Last night I was trying to make the point that the impression Deputy O'Keeffe's contribution gave was that he was primarily concerned for the legal profession rather than the people who will benefit under the scheme of civil legal aid and advice. People know that there must be some kind of control over expenditure. If free legal aid is to be given to almost every cause and if it is to be under a free choice of solicitor scheme there will be many people who will be advised on very flimsy grounds to seek free legal aid. In every profession there are a certain number of people that the profession would sooner be without and that includes the legal profession. The Incorporated Law Society have a job to do every year in bringing to task certain members of that profession who go outside the balance of what might be called professional standards. There may be members of the profession newly qualified and struggling to get on their feet who might be tempted to take on flimsy cases which, in the normal way, any seasoned lawyer, solicitor or barrister would not take.
One of the criticisms levelled was the lack of activity since 1977 in providing this scheme. The history of the scheme begins with the 1977 pre-election manifesto in which it was stated that a scheme of civil legal aid, to cover initially family law cases, would be provided by a Fianna Fáil Government. It is fair and interesting to note that the scheme introduced goes beyond what was promised as a first step in that manifesto.
The Minister for Justice received the Pringle Report in December 1977 and announced its receipt in a press release from the Government Information Bureau on 15 December 1977. It should be clear to any reasonable person that examination of that extensive report would take sometime to complete. It is fair to say that the Government have not been slow in coming forward with their proposals. We know substantial sums of money are involved in the recommendations, and we must know what kind of control we can exercise over the expenditure of such sums. Different options and approaches were considered in the report and policy decisions had to be reached in selecting among those options. The service which a scheme of civil legal aid would provide would be completely new. In other words, there were no real precedents or models on which to base assessments of the various options. There again we did not have a similar scheme in operation which we were updating or improving upon. We had something which was completely new and tailored for the way we conduct our affairs. Many other Government Departments had to be consulted since many of the matters raised in the Pringle Report came within their areas of responsibility.
Anyone who has been in Government knows it takes time to get back questionnaires or submissions which have been circulated in order to get the fullest information possible to prepare a report. In just over two-and-a-half years the Government have done very well to bring forward their scheme which will be monitored very carefully before the legislation is brought into formal law. The fact that they will be agreed practices of legal aid gives them the recognition from a legal point of view that they require.
From the Minister's point of view it is fair to say it was not simply a matter of taking the Pringle Report and accepting it. As I explained there were many other aspects. A lot of work had to be done during 1978 and the early part of 1979 before a decision could be taken by the Government on their recommendations. In fact during that period an intensive study of the contents and recommendations of the Pringle Report was taking place throughout most of the central organs of administration in the State. The Minister for Justice told Deputy O'Keeffe as much on 8 March 1979 in answer to a question and on that occasion he indicated the Government's commitment to introducing civil legal aid.
I think he has done well to fulfil that promise in the time available. From time to time the Opposition say we have not fulfilled our election promises but in my view we have done extremely well in that area, not least in presenting this piece of good news. We have experienced many difficulties in curtailing expenses generally but this scheme is still going ahead.
On 2 May 1979 the Government announced that they had approved the features of a civil legal aid scheme to be introduced by the Minister for Justice. The statement from the Government Information Bureau outlined the principal features of the scheme. In one important respect the Government in their scheme were able to improve upon the expectations of many of those who had been agitating for an immediate introduction of a scheme based on the Pringle Report by promising to deliver a comprehensive scheme rather than the interim one which had been suggested as an alternative in that report. Even those people responsible for drafting the Pringle Report did not expect so many of their recommendations to be brought in so speedily but because of the speedy manner in which the Minister got to work on this it was not necessary to introduce the interim one only.
Following the Government decision in principle which led to that statement—that the Government would have the scheme ready by the end of 1979—the Minister and his Department had to embark on the task of preparing the scheme itself based on the Government decision and designed—for the record again I would like to remind Deputy O'Keeffe— to provide a totally new, comprehensive and relatively complex service. The detailed scheme itself was approved by the Government and laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas in December 1979. About the same time the Minister for Justice appointed the legal aid board to administer the scheme. The board have made giant progress in recruiting staff, obtaining accommodation and completing the many essential administrative jobs which have to be done before they can open the doors of their law centres to the public. That work is almost completed and we do not expect that it will be very long before the first legal aid centre will be open to the public.
One of the criticisms of the scheme is that it gives the Minister too much control over the Legal Aid Board and, in particular, that the power to remove a member if it "appeared to be necessary for the effective performance by the board of its functions" was extreme and unique. That is not accurate because the powers given to the Minister are the same as those given to the Minister for the Environment over An Bord Pleanála. The relevant part of the legislation relating to the powers of the Department of the Environment over An Bord Pleanála says:
The Minister may remove from office an ordinary member of the Board who has become incapable through ill-health of effectively performing his duties, or who has committed stated misbehaviour, or whose removal appears to the Minister to be necessary for the effective performance by the Board of its functions, and in case a member of the Board is removed from office under this Article, the Minister shall cause to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas a statement in writing of the reasons for removal.
Obviously the Minister has to have some control over a board which will be spending vast sums of public money.
It has been suggested that the Pringle Committee recommended legislation.
That is not correct. It does not say anywhere in that report that in the view of the committee the scheme should be put on a statutory basis from the beginning. The committee envisaged that there would be legislation in due course, but so did the Minister, as he made clear last night. The Pringle Committee did point to the need for flexibility in the approach to the development of the service—page 29 of the report—and this is precisely what can be achieved by having a non-statutory scheme for an initial period during which operational experience can be obtained before the necessary rigidity of a statute is imposed upon the scheme.
Many Members of the House will accept that at some time in the foreseeable future legislation will be introduced on this matter. It can only benefit the Minister's scheme to give it a fair chance in operation rather than to introduce a Bill containing numerous items which later on would be seen to be unwieldy and which would have to be deleted in a new Bill which, due to pressure of work, might take years to be enacted.
Deputy O'Keeffe last night spoke at considerable length of the possible difficulty people who could not afford to travel would have in getting to the centres and that therefore they would be denied service under the scheme. I argue there is not a basis for that contention. As the Minister said, his scheme is designed to enable any person, no matter where he lives, to obtain legal services if he qualifies. The Deputy's point is aimed really at the feature of the scheme under which services are to be provided in centres to the exclusion of solicitors in private practice. It is true that persons who wish to attend in person may have to travel to a centre, but what about persons who would have to travel to see a solicitor in private practice?
The Pringle Report dealt with the inaccessibility of solicitors' offices. It is fair to point out that many of the services to be provided will not necessarily involve attendance at a centre. The postal service can be availed of. I do know what that would involve but I feel sure an adequate service could be provided by the post office. Moreover, there is not any reason why the board in due course should not make suitable arrangements for the provision of services at comparatively remote places as the scheme would progress.
The Pringle Report recommended that part-time services would be made available which would include some arrangement such as attendance by a legal aid solicitor, say for half a day per week, in small places. That would be an operational matter to be decided by the board.
Deputy O'Keeffe said he was not attacking the concept of legal aid centres—indeed he approved of them— but he went on to say that they would not provide the applicant with a choice of lawyer if private practice solicitors were not in the scheme. This lacks logic because if a sufficient number of centres become operational to meet all demand then clearly there would not be a need for private practitioners. Choice of solicitor and counsel within the centres is provided for in the Minister's scheme.
In other words, a person might go to a centre in which there would be half a dozen solicitors or a certain number of counsel to choose from. If they are not satisfied with the solicitors or barristers, they could go to another centre where they might find a solicitor or barrister whom they might wish to consult. Therefore, there is a reasonably wide range. We must remember that we are providing a service for the first time in this country. It is very important that the scheme will get off to a good start. It is welcomed even if it does not go as far as some people would like it to go, and it should be encouraged. There should not be attempts to denigrate it in the way that Deputy O'Keeffe appeared to do last night.
Deputy O'Keeffe said that private practitioners had been excluded because the Government could not find money to fund a scheme with them included. That is only partially true because a wide open scheme would undoubtedly create a risk of far greater expenditure in the long term than is either needed or justified. However, it is not so much a question of finding the money as drawing up a scheme which could be controlled properly, one which as the Minister said last night, would not take off on its own. The scheme does this and I think the taxpayer will be duly grateful for it. It does it without denying services to any person who qualifies for them.
A point was made that exclusions from the scheme amount to a defect in it. I have a few notes on that, which may be of interest to the House. The Opposition seem to be making the point that there should not be any exceptions and there should not be limitations. They object to all the exclusions, and they mentioned defamation and small civil bill claims of less than £20 for advice and £150 for legal aid. Deputy Desmond also complained that the services should not be confined to "natural persons" and that they should be available to groups for test actions.
These views are typical of a doctrinaire, extreme and indeed irresponsible approach to the subject. Our experience in Dublin has been that with even the slightest encouragement certain people seem to want to go to law over anything. If given carte blanche by the State it could cost the State enormous sums of money for people taking, for instance, Dublin Corporation to court or the Government to court. Perhaps some fellow might think he had a great case and might take to court every piece of legislation ever enacted here. That may be extreme, but there are people and groups who would try to break the back of the scheme and the taxpayers' backs. Consequently, we must proceed reasonably carefully in our approach to this matter.
Most reasonable people will agree that there must be limits. As I said, it sometimes suits Deputy Desmond to quote from the Pringle Report and to ask why it should not be implemented in its entirety. What about paragraph 2.10 of the report which comes down definitely against giving legal aid to groups and organisations for test actions? Although not favouring exclusions the Pringle Committee referred to that exclusion.
In addition, it is obviously sensible to have some monetary limit to the size of civil bills for which advice or aid would be sought. Otherwise there would be a situation in which the State would have to meet heavy legal expense in a case where a person might recover only an infinitesmal sum in a frivolous suit. It is a matter of drawing the line, and it seems to me the scheme draws the line justly and realistically.
Neither Deputy Desmond nor Deputy O'Keeffe offered an alternative scheme and I should like to hear Deputy Desmond on this point when she is replying. I know the Minister would respond favourably to any positive suggestions which would not result in certain groups having free access to the scheme.
It has to be remembered that legal advice where the limit is only £20 is the important thing in this context because this would include writing a solicitor's letter on behalf of the potential plaintiff or giving other assistance to enable him or her to obtain rights. It would also be clear from the advice in a case between £20 and £150 if there was a good case. In this event there would be no difficulty in the ordinary way in having the case taken by another solicitor since costs would be recoverable.
Regarding the exclusion of defamation, it has to be remembered that in the English scheme introduced over 30 years ago the same category has been excluded and in the light of their experience they have seen no reason to include it. Also it is fair to say that the Dublin Solicitor's Bar Association urged on the Pringle Commission such an exclusion. The exclusion was not recommended purely on the grounds recommended elsewhere that no case should be legally aided unless clearly meritorious.
I have dealt as constructively as possible with the criticisms of the scheme made by Deputy O'Keeffe and certain points made by Deputy Desmond. One thing we must guard against is that the solicitor who would not stand on his own feet should not suddenly find that he is being spoonfed by the State and have easy access to funds. There are instances in many countries of certain unscrupulous people of various professions cornering an easy market without any care as to the cost to the taxpayer. We have seen instances of that and I am not sure whether I should specify to what I am referring in talking about certain abuses under the present system. I feel there are abuses under the criminal legal aid system and most people in the legal profession connected with that system would be among the first to admit this fact. They deplore these abuses because they bring down their own profession.
We can be very pleased with this scheme and the Minister and the Government are to be congratulated for the speedy manner in which they have gone ahead with it.
