Vol. 427 No. 4
10 Mr. M. McDowell asked the Minister for Equality and Law Reform if his attention has been drawn to the fact that a number of reports, embodying recommendations for the improvement of the civil legal aid scheme, have been published in recent times; his views on whether there is an urgent need to improve the scheme; and the action, if any, he proposes to take on this matter.
16 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Equality and Law Reform his views on whether access to the courts is a basic right in a democracy; whether there is equality of access to our Courts; and, if not, the steps, if any, he proposes to take to remedy this situation.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10 and 16 together.
Starting from general principles, it is a fundamental feature of any democracy that all persons should have a right of access to the courts. In this regard I am aware that, in a number of cases, the courts have expressed the view that the right to have recourse to the High Court to defend and vindicate a legal right is one of the personal rights of the citizen included in the general guarantee in Article 40.3 of the Constitution.
The Programme for a Partnership Government 1993-1997 indicates that, with a view to ensuring equal access to the law, the present scheme of civil legal aid and advice will be placed on a statutory footing and additional funding will be provided to facilitate an expansion of the scheme.
I am also aware of reports made by various bodies for the improvement of the scheme and I am, indeed, in sympathy with many of the proposals made by these bodies. My concern is to secure the development and expansion of the scheme to the maximum possible extent in so far as the financial resources at my disposal will allow.
Deputies Harney and J. O'Keeffe rose.
I call Deputy Jim O'Keeffe whose Question No. 16 refers.
I welcome the Minister to his first round of Question Time. I wish to stress to the Minister my interest in the question of access to our courts. First, does he not accept that it is quite outrageous, after 70 years of independence, that we have a system of unequal access to the courts and would he not accept that it should be a basic right of democracy to have such equality of access? Does he not accept also that the commitment in the Programme for Government is inadequate to provide that equality of access? The programme contains a commitment to put the legal aid scheme on a statutory basis, which is fair enough, and a vague commitment to provide additional resources. However, there is no guarantee that there will be an adequate system to ensure access to the courts for all citizens in all circumstances.
I have to say that I sympathise fully with the statements made by the Deputy. However, I do not agree that the Programme for Government is not on the right lines. It is very important that the scheme be put on a statutory basis. In that way people will at least have their rights delineated in a statutory manner and will know exactly where they stand, something which has not happened since the scheme was brought in. The resources needed by the scheme are a very important aspect of the matter. There has been a modest increase this year which I do not put forward to the House as being adequate to meet the needs which arise. I intend over the term of the Government to do my utmost to ensure that increased resources to the maximum possible extent, consonant with available Government resources, are directed towards the scheme. It is important that access to justice is not denied to people on the grounds of lack of funds.
Would the Minister agree that the income limit of just over £6,000 is grossly inadequate? Would he agree that if the Pringle report was to be implemented in full approximately £7 million per year would have to be spent on the scheme, and not approximately £3 million as is the case at present? I should say I welcome the 7 per cent increase in the funding for the scheme. Does the Minister intend to extend the scheme to cover defamation cases, test cases, cases before inquests and tribunals, landlord and tenant matters and matters relating to civil bills under £150? Does he agree that the scheme is much too narrow at present?
Since taking office a few weeks ago I have initiated a review of the entire civil legal aid scheme as it operates. I am meeting with the full Legal Aid Board next week to discuss with it a number of ideas I have to expand the scheme and get better value for the money which is available this year to operate the scheme. I will also be meeting with the Law Society to discuss some aspects of the matter. It has issued a report on the subject and made a number of suggestions which I want to discuss with it. It will be my intention to ensure that the maximum possible resources are obtained every year for this scheme. The extent to which it will be possible to expand the availability of the scheme, as requested by Deputy Harney and with which I agree, will, of course, depend on the resources which can be made available to the scheme from public funds. That will depend on the budgetary position in each year.
Would the Minister agree that this system is not operating, that many people do not have access to free legal aid because of waiting lists and because of geographic distance? I know of many instances in Wicklow where women taking cases in the family court are dependent on the goodwill of local solicitors. It is a kind of Vincent de Paul approach to the law and it is not suitable.
I must dissuade the Deputy from making statements rather than asking supplementary questions.
Is the Minister aware of the failure of the existing structures to meet the need? That need may be hidden. I hope he is aware of the hidden problems as well as the ones which present themselves in the waiting lists.
I agree with the Deputy. I am well aware that the scheme as it has operated has not adequately met the needs of the situation. A substantial expansion of this scheme is necessary. That means money, which depends on budgetary provisions. It will be my intention to secure the maximum possible extension of the scheme during the period of the partnership Government. I also intend to investigate ways of getting better value for money in order to expand the scheme. The Law Society is anxious to involve private practitioners in the operation of the scheme and I have a meeting scheduled with the Law Society within the next couple of weeks to discuss this matter. It seems that private practitioners will have an important role to play in the scheme but I have to discuss a pilot arrangement to see how it will operate.
Regarding civil legal aid, will the Minister agree that what we have in place is a bare skeleton of what was originally proposed in the Pringle Report? I am not critical of those who work in the scheme but it is so inadequate that we cannot be proud of it. We need more resources to expand the existing centres in urban areas, but consideration should also be given to the vast tracts of countryside where there is no access. Will the Minister take a radical approach? If he accepts the concept of entitlement to access to justice for everybody he has a huge job on hand and I would urge him to get on with it and make sure it is done in a fresh, radical way.
Ideally there should be a number of additional law centres. Until that is done, the problem of accessibility to legal advice in rural areas could perhaps best be met by some involvement of private practitioners who have a presence in every town.
Privatisation is a good thing.
That is one of the aspects I intend to discuss with the Law Society. I agree with Deputy O'Keeffe that the system has never had the resources necessary. That applied while Deputy O'Keeffe was a Minister.
I accept that.
Successive Governments failed to provided resources to ensure reasonable accessibility for people to important areas of law. I cannot say what resources will become available but I intend to do what I can at the appropriate time to secure the maximum resources and also to ensure that those resources are used to give the best and widest possible spread of results.
Can the Minister confirm that there are only 16 centres? Does he agree that access to the courts should be a core value in terms of equality and that this should be one of the priorities for him to attack in his first term? I am delighted to hear a Labour Minister say there is a role for the private sector.
It was never part of Labour Party policy that the private sector did not have some role in society.
The Minister was a private sector man.
Of course it has a very important role in society. My sole regret is that it does not exercise that role to a greater and more effective extent. That is my complaint about the private sector. There is a later question dealing with the number of law centres.
Let us not anticipate it.
