Vol. 432 No. 5
3 Mr. O'Malley asked the Minister for Justice the number of persons that received criminal legal aid in 1992; the average aid per recipient; the reason the budget for this category of legal aid was increased by 53 per cent; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
The statistical information sought by the Deputy is not available. It would require a very considerable expenditure of staff time to provide it and, while I appreciate the Deputy's concern about the subject, I do not think the commitment of staff resources which would be necessary to extract the particular statistic mentioned could be justified.
The overall increase in the cost of legal aid mentioned by the Deputy is mainly to provide for the payment of fee increases granted, effective from 1 June 1992, in settlement of a claim lodged by the Incorporated Law Society for a significant increase in fees to solicitors who operate the criminal legal aid scheme. Deputies will recall that lack of satisfaction with the levels of fees paid had led to the solicitors in Cork withdrawing from the scheme on 30 September 1991, and that this action seriously disrupted the handling of criminal trials in Cork at the time.
I am very disappointed that the Minister of State has not got this information. Is he seriously telling us that we do not know how many people got criminal legal aid in 1992? I find that very difficult to accept. Will the Minister tell me what was the percentage of salary increases allowed for those operating the legal aid scheme? Further, would the Minister agree that it is unacceptable that we spent £6 million on criminal legal aid for a tiny number of people and we spent only £3 million on civil legal aid for thousands of people in this country?
I do not have the numbers and I have explained why. However, we are reviewing the operation of the system at the moment and as part of that review I will ask the Department to see if we can make more information available to people who seek it. As Deputy Harney knows, I am very communicative. I love to communicate information whenever I have it and I do not believe in all this secrecy that people talk about.
Especially to the Sunday Independent.
I have dealt with that, but if Deputy Rabbitte wants an argument I will be happy to accommodate him. In regard to the distinction between civil legal aid and criminal legal aid, at a meeting presided over by the English Lord Chancellor last year in London, the question of the operation of the criminal legal aid system as operated in the different EC member states was discussed and the Lord Chancellor was very impressed with how we were operating our criminal legal aid system. The gross cost of legal aid in 1991-92 was £3.8 million and the net cost was £3.3 million. The comparable figure in the UK for the same year was £400 million. Given that that £400 million is a gross figure and taking the figures on a per capita basis, we would be spending £23 million and the expenditure on criminal legal aid accounts for only about 1.1 per cent of the total cost of the maintenance of law and order in the country. I hope I will be in a position to provide more information in due course as part of a review of the system. However, compared to other countries, particularly our nearest neighbour, we are doing very well indeed.
Was the Minister of State in a position to give the Lord Chancellor the kind of statistics he cannot give me? Otherwise, how could the Lord Chancellor make such comments about our criminal legal aid system? To be honest, I am not interested in what the Lord Chancellor has to say. I am anxious that we would have for civil litigation a legal aid scheme that is adequate. Does the same means test apply for the granting of criminal legal aid as applies for civil legal aid?
I am disappointed in Deputy Harney; she is becoming argumentative. I am just giving the Deputy an instance of what occurred as an example of how the European Community feel about how we are operating our criminal legal aid system. Whatever the Deputy or anybody else might say, they think we are doing an impressive job and that we are making efficient use of the resources available.
We do not know because we have no information.
The Lord Chancellor and everybody else knows the population of this country and they were looking for the overall figure that was spent on criminal legal aid, which is the relevant figure for comparison purposes. In regard to the means test, the answer is in the negative. There is a specific means test laid out in legislation for people qualifying for civil legal aid. The criminal legal aid system operates differently. Under regulations which were made under the Criminal Justice (Legal Aid) Act, 1962, the application is made when the person is brought before the court and the district justice decides on the basis of whether the person has insufficient means to enable him to engage a lawyer himself and must also take into account the gravity of the charge. In the case of a charge of murder or where there is an appeal from the Court of Criminal Appeal to the Supreme Court, only the means are taken into account. Although the overall requirement relating to the interests of justice is still there, the gravity of the charge would not arise in a case like that.
I would also point out that in 1976 the Supreme Court decided, in the case of the State (Healy) v Donoghue, that a person has a constitutional entitlement to free legal aid in criminal cases in a wide variety of circumstances and the Supreme Court further decided that the district justice has an obligation to inform a person of his right in that regard.
Does the Minister agree that it is anomalous that we should be talking about a 53 per cent increase in the budget for criminal legal aid when there are literally thousands of people in this country in distress because of not having access to the civil legal aid system?
I have already dealt with that. I think we are doing very well, indeed, in regard to the amount of money we spend on criminal legal aid. Deputy Rabbitte needs to take into account the fact that a substantial increase in fees was agreed in June 1992, resulting from a dispute with the people who are operating the criminal legal aid scheme, when solicitors in Cork withdrew their services so that mayhem prevailed on the streets of Cork for several months. We have had an increase in indictable crime. There have been various changes in the law. One example is that the Criminal Evidence Act, 1992, allows for cross-examination of witnesses at a preliminary stage. This gives rise to another increase in the costs. I do not know whether Deputy Rabbitte is trying to make the point that we are spending too much on criminal legal aid or that we are not spending enough on civil legal aid.
I am impressed by the Minister's detailed knowledge of court procedures, but I will make the point again. I am asking the Minister to compare this increased provision with the situation obtaining in regard to access to the civil legal aid system where there are thousands of people who have never in their lives committed a crime and who cannot get access to civil legal aid.
I am aware that the civil legal aid system could do with more money. So could practically everything else in the country. My Department is subjected morning, noon and night to demands from various sources, many of them orchestrated by politicians in this House. There are demands for money for this, that and the other, but the resources of the State are not infinite.
Do not justify yourself, Minister. You will not succeed.
I will let the Deputy do that.
I am concerned about the very slow progress made in dealing with questions today. We have disposed of three questions in half an hour and that is unsatisfactory. It is unfair to the House and to the Members concerned.
On a point of order, I appreciate the point the Chair has made. Question Time was established to provide for an exchange of views between Ministers and Members opposite. However, Members are receiving a lecture from Ministers, particularly the Minister for Justice, who may read for up to ten minutes when replying to questions. The Minister for Justice always lectures Deputies during Question Time. This is not the first time she has lectured Deputies. This is the case every time she replies to questions.
Less than three questions have been dealt with in a half hour and that is totally unsatisfactory.
The two Ministers' replies have taken up all the time available for priority questions.
I ask Deputy Carey to resume his seat. This is a matter that should be taken up in another place.
The Minister's attitude is disgraceful. She is filibustering.
Where are the Deputy's questions?
The Minister did not address them.
I ask Deputy Carey to desist.
Is the Minister of State aware that the Minister in a recent Dáil speech said that crime was reduced by 3 per cent? If that is the case why must we spend an additional 53 per cent on criminal legal aid? Would the Minister of State accept that the assets of accused persons should not be taken into account? There have been cases where drug pushers and others who have made enormous profits from crime have been provided with free legal aid. That is an appalling indictment on how we assess the means of persons in regard to access to criminal legal aid.
Regarding the latter part of Deputy Harney's question, I am aware of the position. The State cannot recognise proceeds which have been obtained illegally.
What about the amnesty?
As Deputy Harney is aware, we will be introducing legislation to enable the authorities confiscate the assets of people which have been gained as a result of criminal activity. The increase in fees represents an increase in fees paid to the people who operate the legal aid system at the coalface. The 11 reviews undertaken since 1977 highlight that the level of fees have not kept pace with the rate of inflation. People who were operating the scheme at the coalface were very unhappy. If people operating a scheme consider they are not being adequately awarded that will have downstream effects on the operation of the scheme. The main reason for the increase was the June 1992 pay settlement.
