As the procedures in relation to these statements have changed I should like to advise the House that each Member will be entitled to two minutes and each such statement shall be followed immediately by the appropriate Minister who will also have two minutes to reply rather than have the Minister reply at the end of a series of statements which was the procedure which applied heretofore.
Adjournment Debate. - Social Welfare and Justice Matters.
I would like to thank you for allowing me to raise this matter and sincerely thank the Minister for coming in to listen to me. The reason I raise this matter is that I am concerned about the treatment I have seen meted out to people in receipt of supplementary welfare allowance or assistance when allocated a local authority house and in need of furniture and other basic household effects. Quite simply, the treatment that they get depends on the health board area in which they live. Community welfare officers have discretion to help them with furniture and other essentials and most decisions are fair and adequate. The scheme is a good and necessary one for people who have to start making a home from scratch. Many of these are separate or deserted mothers but why is the operation of the scheme so secretive, why are there no clear guidelines and why has it got no name? Some unscrupulous officials are manipulating the scheme to the extent that they are making beggars out of those unfortunates who need help at a very emotional and difficult time. Let me give as examples two women in my constituency.
The first of these is a mother who was housed in Shankill. She went to the community officer in her area who gave her a list of her entitlements and told her that she would have to put £50 towards the cost of a new fridge and cooker. She was treated with dignity and grace and the transaction was a happy one. The other person is 21 years old and a single mother with a two years old child. She was housed in Dundrum but when she went to her community welfare officer she at best got begrudging treatment. No list was handed to her and instead she was offered bits and pieces and told she would be given £60 to buy a second-hand fridge and cooker. She was also told that she would have to arrange transport herself. The most unacceptable aspect is that the funds for these goods come from a central budget and not from the local offices. No official has the right to punish someone in this way. I even suspect that some of these men are practising misogynists.
I want all the health boards to come clean on this scheme, to stop playing scrooge, to let us all know what the guidelines are and to apply them in each health board area. Other public representatives have spoken to me about this matter. They have come across the same problems but they realise that nothing can be done or achieved by approaching these men directly. Likewise, the applicants in question fear that they will be victimised if they raise the matter. The Dáil is the place to correct bad practice and ambivalent treatment. I hope the Minister will take action in this matter.
I understand that the Deputy's motion relates to the issue of payments for exceptional needs under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme. The question of whether and, if so, to what extent an applicant for supplementary welfare allowance should be assisted in the provision of exceptional needs payments is a matter for determination by each health board. My Department's guidelines on the operation of the supplementary welfare allowance scheme, issued to the health boards before the commencement of the scheme, point out that claims for help with exceptional needs can arise in a wide variety of situations and that each claim should be considered in the light of individual and local circumstances.
In considering each application the health boards will take into account the applicant's circumstances, whether essential items are already available to him or her and his or her ability to provide for these from their own resources. As these payments are discretionary no pre-determined levels of support are available. Each case is different and is decided on its merits having regard to all the relevant facts. The payments may be made in kind or in cash and may vary considerably from case to case depending on the individual's circumstances.
Under section 212 of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981, a health board may in any case where it considers it reasonable, having regard to all the circumstances of the case so to do, determine the supplementary welfare allowance that shall be paid to a person by way of a single payment to meet an exceptional need. The health boards may assist people under this provision with the purchase of essential household equipment whether by way of cash allowances or by providing the actual items from their own stores or via local traders. The guidelines suggest that the following household items can be regarded as essential and may be treated as the normal minimum requirements: table and chairs; curtains and floor coverings; beds and mattresses; sheets, blankets and pillows; household appliances, for example, cookers.
The health boards follow these guidelines closely and will supply these items to persons once they have established their need for them. The guidelines on the operation of the supplementary welfare allowance scheme are kept under continuous review and general directives are issued to the health boards by my Department from time to time to deal with new developments which arise. The area of exceptional needs payments is being reviewed in the context of a general review of the guidelines for the supplementary welfare allowance scheme which is at present taking place within my Department. The review will seek not only to update the guidelines but to address any inconsistencies which may be present with a view to achieving greater equity and uniformity of treatment.
It is understood that the Deputy has a particular case in mind — she referred indirectly to the case. I have contacted the Eastern Health Board who have informed me that the Deputy's representations in this case have been accepted as an appeal and it will be speedily determined.
I am calling on the Minister for Justice tonight to take whatever steps are necessary to bring about a stop to the unacceptable practice which exists in the legal profession, termed the solicitor-client aspect arrangement. This is an agreement whereby solicitors deduct sums of money from damages awarded to their clients over and above the costs the solicitor receives as a result of a court decision. Abuses are widespread. I am aware of cases where solicitors have stopped thousands of pounds from clients who have received court awards and have described them as deductions for extra work carried out even though they have been awarded costs by the court.
The clients of solicitors are intimidated when they object to these deductions. They are told that they are at liberty to go to the taxing master of the High Court to appeal the action of the solicitor. However, they are warned that if they fail in their application to the taxing master to have the deductions waived they will be liable for extra costs. This, generally speaking, deters the client from taking any further action and the client usually goes along with the solicitor's decision to make the extra deduction.
While most solicitors are honourable and honest until such time as there is a proper contract between solicitor and client these abuses will occur and the public will be victimised. I am aware of cases where awards have been made in court and the solicitors have received their costs but these same solicitors have in turn deducted further amounts from the client's awards. I have been in contact with the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland on this issue. They, again, have used the Pontius Pilate method and stated that this is a matter for the client and solicitor and that they cannot intervene. I will be meeting the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland tomorrow on this issue and I will be putting my views to them on the abuses which are occurring. I believe the Minister must in any amendments to the Solicitors Act regularise this area. There must be written contracts and agreements.
In conclusion, the public must not be left at the mercy of unscrupulous practitioners in the legal profession and the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland must act not only as the guardian of the legal profession but also act——
The Chair is not deceived by the words "in conclusion". The Deputy has been speaking for three minutes.
There must be an independent arbitration body. I am calling on the Minister to protect the public because the Incorporated Law Society will not do so.
I will try to stay within the allotted time.
First, I should make it clear that there may be circumstances where a solicitor is entitled to charge costs directly to his client, over and above the costs that he is entitled to recover from another party in an action — the so-called "party and party" costs. This aspect is regulated by Order 99 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. However I have become aware that it is the practice of some solicitors to deduct substantial amounts from damages awarded to their clients, in respect of their costs in addition to what may be recoverable in the form of party and party costs. As a general practice this is objectionable and I am considering the question of including suitable provisions in the proposed Solicitors Amendment Bill, which is at an advanced stage of drafting, to deal with the matter.
A client who is dissatisfied with the amount of costs sought from him by his solicitor is entitled to require the solicitor to submit the bill of costs for taxation by the Taxing Master in accordance with the Rules of the Superior Courts.
I should also add that any person who has a complaint about deductions being made from an award of damages by a solicitor may raise the matter with the law society, who are the regulatory body for the profession. I have asked the law society to consider their existing procedures and guidelines in this area and to ensure that their disciplinary arrangements are adequate for dealing with complaints received about solicitors in relation to this matter.
That is a joke. They will not lift their hand——
The Dáil adjourned at 9.10 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 18 April 1991.