On Second Stage I referred to the means test in relation to whether a legal aid certificate is given. One of the examples I mentioned related to a person's house or dwelling. The Minister informed me, in his Second Stage reply, that a person's dwelling was considered in assessing means. However, in his Second Stage speech in the Seanad on 16 February 1995, the Minister stated that "capital" includes, for example, money in the applicant's bank, credit union, building society or post office accounts, or the applicants house, property or land. That is a contradiction and I would like the Minister to clarify the position.
SECTION 29.
Question proposed: "That section 29 stand part of the Bill."
The Minister has increased the limit which is very welcome. I believe it is only the third time this has been done. Is it the intention to have an annual review of the limit?
I assure Deputy Kenneally that the term "disposable capital" does not include the family home which is specifically excluded from that designation. Deputy Kenneally also expressed concern that the private practitioner's scheme should not be overused. I share that opinion and I will check this point to be absolutely sure.
Does the Minister have any proposals to review the limits on an annual basis? The Minister said that the number of cases would be extended because of the increase in the limits. Is there any proposed mechanism for re-examining the limits on a periodical basis?
I did not support a suggestion in the Seanad that the limits be index-linked because we might want to increase them above the index level and I do not have a plan to review it on an annual basis. The accessibility levels will be kept under review at all times. I will revise them, depending on a number of factors, as I am doing at present. They have not been revised for a number of years. This issue comes down to a question of priorities. One can increase the accessibility levels, thereby increasing the workload, leave them as they are, reduce waiting lists or revise the number of cases taken. The question of revision of access is just one of the number of choices available and must be measured against the capacity of the service to deal with the demands on it at that particular time. Much depends on the budgetary allocation each year. It is just one of the factors in the equation.
It should be taken on board that this is reviewed on an ongoing basis. An annual review does not necessarily mean that the limits would be increased.
I will keep it under constant review. If, for example, the accessibility limits had been increased — without the additional resources since provided — when the waiting list in Limerick stood at 18 months, then the time spent on that list would have further increased. The review is taking place now because of the increased funding my Department received this year which meant that the waiting list was reduced to such an extent that I could revise the accessibility levels, and my Department could cope with the increased work involved. It remains to be seen what impact this will have on the waiting list.
Can I have clarification of the point I raised earlier? If the Minister wishes to return to it at the end of the——
Perhaps we might agree the section and I will address the point raised by the Deputy, following proper research, on Report Stage.
Question put and agreed to.