Today the Select Committee will consider a Supplementary Estimate for the Department of Equality and Law Reform. The additional amount required for the Department is £250,000. Of that sum £200,000 will be allocated to the Legal Aid Board and the remaining £50,000 will be allocated to the Task Force on the Travelling Community. I am sure many Members will wish to contribute to the debate and I look forward to a constructive discussion. I call on the Minister to make his opening remarks.
Vote 33 — Equality and Law Reform (Supplementary Estimate).
The Supplementary Estimate for my Department is for £250,000 of which £200,000 is an additional grant-in-aid for the Legal Aid Board and the remaining £50,000 is to meet the costs of operating the Task Force on the Travelling Community. The amount at the beginning of the year for the Legal Aid Board was £2,906,000 and a further £100,000 was secured by me to introduce a pilot scheme of private practitioners. In addition, a further sum of £200,000 is covered by the Supplementary Estimate being the first phase of a development programme for the civil legal aid service which is well underway. It involves an increase of 41 in the number of authorised posts in the Legal Aid Board in 1993. That number is made up as follows: 12 additional solicitors, 12 additional clerical support staff and 17 law clerks. The Department of Finance has approved those additional posts and the new staff are in the process of being recruited. Some have already taken up duty with the board and are employed in law centres throughout the country. As a result of the recruitment of the new staff, combined with the private practitioners pilot scheme which is operating very well, there has been a substantial reduction in waiting times in many of the law centres. That is a step in the right direction. The improvements in 1993, together with plans for further expansion of the scheme in 1994, will ensure that the operation of that scheme will be of a different calibre to that which operated heretofore. The waiting times have been reduced and there will be substantial further reductions and extensions of the service in 1994.
The operating costs of the Task Force on the Travelling Community for 1993 will be £50,000. The task force is operating very well under the chairmanship of Deputy McManus. The figure of £50,000 covers the administration costs of the task force for 1993, including the chairperson's honorarium, travel and subsistence expenses incurred by members attending meetings, research and consultancy fees and other incidental expenses. A further allocation will be made to the task force in 1994 and additional allocations, as necessary.
I am pleased we have this Supplementary Estimate before us because it gives us the first opportunity to discuss the way the legal aid scheme is working and the changes being made to it. I hope to raise questions with the Minister which I hope he will respond to at a later stage.
I welcome the recruitment of additional staff to the Legal Aid Board law centres. The legal aid scheme has been in a state of crisis for a number of years. By and large it has been providing a fire brigade service. The solicitors operating within the centres have been over-worked and the centres understaffed. That has had implications in the area of marriage breakdown. The majority of the work undertaken by the centres is in that area. Battered wives, abandoned wives and abandoned husbands look to the centres to provide them with legal help in circumstances where they lack the means to pay private solicitors to represent them.
At the start of this year many centres had waiting lists and many had effectively closed their doors to new clients. Two of the centres in Dublin had a six months waiting list. The centre in the Minister's constituency in Tallaght reached the stage last May where it could take no new clients before January 1994. I welcome the Minister's remarks that the action taken has resulted in a reduction of the waiting times of centres, but the Minister was economicial in giving information. Will he tell the House the exact position in regard to waiting times in each law centre at present? Have any centres closed their doors to new clients? If I want to make an appointment at one of the law centres in Dublin would I see a solicitor in one week, two weeks, two months or six months? What is the waiting time in the law centres in Athlone, Dundalk and Tallaght? The Minister should tell us the exact position.
This Estimate provides for the recruitment of 41 new staff. I wonder whether we are falling into the trap of spending more money on bureaucracy and administration than on recruiting people who are qualified to provide the legal assistance required. Of the 41 new staff to be recruited, 29 will be clerical and support staff, people who are unqualified to give legal help and advice. It seems that the ratio of qualified people being recruited to provide advice to unqualified back-up staff is somewhat askew. Is it intended that the clerical support staff will be required to provide legal advice even though they do not have the experience or qualifications to do so? That is a matter that requires clarification.
It is essential that we do not continue a two-tier system of justice. An abandoned or deserted wife or husband who has the financial wherewithal may see a solicitor within a matter of days or, in an emergency, on the same day they seek legal help. However, if they do not have the financial wherewithal, under the current scheme it may take months to simply gain access to legal help. I am concerned that in reducing waiting lists people may be required to give advice who are unqualified to do so. The Minister should clarify the exact functions of the clerical support staff.
I have grave concerns about the scheme as it relates to solicitors in private practice. The Minister has proposed a pilot scheme which provides for a solicitor to be paid fee of £75 for representing people in the District Court in barring, maintenance and custody cases. That scheme has been criticised in various quarters. The Minister said that quite a number of solicitors have joined the scheme. Perhaps he would clarify how may joined and in what parts of the country.
I hope the Minister shares my view that when a wife who experiences difficult in her marriage requires legal help, initially attempts should be made by a lawyer advising the husband or wife to resolve the problem. For example, it may be possible for the couple to be reconciled. They may have gone to a lawyer in an emergency but in reality there may be a hope that their marriage problems could be resolved. In some cases the lawyer acts as a referral agency to marriage guidance counselling, although people cannot be compelled to go to a marriage guidance counsellor. Many people who go to see lawyers have been already through that route but find that their marriage is in too poor a state to be saved by a marriage guidance counsellor. However, initially that is an avenue that should be explored by a good lawyer.
If it is clear the marriage is at an end it should be established whether it is possible for the couple to separate on a civilised basis, with the assistance of a lawyer or mediator, without having to set foot in court. That is a very important approach. If couples whose marriages have broken down can resolve their problems by agreement, with or without the help of mediators, they, particularly in future years, have a better chance of cooperating as parents in the interests of their children. The moment people set foot in court an additional wedge is driven between them, recriminations are made and the possibility of reasonable interaction between the husband and wife is immediately reduced. The scheme the Minister has introduced flies in the face of that approach. Both the Minister and I, at different stages, attended a recent conference on mediation. The Minister, in various speeches, has expressed approval of the mediation process despite the fact that he has not managed to secure from the Government additional resources to expand the mediation scheme in Dublin or to extend it outside Dublin.
Under the scheme the only circumstance in which the lawyer giving advice will be paid is not merely where court proceedings are issued but where a court order is made. The Minister has put in place a conveyor belt system of justice designed to force distraught husbands and wives who experience a marriage problem to use only the courts to solve their problems. Under the scheme it is envisaged that the private practitioner will be paid only if he has a copy of whatever court order is made in the case. On being told there is a four months waiting list at a law centre a person may contact a solicitor for assistance, but the only circumstance in which the solicitor will operate is where court proceedings are issued. If the solicitor brings the person into his office, spends a great deal of time going into the background of the marital problems and seeks to deal with matters in a way that does not involve court proceedings, regardless of the number of hours that solicitor spends assisting the husband or wife, he or she will not qualify for payment under the legal aid scheme. This scheme will result in various lawyers, many of whom may not have a great deal of experience in the area of family law, people picked from a list issued by a legal aid panel, perhaps having a five or ten minute chat with an upset husband and wife and then going into court to attempt to represent them. At the end of the day a court order will be made and the lawyer will make an application for payment. That is the opposite approach to that required to help people with marriage problems.
The Minister may say that this matter will be dealt with differently, but I do not believe that is the case. This scheme envisages that a lawyer in any one day, or perhaps in one morning, rather than simply taking one family law case may take four, five or six cases. Under the scheme of payments if a solicitor takes more than four cases, instead of getting £75 for each case they receive £65 for each case. Therefore, under the scheme it is acceptable that one lawyer on one day in the District Court, dealing with the trauma of marriage breakdown, may represent four, five, six or seven wives with different marriage problems, each case with its unique background and each person with different needs and requirements. Somewhere in the background in all of those cases will be young children whose future lives may be determined by the order made by the court. Custody issues and the rights of parents who do not have custody to spend time with their children will have to be resolved. In addition, there may be serious allegations of violence or child abuse in one or two of the cases. What background work will be done by the lawyer paid £75 for a case to find out whether such allegations can be substantiated or should be raised? In what circumstances will a child psychiatrist or psychologist be paid to carry out an assessment, or can they be involved at all in the process?
The system is not only grossly inadequate — I am sure the Minister introduced it with the best of intentions because of the waiting lists — but is also dangerous in the sense that it will create a perception that people were fully and properly legally represented and advised before they went into court to sort out their family problems when, in fact, they were not fully and properly legally represented and advised. I do not believe that the necessary background work will be done in such cases. It has been calculated that a lawyer with some experience dealing with a case involving a family problem will spend approximately five hours dealing with the case before it is heard in the District Court. That is not my calculation; it is the calculation made by the Incorporated Law Society and is based on the assumption that before a case is brought to court people will talk to their lawyers, the lawyer will find out the background to the case, he will make some attempt to resolve matters by agreement and communicating with the estranged husband or wife, he will have a further discussion with the person he is representing to see if progress can be made by way of discussions or whether they should go to mediation and if no progress can be made whether court proceedings should be initiated. If court proceedings are initiated a good lawyer will not simply meet his client outside the door of the court five minutes before the court case is heard; rather he will bring the person he is representing into his office to discuss the court proceedings, the presentation of the court case and the witnesses, if any, who should be called. That is the way in which a good lawyer operates.
It is very important in family law cases for a lawyer to spend that length of time with the husband or wife he is representing. More than any other area of the law, family law gives rise to a great deal of emotion and distress and there may be a substantial amount of family division. In cases where the relationship between a husband and wife has broken down a lawyer will very often play a role in trying to encourage them as parents to at the very least maintain civilised communications between each other in the interests of the children.
Under the scheme lawyers dealing with such cases wil be paid £75 for each case. A plumber who spends ten minutes mending a tap in a house will be paid £35. In case I am misrepresented, I am not engaged in any special pleading for the legal profession as to the level of fees lawyers should receive. Rather, I am concerned that the level of fees paid will indicate the level of service provided. It is very interesting to compare this pilot scheme with the criminal legal aid scheme under which a fee of £120 is paid to a lawyer representing a person accused of a criminal offence on each occasion he appears in the District Court. In other words, we value the provision of legal advice to muggers to a greater extent than we value the provision of legal help to wives and children in circumstances where marriages have broken down. That is a very strange value system, and it is wrong. The concerns I am voicing have been voiced not only by the Incorporated Law Society but also by people who have worked voluntarily for many years on behalf of people who cannot afford legal fees.
In its October 1993 newsletter the Coolock Law Centre raises many of the issues I have raised. It refers to a two-tier system of justice and points out that the scheme is a panic reaction to the waiting lists. It also raises an issue I have not raised, that is, what assurance does the Minister have that the lawyers who take up work under this scheme will have any experience at all in the area of law in which they are providing help? This question is of some importance in the context of the manner in which people's family problems are approached. Under the scheme the Legal Aid Board will simply issue to an applicant a list of solicitors who have signed up to represent in the District Court people with family problems. There will be no indication on the list of the length of time such solicitors have been practising or whether they have any specialist knowledge in certain areas.
The other important element in cases involving marriage breakdown is the relationship which builds up between the lawyer and the upset wife or husband. We often emphasise the impact of marriage breakdown on wives, but no one should doubt that husbands can be just as distressed as wives when marriages break down. A relationship of trust builds up between the husband or wife and the lawyer; they feel they can rely on the lawyer and a relationship of confidence is built up between them. The continuity of that relationship can be very important. This scheme disregards such relationships. If a lawyer represents a person on a once off basis in the District Court and the wrong decision is given by the court, that will be the end of the person's involvement with the lawyer. The person will have to go back to the law centre and will have a different lawyer representing him or her in the Circuit Court appeal. This lawyer will not have been in the District Court and will not know the details of what took place. He may have received a report from the lawyer who originally took the case but he will not have been in court and will not have been involved with the client. The husband or wife will have to form a new relationship with this lawyer so as to resolve on an appeal basis all of the problems they sought to have dealt with initially in the District Court.
The Minister needs to look again at what is happening in this area. The scheme may artifically reduce the waiting lists, but at what cost? How many cases will be wrongly determined in the District Court, where disputes arise over the future welfare of children because the necessary background work was not done and time was not devoted to the preparation of the court hearing? How many wives who should receive barring orders for their protection will not succeed in getting them because the necessary background work was not done to bring to court essential witnesses who could help determine whether the husband or wife was telling the truth about particular events which occurred within the family home? It is not enough to simply reduce waiting lists; the quality of the legal help or advice provided is also of very substantial importance.
This scheme has instutionalised a two-tier system of justice and has put in place a conveyer belt system of family law whereby husbands and wives are trooped in and out of the courts. Under the scheme that will be the extent of most lawyers involvement with them. I accept that there will be some exceptions to this rule and that some lawyers will devote more time to cases than others. However, they will discover within a period of time that it is economically impossible for them to continue representing people in the courts on this basis.
I wish to refer briefly to the task force on the travelling community. I have one regret in regard to the work that is being done by the Department of Equality and Law Reform. It seems to me that there are three essential areas that come under the bailiwick of this Minister in the context of his current work. The first is his addressing the need for a divorce referendum and putting in place all the necessary legislation required prior to the referendum taking place. The second is to deal with the position and the status of the disabled and to improve administrative procedures, to improve our laws and our services and to highlight what needs to be done in this area. The third applies to the travelling community, to see what we can do to improve the position of the travelling community, and particularly the children of that community, to ensure that they have a better life than that of their parents and to ensure that the antagonism that exists between many people in the settled community and the travelling community is confronted and resolved. We must ensure that proper halting sites and other types of accommodation are made available to that community and that we surmount the many difficulties that exist across the country in regard to local authorities who fail to meet their obligations in those areas.
Unfortunately, in the context of the disabled and the travelling community, it seems to me that this Government has no policy. Despite all the fine sounding words from the Labour Party in Opposition and all the commitments they gave, what this Department has brought foward is the setting up of two task forces. Deputy Liz McManus is chairing the task force on the travelling community. I make no criticism of her, I wish her well in that position and I want to put that on the record of this House. However, the work she is undertaking with that committee will take some time, a report will eventually be produced, that report will have to be considered by Government and the Government will then have to consider which of the committee's recommendations it will implement and what priority will be given to particular recommendations. By the time all that takes place this Government will be out of office.
It is regrettable that this Department has not come forward with some positive policy recommendations that the Government is required to take seriously to deal with the area not just of the disabled, who are not referred to in this Estimate, but to deal with the travelling community. There are children living on the sides of roads in this country whose future cannot wait for task force reports and Government deliberations on recommendations made by task forces.
I note from what the Minister said in relation to the Estimate that some of it deals with consultancy fees that are being incurred by the task force and perhaps research that is being done. I would like the Minister in his reply to clarify what consultants have been appointed and what research is being carried out, because in the past a large amount of research has been done in this area by a wide variety of bodies. I do not believe we require a task force; we require political decision making and implementation of policy by Government, Whereas I have no argument with Deputy McManus in chairing this task force, my argument is with the Minister, because I see this task force as postponing the day when action necessary in this area will be taken.
In that context I would point out that we are still not clear which of the recommendations of the Commission on the Status of Women are being implemented by the Government. They are all being considered, some are being implemented, some may not be implemented and some are still being cogitated on, and it is almost a year since that report was published.
What we need from this Department is political decision making at Departmental level with regard to the travelling community and then those decisions brought to Cabinet for implementation. What we have instead is a task force whose work, I believe, will take many months, but nevertheless I wish them well in that work.
This is my first time to attend this committee and I am glad we are discussing a Supplementary Estimate for the Department of Equality and Law Reform. Indeed, we would all welcome extra funding being allocated to the Minister and his Department for the work he is undertaking. I was interested to read the list given to us by the Minister which described how the money would be spent.
At the outset, I would like to concentrate on the £200,000 that he is allocating to the Legal Aid Board. I recognise that Deputy Shatter is an expert in this area, he made a long and detailed contribution and I agree with many of the points he made. Unfortunately, for many people the reality is that there is no free legal aid system available to them. In this regard the Minister is trying to cope with a very difficult problem because it is true to say that in some areas there is a one year waiting list for people seeking free legal aid. I would not call this a two tier system that he is implementing; but I predict it will turn out to be a revolving door system at the end of the day because it is basically fire fighting.
I note from the Estimates for the Department as originally discussed that there was an increase of approximately 11 per cent in the Estimate for this area. However, at that time I do not believe that additional personnel were involved in the legal aid scheme. I share the doubts that have been expressed. It would appear that in some instances unqualified people are being used to deal with this problem. One would hope that the 12 solicitors would have experience in family law because that is the area that needs most attention in the free legal aid system.
I realise that we cannot cope with the numbers seeking free legal aid regardless of what aspect of the law they are dealing with, but certainly in the whole area of marital breakdown, the legal aid system does not work. If we are to address that problem, the people who are being employed should have particular expertise in that area. I would like some detail from the Minister in regard to the appointment of these people.
I would like to know also whether the Minister intends to increase the number of free legal aid centres. From my work with women's groups I know the number of centres available to people throughout the country — I think 14 in total — is inadequate and I know this problem has been addressed also by the Committee on Women's Rights. This can cause problems when a husband and wife are attending the same centre and perhaps the Minister might address this when considering the expansion of the service.
I hope that more cases will be dealt with, but I am concerned about the quality of the advice that will be available to people and I would like the Minister to reassure us on that point. I would like to know also the figures in regard to thia area, whether there have been improvements in the waiting time for free legal aid and what time scale the Minister envisages for further expansion of the system over the next six months to one year.
A number of points were made to the Minister earlier concerning accessibility to the system and the fact that the means test limit is too low. That is something that will have to be addressed perhaps in the next budget. Obviously, it should be arranged that anybody who has access to a medical card should also have access to free legal aid since it is just as much a health hazard or whatever for people to have to have recourse to a legal aid system as to a medical system. Will the Minister inform us whether he will extend the service to areas where it does not now apply, such as social welfare appeals, tribunals and so on.
The reality is that many people believe they do not have recourse to the law perhaps because their income limits may be just above the means-tested ceiling or that, because of the timescale involved, become absolutely hopeless. Such people are disenfranchised to a great extent, are outside the system and caught up in a more or less vicious circle. For many of the people about whom the Minister spoke, particularly within the area of marital breakdown, difficulties of access to assistance only add to their feelings of hopelessness and helplessness. There is a huge onus on the Minister to render this system much more realistic, reassuring people that they will have access to its provisions and giving details of precisely when that can take place. Perhaps, as Deputy Shatter suggested, the Minister should give us a rundown through the particular centres, informing us precisely when people can expect to have their cases heard, what the waiting lists are like and under what headings they appear, giving a precise breakdown under each of those headings.
I want now to turn to the matter of the task force on the travelling community. We have had task forces before. I know from Deputy McManus and others who have served on that task force that these are all people engaged in an honest effort, but to a certain extent that tends to let the Minister off the hook temporarily. Perhaps we might seek an interim report from that task force on how matters are progressing, the type of effort put in and whether there may be an interim result, in order to ascertain whether we are getting value for money from the expenditure of this £50,000. That is not in any way to take from the time and effort put in by the people serving on that task force. What is the consultancy about? I have not heard any discussion or explanation of that issue. Who lays down their terms of reference? Are these laid down directly by the task force or by the Minister?
There are a huge number of issues that arise within the overall aspect of equality. Indeed, in the Programme for a Partnership Government it is stated that there should be equal access to the law for all irrespective of income. That constitutes a huge challenge which, unfortunately, has not been met. It is precisely a year ago today that polling took place in the last general election. Who knew then how matters would transpire? Many promises were made, particularly in regard to equality and so on, by the Labour Party. A year is a long time. Unfortunately, we have only begun to deal with the general issues of equality, particularly in relation to travellers. I would agree that there is a reluctance to take political decisions on this issue. Unfortunately, it is always easier to establish a committee, delegating them to consider some issue. I hope that is not what has happened in the case of this task force, because no matter what they may suggest or recommend, the hard fact is that it is the Minister who should be taking political decisions.
From my experience in local government I contend that the Minister cannot fob this off on local authorities who in the main have been very unwilling, because of political considerations, to undertake their rightful task or responsibility. Therefore the Minister should give direction, taking a very firm hand in coping with what is an horrendous problem. What we witness is these people being pushed around and an unwillingness on the part of some local authorities even to provide them with a halting site. I think Deputy McManus would agree that it is somewhat ironic that she should be heading up this task force. Perhaps she will do something about what happens in Wicklow, or suggest a system under which local authorities would take on their rightful responsibility. Essentially, however, direction must be given by the responsible Minister.
I should like the Minister to clarify and explain the various issues mentioned. For example, I should like greater detail on exactly how these Estimate moneys are to be expended. Nobody would say "Let us not have it"; we will say "Let us have more money". But we must always remember that one cannot just throw money at a problem, one must ensure that those moneys are properly expended and not being wasted. I am sure it is the Minister's intention that these moneys be spent in the best possible manner. But I should like greater reassurance from him and greater detail about its expenditure. If one merely throws money at a problem, sometimes the people who benefit are those who actually spend the money, if you like, those who are being employed and not those for whom the service was intended to be provided in the first place.
First, I should say that we in Democratic Left recognise the need for additional funding for the Civil Legal Aid Board and welcome this Supplementary Estimate, since existing legal aid centres are overloaded and overstretched. The queues at them remain very long and clearly the demand is ever-increasing. For those fortunate enough to be able to avail of the service there is satisfaction that the legal representation provided is committed and adequate. That it is not available sufficiently quickly or widely is not the fault of the legal aid centres but that of politicians, who never face up to the responsibility of providing adequate funding. The obvious solution is to extend the scheme, which has been tried and trusted.
I welcome the increase in funding. I am glad it is to be expended on increasing staff at the various legal aid centres. However, I am concerned at the new approach of the Minister in deciding to privatise part of the scheme. It is a strange approach to be adopted on the part of the Labour Party Minister. Indeed, it is a strange approach to be adopted by any Minister when one examines the fine record of the legal aid centres obtaining.
I should point out that in the Programme for a Partnership Government there was a commitment to administer a system of civil legal aid to ensure equal access to the law irrespective of income. Furthermore, that programme stated that the existing scheme would be placed on a statutory footing and additional funding provided to facilitate its expansion. Surely this Supplementary Estimate affords an opportunity to expand that scheme geographically? Perhaps the Minister would clarify this point. As far I could ascertain from what he had been indicating, these additional staff will simply be deployed to beef up the existing legal aid centres. That is simply not adequate to meet the needs, particularly of those living in rural areas too far away from such legal aid centres. Even though they may be eligible to avail of its services, they are simply located too far away.
The solution the Minister has arrived at of privatising part of the scheme is not the answer. I am sure he is aware of the unfortunate experience arising from privatisation of the civil legal aid system in other countries, notably the UK, where costs have rapidly escalated. I wonder why he appears to ignore the advice of the report commissioned by the Incorporated Law Society of Irland which has backed the law centres, saying that they were value for money and that there should be at least one in every town. That is the approach I would favour. Why is the Minister not pursuing that objective which would satisfy the needs of unfortunate clients who have to use the service?
Already we are hearing from private practitioners that the system will not work unless they get more money. There is a real danger of a two-tier system emerging where civil legal aid clients will get a second class service. That is simply not good enough. I suggest to the Minister that if it is not broke he should not be fixing it. The only thing wrong with the existing legal aid centres is that there are not enough of them and that they are not sufficiently staffed. The idea of privatising is not the answer. The private practitioners are howling for more money; in effect, they are promising that their clients will get a second class service. They have already made it clear that the service they provide to these clients will be dictated by the profit and loss of the private solicitor's officer rather than the needs of the community or the client.
Has the Minister dealt with this particular difficulty? Has he insisted that private practitioners make a contractual agreement that they would not in any way discriminate against their public clients in the same way, for example, as general practitioners in the medical services have to sign a contract that they will not discriminate between the public patient and the private patient? If solicitors were governed by the same restriction we might make progress. Does the Minister have commitments from solicitors operating in this pilot scheme that there will be no discrimination? Can he say how many solicitors are involved in the scheme? This matter needs to be sorted out; otherwise people in small rural towns, if they can get a solicitor to take them on, will not get their money's worth because solicitors will look at the matter in monetary terms rather than on need.
The point raised by Deputy Shatter in relation to the mediation service is a very important one. In expanding the legal aid scheme there should be a parallel expansion in the mediation service. There are many men and women who would avail of a mediation service if it were provided. We should never underestimate the damage caused by the adversarial solution of marital breakdown. There is an underestimation of the effects on children of marital breakdown and the resolution of marital breakdown. We need to be conscious that there are ways of resolving conflict that minimise that damage and there are also ways of resolving conflict that exacerbate that damage. Sufficient attention has not been paid to the needs of children and the advantages of mediation over the adversarial system.
I thank the Minister for offering me the appointment as chairperson of the task force on travellers. I appreciate that he did offer me this appointment, which I see as an opportunity. I accept the point made by Deputy Keogh in relation to Wicklow County Council. I should like to inform her that Wicklow County Council has finally woken up to its responsibilities and is in the process of providing two travellers' halting sites. This is not something in which I take any great pride. The county council has been tardy and it has shown me the obstacles that can be advanced against the provision of accommodation. During my time on Wicklow County Council I have gained experience which I can put to good use.
It is important to point out that travellers are participating in the task force. The travelling community has to be involved in decisions and proposals being made on their behalf. There is an understanding within the task force of the urgency of the matter. We are conscious of the fact that these things can be long-fingered, that prevarication is very easy. I wish to state publicly that I am impressed by the dedication and commitment of every member of the task force regardless of their views. There is an unanimity as regards recognising the urgency of the case. This is reflected in the fact that between subcommittees and the task force itself we have already had 26 meetings since the task force was set up in mid-July. This is an indication that people are taking the issue seriously and that they realise it is important that we would arrive at practical realisable objectives and recommendations that could be implemented by the Government.
We have already made two submissions, one to the Minister for Equality and Law Reform in relation to equal status legislation and one to the Minister for Education in relation to the White Paper on Education. Next week we hope to make a submission to the Minister regarding accommodation. I hope the Minister will agree that this would form an interim report which could be published before Christmas.
I accept the point made by Deputy Shatter regarding the dangers of prevarication, but I can assure him there is no body of people more conscious of that and more determined to prevent that happening than the members of the task force. I trust the Minister understands that sense of urgency and commitment to the body of work we are doing and that there would be a follow on. We are carrying out the work and we are arriving at realisable proposals and recommendations. As a task force we are willing to face up to the difficult questions and to put forward proposals. Obviously, we have no say in how the Government will respond, but it will not be for want on our part that the needs will not be met. The momentum that has built up within the task force is very real. People want this matter sorted out and that there is a reflection on the community at large. They recognise there are injustices, difficulties and conflict that have to be resolved.
In regard to research, it is important when resources are expended that they are expended in a way that is cost effective and is directly related to the needs on the ground. The sum expended on research is not particularly large; it is very restricted. That research tries to ensure that the resourcing of any recommendations is done in a way that meets the need. A certain amount of research, of which we are availing, has already been carried out. However, we require further research if we are to ensure that any new recommendations are directed in an appropriate way.
First, I would like to congratulate the Minster on making available extra finance to the civil legal aid scheme. Nobody in this House is better aware of the difficulties experienced by people who have to seek civil legal aid than the Minister, who for many years provided a free service to his constituents and advised them on all legal matters. There is no better person to deal with this difficult matter in Cabinet than the Minister. We are all very well aware of the logjam in the system and the long waiting lists for service. In Tallaght there is a lengthy waiting list. I understand that the extra moneys being allocated will release the logjam. I welcome the employment of extra solicitors and backup clerical staff. This extension of the legal aid service is, I believe, the largest in the past ten years. The Minister announced his intention to introduce a Bill at a later stage and I believe it will address this question in a more diligent way.
We need to clarify what exactly is entailed in the provision of legal advice. I know that the staff in the free legal aid centres provide advice voluntarily. However, members of the legal profession advertise freely in the open market that they deal with marital breakdown and accident cases. They invite people to bring their business to them, but I wonder how deep their commitment is to the problem. In other words, If there is not a great deal of money to be made from the case will they decide that it is more appropriate to refer the client to the service provided by the State? If people provide legal advice in an area they should take the rough with the smooth.
There may be some point in advocating that solicitors should take on clients on the basis that no fee is charged if there is no benefit to their client. I know that is a risk for solicitors, but there is a risk in every business and the legal profession should bear some of the risks. I am not casting aspersions on the legal profession, but the profession provides a service which is a commodity that you pay for. The quality of the service depends on the calibre of the people delivering it. It is difficult to understand the advice being offered by some solicitors, because their clients wind up in public representatives' clinics seeking alternative advice.
On the question of resources, one could pour money forever into a service which would continue to demand more resources. The amount of money provided in this Estimate is not substantial, but it should be sufficient. The intention is to loosen the logjam, but that may not necessarily be the total requirement to solve the problem.
A task force has been established to examine this issue of travellers' settlements in the community. In the Tallaght-Clondalkin area there is probably the greatest number of travellers occupying sites, legal and illegal. The new local authority of South Dublin will come into operation on 31 December, but there is no mehcanism to deal with the problem of transferring travellers to the other new local authorities so that each will bear its fair share. Councillors are very worried about this problem and wonder if there is a mechanism to ensure that the load is more equitably distributed. Wandering horses damage the property and diminish the quality of life of residents in my area. This causes a great deal of friction in the local community and it is very difficult to create the climate to allow the settlement programme to continue. This problem needs to be addressed by the task force.
There is also the phenomenon of new age travellers. They have not arrived in our area as yet. These are not traditional travellers, as we know them. I hope the task force will establish exactly what a traveller is and on whom our resources should be targetted. Should the classification of a traveller encompass everyone who occupies a caravan, or only those who traditionally, moved around the country in years gone by in the colourful, canvas covered caravans and who returned to certain spots every year? That group were accepted willingly by the community, who gave them every assistance possible and were sorry to see them disappear overnight. The new age traveller comes with a large enterprise attached to his hitch but seeks the assistance of the local authority, and the State indirectly for finance. Our service needs to be directed to those who are suffering most from the conditions in which they live.
We have to find a mechanism whereby every local authority will have a sufficient number of halting sites to prevent a buildup of travellers in any one area. I compliment the Minister for setting up a task force on the travelling community. To date no Government has come up with a solution and I believe it is simply because politicians have to consider their own area rather than looking at the problem at national level. The task force will addresss the problem nationwide and will issue a report to the Minister. I hope it will contain the recommendations necessary to solve the problem. I wish them well in their work.
I commend the Minister for introducing a Supplementary Estimate to provide additional resources for the civil legal aid board and the task force on the travelling community. I do not think anybody, and that includes the Minister, would say that the present situation in the civil legal aid board is satisfactory. The lack of resources means that there are long waiting lists. Anybody who wishes to criticise the allocation to the civil legal aid board would do well to remember that such problems have existed for a long time. Maritial breakdown did not arise in recent years but existed during the period of the Coalition Government, of which Deputy Shatter's party was a member, during the period from 1982-87. It is abundantly clear, however, because of the growing body of family law and the long waiting lists for legal services, that a study will have to be carried out on the provision of legal aid services. If the Irish people decide to amend the Constitution and introduce divorce, the civil legal aid board would be stretched to breaking point. I think all law centres would be stretched to breaking point. I would be worried that marriages that could be saved by the process of mediation would break up and for that reason we need to pay close attention to the civil legal aid service. I think it would be as well to address this problem now rather than later.
I realise that resources are extremely limited, but in so far as the State can assist people to keep their relationship alive I believe it is imperative that assistance be given. It is all too easy to criticise the Government or the Minister for setting up a task force on the travelling community and to say that it is a stalling mechanism, but some professional body had to look at the problem and make recommendations which the Government might implement. The difficulty in relation to the travelling community and their relationship to the settled community is best illustrated by the recent letter of the Minister, Deputy Stagg, to local authorities advising them that they will not get an allocation for housing unless they provide halting sites. That, to say the least, was a major vote of no confidence in the attitude of local authorities to the travelling community.
Halting sites have been provided in my county, but it must be acknowledged that Kerry people are a very far-seeing race. The Minister's approach, well intentioned as it was, was not the correct approach. It would have been better if the problems of homeless people in the settled community had not been linked to the problems of the travelling community.
I, too, wish the task force well and I am sure that it will make excellent recommendations. Among those will have to be the premise that while the settled people must recognise their obligations to the travelling community, the travelling community must recognise their obligations to the settled community. If one side does not recognise its obligations to the other, clearly no progress will be made.
I congratulate the Minister on making great strides in such a short time. He is doing his job in a professional manner and the efforts he has made over the last number of months are obvious. Funding will always be a problem for Departments, but particularly for new Departments. I hope that Deputy Shatter and his party will support proposals to increase public spending in this area at budget time and that we do not hear them saying that we should cut back more and more.
The amount of money provided for the legal aid board will always be inadequate, particularly to cater for people living outside of urban areas, many of whom live in isolation. Because of the lack of public transport, rural people have difficulty in getting to legal aid centres and such people will not be visited. Indeed, the basic social workers, the first people to be called upon when problems arise which might lead to marriage breakdown or other social problems, are perhaps 20 to 30 miles away. There will always be discrimination due to the distances from centres, so it is obvious that more money will be required in order to discriminate in favour of the people in the rural areas.
When my colleague, Deputy Walsh, was speaking I realised that I had much in common with him in relation to trying to provide accommodation for the travelling community. My local authority has provided accommodation and has endeavoured to improve accommodation for the travelling community in my constituency. Unfortunately, those who help most are expected to do more and more. It is now impossible to keep abreast of the problem. If we propose to build a further halting site to provide accommodation for the number of families at present living there, as soon as the announcement is made I can guarantee that at least another 15 or 20 families will arrive overnight. The authority can do nothing to prevent that happening, as effectively, these people are above the law. They can move from one county to another, or from one local authority area to another, and the authority there must provide accommodation under the law. The law must be changed. Many authorities do little or nothing to deal with the problem, but we cannot do anything to force those local authorities, because if the travelling community do not want to live in a certain county, they can move to another county which must provide accommodation.
Something like 28,000 settled families are at present in need of housing and now we have been advised that unless halting sites are provided there will be further restrictions on the housing for the settled people. The time has come to establish some form of register detailing the people from the travelling community who wish to be provided with accommodation, whether it be halting sites or housing accommodation. They should have to register with a particular local authority; otherwise we will never solve the problem in some counties and the local authorities in Dublin and those in the surrounding counties of Kildare, Meath and Wicklow will come under major pressure.
In my area there is a community college outside of which more than 30 travelling families have parked their caravans. This has resulted in over 80 children being removed from the college because of the interference and other difficulties caused to them. That should not happen in this day and age. Neither the local authority nor the vocational education committee has any power to remove those families from the site. I know of another incident where 40 families arrived from the south of Ireland and parked on a high amenity area close to the sea beside playing pitches, football pitches and a pitch and putt course and the local authority had no power to remove them. When they had finished destroying the pitches and the pitch and putt course and had sold their wares, they moved on and the local authority had to pick up the tab.
I hope that the task force, in conjunction with the Department, will address those issues. If it does not it will be impossible for any local authority to do so. The law must be changed to ensure some control in regard to the movement of the travelling community if they wish to be housed and receive proper accommodation. We have done our best in our local authority and I hope other authorities will do likewise. There is no point in spurring the winning horse all the time, which appears to be the case at present.
Deputy Walsh referred to the scale of the problem concerning travellers in County Dublin. I want to refer to the problem affecting the constituency represented by the Minister, Deputy Walsh and myself and the disproportionate share of the problem concentrated in County Dublin. It is appropriate that I should stress the urgency of this problem in a debate on a Supplementary Estimate introduced by the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Taylor. The extent to which this social problem has been concentrated in County Dublin during the past ten years has not been acknowledged and a census is being carried out this week to establish the extent of the problem. The most up to date completed census, dated 20 November, 1992, highlights that there are 337 families living along the roadside in County Dublin. That gives some indication of the gravity of the problem, which for various reasons has not been effectively addressed during the past decade. There are 120 families living along the roadside in Clondalkin and 60 in Tallaght. The performance of other local authorities, which has been lamentable in many cases, highlights the necessity to address the problem in Dublin urgently. I was shocked to learn recently that a number of local authorities have no halting sites. The Minister and Deputy Walsh understand the tensions and difficulties created as a result of the inordinately high inflow of travelling families into County Dublin in recent years, especially west County Dublin.
The problem will be exacerbated by the enactment of the Local Government (Dublin) Bill, the purpose of which is to abolish Dublin County Council and set up three new councils. It appears that the new councils will have to accommodate, house and provide health services for the number of travelling families they inherit. The fact that there are 180 such families in the Clondalkin and Tallaght area highlights the extent of the problem for the new South Dublin Council and the urgency of the problem in general. The survey to which I referred highlights also that 69 families are housed in standard local authority houses, 36 in special group local authority schemes and many other special arrangements for travelling families.
The residents of Tallaght and Clondalkin, in particular, will welcome the fact that the Minister, Deputy Taylor, has responsibility for travelling people. Given the disproportionate share of that social problem concentrated in Clondalkin and Tallaght, those residents would want me to request the Minister to implement strategies to finally resolve the problem on an acceptable basis. A national strategy that will acknowledge the inordinate increase in the number of travelling families in Dublin during the past ten years is called for. The Minister is aware of the problems in our constituency of Dublin South West posed by the enormous inflow of travelling families and there is a mood of expectation in the constituency that he will use Cabinet office to tackle the problems effectively.
From the point of view of local residents, we are fortunate that it is Deputy Taylor, who is well aware of the problems in Clondalkin and Tallaght, who has been given the responsibility to address travellers' issues. I would have preferred if the Minister had avoided setting up a task force and made the decisions himself. An abundance of advice is available, but the political will to resolve the problems has never existed. I hope the Minister will not hide behind the task force but act speedily to implement the interim recommendations which Deputy McManus stated will be available within the next few weeks.
There must be a national strategy, but it must take account of the peculiar position of County Dublin, particularly the constituency represented by the Minister, Deputy Walsh and myself. Apart from the typical backsliding of politicians at local level to avoid facing up to the problem, the halting sites programme which has been introduced on three different occasions in the past decade by Dublin County Council has been obstructed by people who have the means to employ the best legal and other expert advice to do so. As a result it is concentrated disproportionately in west County Dublin. The problem will be made worse with the creation of three new local authorities, especially in my own constituency of Dublin South West. In devising a national strategy — and, I believe, we must implement such a strategy — account must be taken of the fact that County Dublin is an exceptional case and requires to be addressed on that basis.
On other occasions the Minister outlined the reasons he found it necessary to set up a task force, but I hope it will not deliberate on this matter forever. I am sure that it will produce worthwhile recommendations, given that there is a welter of literature available on the subject. It seems nothing is simple once one establishes a task force comprising the various interest groups, but there are certain manifestly sensible recommendations which can be abstracted. The question is whether they will be implemented. Having regard to the tactics and ruses that local politicians and councillors in all local authorities, including my own, resort to, I have little confidence that we can leave this problem to the local authorities because up to now they have not tackled it effectively. Indeed, from time to time they have conceded to pressure groups and engaged in backsliding with the result that the programme has been delayed and obstructed and consequently the problem is getting worse.
I do not intend to avail of this opportunity to go into detail on the facts and figures to show how the absence of suitable accommodation has affected the travelling people and how the policy of local authorities to house travelling people directly from the side of the road has not always worked. However, a range of factors must be taken into account.
This Supplementary Estimate relates to the work of the task force. In his wisdom the Minister considered that it was necessary to set it up. I was glad to hear Deputy McManus say that its interim recommendations were imminent. I hope they will be implemented and that the task force will complete its work as early as possible because this is a pressing and urgent social problem, especially in the constituency I represent. I am glad that my constituency colleague, the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Taylor, has been given specific responsibility in this area. Therefore, I share the expectation of my constituents that because the Minister is aware of the problem he will be more sympathetic than previous Ministers who did not seem to understand the problem in County Dublin.
First, I thank the Deputies who contributed to the debate on this Supplementary Estimate. I will deal with the questions relating to the task force first. In response to the Deputies who highlighted the problems which have arisen in relation to travellers, I am hopeful that the task force will make some constructive, practical, worthwhile and realisable suggestions as to how these problems can be tackled in a realistic way at national level.
The reason I set up this task force was that it formed a key element of the Programme for a Partnership Government. I was grateful to Deputy McManus for agreeing to chair it, and from what I have heard she is chairing it in a competent and able manner. As he said, she is backed up by representatives of all the various interests, including Government Departments, local authorities and, most important, the travelling community themselves. They form an essential and critical part of the equation and they have to be involved in making recommendations and decisions which affect them. As I said I am grateful to Deputy McManus for agreeing to undertake this onerous task.
I look forward with interest to receiving the recommendations that the task force will produce, be they interim or final, and I will consider them carefully and discuss them with my colleagues in Government and with the line Departments involved in providing services for travellers, most notably the Department of the Environment, the Department of Health, the Department of Education, not forgetting the local authorities. Deputy Rabbitte has the honour of chairing the premier local authority in the country at present.
As I have said repeatedly on a number of previous occasions, the message to each Department with line responsibilities in the matter and the local authorities, all of which have existing statutory responsibilities in the matter — budgets have been provided for this purpose — is that they should carry out their statutory functions at this time to meet the needs of travellers in so far as this is possible in present circumstances. The local authorities can only deal with the matter on a local basis, while the task force has been charged specifically with the responsibility of coming up with solutions, the new provisions that may be necessary to deal with the matter on a national basis and of ensuring that all local authorities and all parts of local authorities fulfil their responsibilities. All local authorities and all parts of local authorities must accept that this is a national responsibility. If the task force recommends that legislation is necessary it will be seriously examined and considered. I do not want to anticipate the new suggestions or provisions the task force may come up with, but they will be considered and examined sympathetically.
It will be necessary to carry out some research. Deputy McManus, who, as I said, is chairing the task force, outlined the areas where it will be necessary to do this. I do not think any member of the committee will begrudge expenditure on this such research where necessary. The details of the finding will be published in the report of the task force in due course. Expenditure will be necessary, as it is in providing a legal aid service. It is strange that the representatives of some parties accuse the Government of being a tax and spend Government. Yet when the question of expenditure is raised, spokes-persons of other parties put a different slant on the issue.
The Minister's party did the same when in Opposition.
I found on taking up office that the legal aid service was at a low ebb and decided that action had to be taken immediately to improve the service. It is ironic that I find myself criticised by the committee for providing a second class service when in a relatively short time I have achieved substantially increased expenditure on the service, have produced plans for further expansion in that service and have indicated the results that are evident already following this expansion.
A number of Deputies and people outside, such as the Law Society and the Coolock Law Centre, implied that there would be a two-tier system leading to a second class service for public clients. I wonder what they mean. The people giving the legal service are qualified solicitors. I do not know why anybody would suggest that a person who has undergone the exhaustive educational courses they must to qualify as a solicitor would provide a second class service, or that anyone who is a member of that honourable profession would give any case entrusted to him anything less than his full commitment. My experience is that anybody, be he a law centre solicitor, a private solicitor or a Coolock Law Centre solicitor, who undertakes to conduct a legal case for a client gives to that case whatever attention and care is necessary to the best of his ability, whether the fee is £1,000 that some may command or £75 for a District Court case, or the case is undertaken for no fee at all. It is an insult to any member of the honourable profession of solicitors to suggest that he would, by reason of getting no fee or a smaller fee, give a case second class attention.
The matter of the private practitioner scheme was referred to, although it has no direct application to the Supplementary Estimate we are dealing with. This is not intended as a privatisation of any part of the existing scheme. It is a new pilot scheme, which was a recommendation of the Law Society and not the reverse, as Deputy McManus suggested. I thought it would be a good idea as a supplement to the existing system. It may be ideal to have a law centre in every town in Ireland but a very big spend would be required to achieve that.
There is an appreciable number of law centres in existence at the moment. The question of having some new ones may well arise in 1994 and that will be considered in the budgetary context. Even so, there are remote areas where it would not be feasible to set up a law centre. Using the services of private solicitors in practice in those areas would make sense, as in areas where there is a heavy demand on existing law centres. I sought and obtained from the Government £100,000 to enable me to test the water by introducing that scheme.
It is true Law Society is complaining, not about the scheme but because they are not getting enough money. They think it would not do for a solicitor to do a District Court case for £75 plus outlays plus VAT or, perhaps, do two cases and get £150 plus outlays plus VAT for a morning's work. They are looking for the big money. They are looking at the criminal legal aid scheme. I read in the newspaper this morning that one solicitor on the criminal legal aid panel accumulated and was paid fees in one year of £260,000, another got £200,000 and another £160,000 for one year's work. That is fine if one can get it. However, inquiries were made by the solicitor members of the legal aid board among solicitors to find out from them what would be a reasonable fee for which they would be prepared to undertake a family law District Court case and £75 was the fee they came up with themselves.
It was asked how many solicitors wished to participate in the scheme. One would have thought from some of the comments that it would not be worth anybody's while to undertake a case for £75 plus outlays plus VAT and that nobody would bother participating in the scheme. The fact is that 140 solicitors applied to join the scheme and are happily participating in it. They might not notch up £260,000 per solicitor but they will do reasonably well. In that great scheme of free enterprise, so notably the policy background of some political parties, no gun was held to the head of any solicitor to participate in this scheme. However, 140 solicitors agreed to participate in it, and these are qualified, professional people who will provide a first class service. Any case they undertake will receive their first class attention with all the benefit of their professional education and experience.
As to the mainstream of the service, I would have thought that any reasonable Member of the committee and of the House would have warmly welcomed the new posts which I secured authority to create in the free legal aid service. Deputy Shatter says we are concentrating too much on the confrontational area and should concentrate more on counselling and mediation. The one does not exclude the other. I agree with the Deputy that mediation and counselling are extremely important and they are being dealt with in different ways and at different times. One is not put forward as a substitute for the other; but, as many battered wives know, questions involving custody of children, barring orders etc. have to be dealt with in court and there is a demand for the services of lawyers to deal with them. To meet that I sought approval from the Government which was generously forthcoming and that is the reason for introducing this Supplementary Estimate.
Members will know how difficult it is in these times to secure the appointment of one new job in a Department or in a local authority. But with the consent of my colleagues in Government I was able to secure the appointment of 12 additional solicitors and their support staff. When all the authorised staff are recruited the breakdown of staff in the law centres will comprise 51 solicitors, 51 clerical support staff — a reasonable ratio of one clerical officer per solicitor — and 17 law clerks. I do not know if criticism is being made of the role of the law clerk. Law clerks are para-legals and are a recognised institution in the legal profession.
What function will a law clerk have?
As Deputy Shatter is well aware, the law clerks will perform the functions they performed traditionally in solicitors' offices.
Will they give advice on family matters?
They are qualified people with legal experience gained through work in solicitors' offices. They will take statements, attend counsel, stamp and serve documents and so on. They are key people in solicitors' offices. Any modest size solicitor's office uses the services of a law clerk. They are an important group of people in the legal service. They may be seen on a regular basis in the District Court, the Circuit Court, the High Court and in the court offices. Deputy Shatter knows that to be the position. I have consulted with solicitors in the larger law centres and know an additional pair of hands will be extremely useful and will release the professional solicitor staff to do more suitable work. In centres where there is no law clerk solicitors often must waste their professional time performing duties that could be adequately performed by law clerks, who receive appropriate training in the technical colleges to perform such duties. Law clerks have certificates of qualification, have legal experience and have a useful role to play in large sized practices.
Deputy McManus raised the question of whether public clients may be discriminated against. There will be no discrimination against public clients. Any such complaint made by a client will be dealt with in the appropriate manner. Any solicitor who does not give a reasonable service may be removed from the panel; but I am sure that would rarely, if ever, happen.
Deputy Shatter made the point that the substantial additional resources being made available to the law centres to fund the recruitment of professional and support staff may artifically reduce the waiting lists. That is an unusual comment.
I did not say that. I said that the private scheme may artifically reduce the waiting lists. The Minister should not misinterpret I said.
I do not know how a waiting list may be artifically reduced. If a case is dealt with the waiting list is reduced.
People are not cases; they are individuals who need to meet their representatives before going to court.
Deputy Shatter said also that some lawyers will do a proper job. A professional qualified lawyer will do a proper job in accordance with the brief given to him or her. The lawyer's fee will be payable regardless of whether there is a court order. I do not know where Deputy Shatter got the idea that fees will be paid only on foot of a court order. When a brief is given to a solicitor his or her fee will be paid. If the case can be disposed of without a court order, the solicitor's fee will still be paid.
Deputy Keogh raised a question of access guidelines and the possibility of extending the service provided in the law centres. Those matters will be considered in the overall budgetary context. However, for the present, I am sure Members will be pleased that substantial improvements are being achieved in the legal aid service and can already be seen on the ground. This constitutes phase 1 of my hopes and intentions for the development and expansion of this scheme. The Estimates are under discussion for 1994 and I would be hopeful that additional major improvements may be achieved. The calibre of improvement underway exceeds anything else that has occurred in the past since the introduction of the scheme. That is something with which the Government and, I am sure, Members of the committee will be pleased. I have no hesitation in recommending the Supplementary Estimate to the committee.
I thank those who contributed to this worthwhile debate. I listened with interest to the views conveyed by the professional people and I was impressed by all the contributions.
I propose the following draft report:
The Select Committee has considered the Supplementary Estimate for the Department of Equality and Law Reform. The Supplementary Estimate is hereby reported to the Dáil.
Report agreed to.
Ordered to report to the Dáil accordingly.
I would like to extend our good wishes to the former clerk of the committee, Michael O'Donoghue, on his new appointment. He has been appointed on promotion to the Department of Defence. We welcome the newly appointed clerk of the committee, John Roycroft.
I would also like to extend my good wishes to Michael O'Donoghue on his new appointment. It was a pleasure dealing with Michael in regard to arranging meetings. I found him most helpful and, on behalf of my party, I express my thanks to him for his good work. The king may be dead, but long live the king. I welcome the new clerk and wish him every success in his work on the committee. As long as he is reasonable and sees matters my way, I will be happy.
I would like also to agree with those sentiments.
On behalf of the Labour group I would like also to be associated with those remarks.
I would also like to agree with the sentiments expressed by the speakers. As chairman of the committee, I would like to thank Michael for his cooperation and support on the committee. Without his experience and expertise our meetings would not have run as smoothly. I wish him well in his promotion. I extend a warm welcome to the new clerk, John Roycroft. The former clerk is a hard act to follow, but I am sure the new clerk will be equally co-operative and will ensure the work of the committee is carried out in an efficient and constructive manner.
Deputy Callely spoke earlier as a convenor and, on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party, I would like to concur with the sentiments expressed by Members.
The next meeting of the committee will be arranged by agreement between the convenors.