
It seems the Minister in his amendment has gone at least some way toward meeting the spirit of the considerable debate we had here during the earlier Stages of the passage of the Bill. It is slightly weaker than that which is proposed. I will continue to support Senator McGennis' amendment. I must acknowledge that the Minister has clearly made some movement in this area. I very much welcome that.
I wish to put on the record of the House that among other material I received is a briefing from SIPTU on behalf of the committee of solicitors employed by the Legal Aid Board. As part of their submission they make the point that the statutory functions of the board should include the following additional functions: an educational role and the dissemination of information about basic legal rights and obligations. That is where both amendments we are considering here really hit home.
In conclusion, I argued on Committee Stage that it has occasionally occurred in the past that when Governments, in a cheese-paring frame of mind, wished to cut back on expenditure, they did not always cut back directly on the services. There was a rather nasty parsimonious attitude displayed by cutting back on the dissemination of information to the public about the availability of those services. They could on the one hand say they were providing the service, but on the other, by starving the general public of knowledge of their right to access these services, they effectively imposed a rather mean kind of economy.
I will continue to support Senator McGennis, but I also acknowledge the Minister has made some degree of movement in this area and I welcome that.
I welcome the fact that the Minister has gone some way toward dealing with the fact that so many people who require free legal aid have no knowledge that it is available to them. I note this was brought up in the Report of the Second Commission on the Status of Women regarding the fact that information on family law matters is so inadequately available for those who may need it. I am glad some attempt is being made now to ensure that the facilities and services of the board are being better publicised. The amount of money will, of course, depend on the resources of the board. I do not think a tremendous amount of the resources will go toward disseminating this information.
I note the Minister said that the citizen's advice bureaux could be put in a position to give out such information. Perhaps they could also have any information that is being distributed by FLAC. Another possibility would be that such information could be disseminated through any of the one stop shops which the forum on employment is dealing with at the moment.
The extent to which the services of the board will be taken up depends on whether those who need them know they are available. Some of those most in need do not realise these services are available. I know of some in great hardship who paid money privately before discovering they were in a position to get help from the State. I am absolutely sure the Minister, with his desire for equity before the law for all those within the State, will not want to see that situation arise again. I welcome the fact that he has brought forward this amendment.
I welcome the Minister to the House. I support Senator McGennis' amendment. I accept the Minister has gone some way toward what we asked of him on Committee Stage, but I reiterate a point I made at that time. Equal access to justice for all requires that all members of society are aware of their rights and obligations. The Pringle report attached considerable importance to the requirement that the board should have an education function and that they should publicise the services available under the legal aid schemes. At the launch of Zero Tolerance: A National Strategy on Eliminating Violence Against Women on Tuesday. 13 June, one of the recommendations was that funding would be made available for public legal education. They said that lack of finance was only one barrier people face in gaining access to justice and that the lack of awareness of their rights and the services, which can assist them in enforcing their rights, are just as real a barrier.
We discussed on the last occasion that education can, in fact, reduce the cost of legal aid as it often assists clients to use the available services more effectively at an earlier stage.
I formally support the amendment proposed by Senator McGennis. We had a long discussion on it. I do not propose going into any more detail on it now.
This issue was discussed at length on Second and Committee Stages. In an ideal world with unlimited finance available one could have an ideal system. The Minister has struck a good balance in allowing the Civil Legal Aid Board itself to disseminate information and involve itself in educational functions. The Minister's amendment is the most appropriate approach to the issue which many of us support and on which we voiced our support on Second and Committee Stages.
I support Senator McGennis' proposal and the views expressed. I recognise the Government amendment goes some way to meeting our earlier arguments but I am a little puzzled as to what appears to be a sense of reluctance in the phraseology. The term "disseminate information" is a much weaker sense of commitment than using the term "education" or accepting the validity of an educational function. I am puzzled as to why the word "education" cannot be used.
This is a one-off opportunity to take on board the responsibility of Government to enhance public awareness of basic legal rights, irrespective of the funding situation at any given time. The phraseology of Senator McGennis' amendment —"within the Board's resources and subject to the other provisions of this Act"— seems to be responsible. One should have incorporated in this Bill as a basic statement of principle the responsibility of the State to ensure citizens are as aware of their legal rights as possible.
The Government amendment is, in a way, couched in terminology which is a little grudging in that respect. It seems concerned with limiting rather than opening up. For this reason and the reasons mentioned by others I am still unhappy with the phraseology, although I recognise it comes some way to meeting our demands. Had it come earlier one might have regarded it as a major concession. I support Senator McGennis' amendment, although I welcome the spirit of the Government amendment.
I support Senator McGennis' amendment and the sentiments expressed by Senator Lee. The Government amendment is no more than a minimalist step. The underlying principle is the degree to which the State takes the view that there is a simple peasantry which might be assisted as opposed to the view that there are people who are entitled as a matter of right to information and the State has a duty to provide that information.
I realise there is a cost aspect, which I am sure the Minister would emphasise. The savings as a result of disseminating the information might adequately pay for the provision of the service. It is important that people know their rights and the State has a duty to assist them in that task.
We debated freedom of information last week and there was widespread agreement in the House as to the need for freedom of information and the need for accessibility of information for citizens. During the debate on Senator Roche's Bill the Minister of State, Deputy Eithne Fitzgerald, gave a commitment that legislation would be introduced. That matter should not be lost sight of in this context.
I accept there is some movement on the part of the Minister, but it is not adequate.
The proposal in the Government amendment is a major step in terms of Government providing information on Government services, something which happens too infrequently. Its proposal is significant. It is an appropriate amendment. People are generally fairly well aware of their rights, and the new offices opened by the Minister to give each county a local legal aid service have highlighted the existence of the service for people who otherwise would not have known of it. It has been my experience that people often know about legal aid and ask for it when they go to a solicitor.
It is questionable whether the word "education" should be included in the amendment. Education is for the educators. The Legal Aid Board should not get involved in education with regard to legal rights. It would be more helpful to be positive about it and look at the role of education generally in the schools. Civics classes should provide education for life and teach individuals about their rights and responsibilities. That matter should be examined in the general context of education and not in relation to this Bill.
On Committee Stage a number of Senators expressed a desire to see section 5 expanded so as to impose on the board an obligation to involve itself in a number of activities associated with the provision of legal aid and advice. I have examined the Senators' comments in the intervening period. Amendment No. 5 would have the effect of putting an onus on the board to advertise or publicise its services. It would help to ensure that those members of the public who might benefit from obtaining the services of the board will be made aware as fully as possible about the nature and range of the board's services.
While it is fair to assume that the hoard will provide, as it does at present, a deal of information to the public about its activities, I agree that statutory expression should be given to the role the board must play in this area. I hope Senators will support my amendment.
As I explained on Committee Stage, I could not accept any amendment which would result in education and research functions being deemed to be principal functions of the Legal Aid Board. While I accept the Legal Aid Board has a role to play in the area of education and information and that in the normal course of its operation it may be required to undertake research as appropriate, the principal function of the board must be, as the Bill already provides, the provision of legal aid and advice in civil matters to persons of insufficient means. To accord any other matter an equal or limited priority would result in limited resources being diverted from what must be the principal function, namely, that of providing legal aid and advice.
Amendment No. 4 would have the effect of deeming the board's educative role to be more important than the provision of legal aid and advice. It does not indicate that the provision of legal aid and advice is to be the principal function of the board. Rather it suggests the opposite, because it qualifies the provision of legal aid and advice by reference to the board's resources while not similarly qualifying the board's responsibilities in respect of information and education. In such an unqualified state, paragraph (b) of the amendment would, I am satisfied, place an intolerable burden on the resources of the board.
Amendment No. 6 is less far-reaching than amendment No. 4 but has the effect of assigning particular importance to education as a role in which the board might be asked to engage by way of additional functions as the Minister may designate by order. I have some sympathy with the amendment. However, the difficulty is that it singles out education above other possibly more important additional functions. Having regard to the primary function of the board, that does not appear to be the right signal to give within the statutory framework for the board in the Bill.
Senator Honan referred to the Pringle committee, whose report led to the establishment of the scheme of civil legal aid and advice. It 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 which is representation in court. 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 to the House on Committee Stage, the National Social Service Board — the NSSB — which was set up in 1984, is a resource agency whose aim is to inform and empower individual citizens and communities by ensuring that they are aware of all their civil and social rights and entitlements and of the services which exist to support them. At the time the Pringle committee reported, the NSSB did not exist. 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 receives an annual grant from the Department of Health in excess of £1.2 million.
Senator Norris referred to the denial of information being used as an excuse for budget cut backs and so on. However, that accusation cannot be levied at the moneys provided for the Legal Aid Board. I have provided hugely increased budgets during the years I have had responsibility for the board so there can be no accusation of cut backs. The position is quite the reverse; the moneys and resources have been substantially increased and they are being used to the full. Even the increased provisions are being used to the full and there is no shortage of customers at the legal aid centres.
Whatever about information or education, many thousands of people know about the service and are availing of it. I am pleased about this and I hope to extend and further expand the resources of the Legal Aid Board to the maximum possible extent in the future. I will consider carefully how best the increased resources can be used as they become available from time to time in selecting priority areas for extension and expansion of the service, as I have done in the past. For these reasons I regret that I am opposing amendments Nos. 4 and 6 and supporting my amendment No. 5.
I acknowledge that the Minister has taken on board many of the points made on Committee Stage. However, his amendment does not go far enough to achieve the objectives outlined on Committee Stage. The Minister accepts there should be a statutory expression in the Bill of the Legal Aid Board's responsibility with regard to education. However, his amendment does not give effect to that obligation. It states that the board "shall, to such extent and in such manner as it considers appropriate,..." In my opinion that does not place a particular obligation on the board to deliver the type of service we are discussing.
I acknowledge that the primary function of the board is to provide civil legal aid and to represent people who need representation. This is why my amendment is framed as it is; it recognises that this is the board's primary function. However, it also insists that the board must ensure that citizens are adequately informed. Senator Henry said she did not believe much of the resources would be channelled in that particular direction. For this reason, I ask her to support my amendment. If the Minister's amendment is accepted, very little of the board's resources, if any, will be channelled in the direction that I wish them to be channelled.
Senator Gallagher said she believed people are aware of their legal entitlements. However, from personal experience in my constituency I believe that is not the position. To reinforce this point, in 1991 FLAC carried out a survey on awareness of legal aid services. The result showed that 58 per cent of those surveyed knew nothing about the availability of legal aid and how to apply for it. For the reasons I have outlined, I intend to press my amendment.
Amendment put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 23; Níl, 26.
Tá
- Bohan, Eddie.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Dardis, John.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Honan, Cathy.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Lanigan, Mick.
- Lee, Joe.
- Lydon, Don.
- McGennis, Marian.
- McGowan, Paddy.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- O'Brien, Francis.
- O'Toole, Joe.
- Ormonde, Ann.
- Wright, G. V.
Níl
- Belton, Louis J.
- Burke, Paddy.
- Calnan, Michael.
- Cashin, Bill.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Cregan, Denis (Dino).
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Gallagher, Ann.
- Henry, Mary.
- McDonagh, Jarlath.
- Magner, Pat.
- Maloney, Sean.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Neville, Daniel.
- Norris, David.
- O'Sullivan, Jan.
- Quinn, Feargal
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
- Townsend, Jim.
- Wilson, Gordon.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Mullooly and Fitzgerald; Níl, Senators Cosgrave and Magner.
Amendment declared lost.
Debate adjourned.