Vol. 245 No. 4
I move:
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £25,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1970, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Attorney General, etc. and for the expenses of criminal prosecutions and other Law Charges.
This Vote is being moved by the Minister to cover the expenses of the Office of the Attorney General in relation to criminal prosecutions and other law charges. The sum involved is £25,000. It clearly refers to fees paid to counsel. I should like to make it clear that these are counsel employed and engaged by the Attorney General. I do not want to say anything about the fees involved. I assume the sum is necessary.
I want to direct the attention of the House to the fact that the Bar of Ireland have found it impossible to work the legal aid system and I think it is fair to say that one of the reasons is the extraordinary disparity that exists between the fees paid by the Attorney General to counsel engaged by him and the fees available under the scheme which came into operation almost ten years ago. The disparity is quite extraordinary.
As ordú, b'fheidir.
What did the Minister say?
A little bit out of order perhaps.
I am merely concerned with the fees paid by the Attorney General to counsel employed by him. If, for instance, he engages a junior counsel to prosecute a larceny charge in the city of Limerick, the man so engaged will find his own way down there and he will prosecute for the day. If there is a conviction, sentence is frequently postponed until the following morning, and he will stay there and appear the following day and he will be paid for the second day. Indeed, if sentence were postponed for two days he would be covered in his fees for that. The fee paid to him for this engagement could be 30 guineas for prosecuting and an appropriate fee for the second day or the third day.
His opponent who is on legal aid will find his own way down to Limerick. He will have to go down the night before and he will fight the case for the day. He will stay in a hotel and if sentence is postponed he will stay in a hotel again. He will get no fee for the second day. His entire fee will come to ten guineas which will cover his travelling expenses and two hotel bills. This is a contrast which exists and which we are recognising by voting this sum in respect of law charges. I do not understand the basis on which it exists. It would seem to me to be appropriate that if the State provides a legal aid service it should at least pay the same fees to counsel engaged on both sides.
Legal aid comes under another Vote.
I appreciate that but we are discussing here the fees paid to prosecuting counsel. I do not want to suggest that they are too high. In fact I do not. I would not suggest that counsel for the Attorney General instead of being paid 30 guineas should be paid only ten guineas, but there must be some norm. Either the norm should be what is, in fact, paid to counsel for the Attorney General or what is, in fact, paid under the legal aid system. Both fees are intended to attract the services of a professional advocate; both fees are intended to attract his whole-time service for the duration of the case; both fees are intended presumably to enable him to live and feed and clothe himself. The disparity of one-third is, in my view, quite grotesque.
Of course, it becomes more absurd when you find in a murder case in the Central Criminal Court senior counsel engaged by the Attorney General being paid a fee of 75 guineas. There are two of them. Each is paid 75 guineas. The poor fellow on legal aid is paid 20 or 25 guineas. Which is the norm? I am prepared to accept that this sum should be voted and that it represents proper fees paid to counsel engaged by the Attorney General. There should not be one standard or one law for counsel engaged by the Attorney General and another standard or law for others. It appears to me that this is a matter that should engage the attention of those to whom it is properly directed.
The Chair wants to point out that legal aid comes under the Justice Vote and not the one we are discussing.
Then I was entirely out of order.
I will not talk about legal aid. I will leave that for the debate on the main Estimate even though I may have to wait for a long time. I agree with what Deputy O'Higgins has said. Perhaps I am in an easier position to say this. I want to draw attention to this extraordinary increase of 50 per cent on the estimate. What is the matter with the estimating in these cases? We have already had one estimate which was doubled and now we have one with an increase of 50 per cent. If it were intended to pay all the costs of the tribunal that is inquiring into Telefís Éireann I could perhaps understand it. It is not so long since the total fees to counsel were about £15,000 a year. This year they will be £75,000. If there were exceptional criminal prosecutions from 1st April, 1969, to 31st March, 1970, I could perhaps understand it. As I said earlier, I read the Irish Times and I take it that it gives as much information as you can get anywhere else on this subject.
There was a little bit of a discrepancy over terms.
Is the Minister telling me that at a certain period of time there will be a discussion between the Attorney General and counsel who appear for him and that like everybody else they must get some increase?
No. What I am saying is that because of the way the law terms work, more fees fell into this year than would normally be the case.
Even allowing for that, I know the way they are paid. They are paid at the end of each term and, being paid at the end of each term, I take it that it is a fact that if the terms now end before Easter they will be paid inside this financial year. You could have, so to speak, five terms paid this year whereas you would have only four normally.
Something like that, and in addition a very determined effort was made to clear up arrears in the circuit court by having extra sittings in the Dublin circuit.
It is an extraordinary increase. I accept the Minister's explanation that there were fees for five terms instead of four within the financial year, but this is really a remarkable increase.
It is less than 10 per cent.
Of the total Estimate?
No.
That will not wash. It is technically correct, but it is all nonsense is reality.
It is mainly due to the two factors I have mentioned.
All right.
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £25,000 be granted——
On the basis that the Minister takes the other matter into consideration.
I shall convey the Deputy's disorderly remarks to my colleague, the Minister for Justice.
It is about time there was more legal aid than there is.
I introduced legal aid into this country.
That is why I mentioned it.
