I welcome the Minister to the House. We appreciate the fact that this is the fourth Bill he has introduced in this House during his term as Minister for Equality and Law Reform and I hope he believes it is worthwhile doing so. I hope the Minister thinks the debate and ideas put forward by the Senators are worthwhile.
Since coming to office, the Minister has done more than any other Minister for the civil legal aid scheme, which was introduced in 1980 by the then Minister for Justice, and he is now putting it on a statutory basis, defining the authority of the Civil Legal Aid Board and making it permanent. I support his efforts in this regard. When the legal aid scheme was introduced, its purpose was to enable any person, whose means were within certain financial limits, to obtain legal services, subject to certain basic criteria of reasonableness. We are sometimes critical of the Minister for not going far enough, although that is our purpose in the House. While it is difficult to satisfy us, I thank the Minister for what he has done for civil legal aid. Since he assumed office, funding has more than doubled and the number of centres throughout the country has increased to 24; we will have 26 law centres in the future. The Minister must be congratulated for doing this and for delivering on his commitment to the civil legal aid scheme.
Civil legal aid was looked at by the Second Commission on the Status of Women, of which I was a member, because, as was stated earlier, 75 per cent of the law centres' clients are women. This is hardly surprising because many women are financially dependent. They are engaged in home duties without rights to earned income or social assistance. The lack of access to legal aid impacted on women more than on men. That was why the Second Commission on the Status of Women looked at the civil legal aid scheme. The Minister has greatly improved the situation for the clients of the civil legal aid system, most of whom are women.
I also welcome the fact that the Civil Legal Aid Bill allows two parties to a dispute to be represented by one law centre. Coming from a rural constituency, this is important because many people must travel long distances to law centres. If both parties could not attend the same law centre it caused great difficulties, particularly in family law cases, which were the majority of cases dealt with through the free legal aid system. I welcome this provision.
When the Second Commission on the Status of Women looked at the civil legal aid system and the Civil Legal Aid Board, it was critical of the fact that it was an all male board. I welcome the provisions in the Bill that not fewer than five members of the board shall be men or women. We take it for granted that if nothing is done, women will automatically be appointed to these boards. Although the Government has accepted the 40 per cent representation on State boards and Ministers, in fairness to them, have done their best to ensure this happens, it has been difficult to achieve in many cases.
I am a member of the Laois County Enterprise Partnership Board. The then Minister, Deputy Quinn, added two women to that board as happened on all boards in the country. Previously in Laois the only woman member was myself. Although the boards had been told by the Minister they were required to have 40 per cent women membership, they did not meet that requirement.
Recently in the health sphere a board was set up to deal with general practice. Both the Irish Medical Organisation and the Irish College of General Practitioners originally sent lists of nominees which did not include any women. The Minister had to tell them there would be no appointments unless 40 per cent of nominees were women. This is disappointing because, although people feel women have arrived and are making an impact in many areas, this shows the resistance to appointing women to these positions.
I support the provisions in this Bill and what the Minister is doing. I am confident he will not appoint a board with fewer than five women. Many will feel it is not necessary to make this point but when we see what happens and how difficult it is to get what we want, it is worth mentioning. This matter has to be raised again and again until it is normal practice that when Ministers ask for 40 per cent representation of women on boards it will be done.
I compliment the Minister on providing for representation at tribunals in this Bill; the Minister will be empowered to extend legal aid to tribunals by order. Until now people qualifying for legal aid on a means test basis could not get assistance or representation before the Employment Appeals Tribunal, the Social Welfare Appeals Tribunal, etc. I ask the Minister to clarify the scope of this provision and when he will introduce the enabling regulation. The issue of equality cases was raised in the report of the Second Commission on the Status of Women. Previously such cases were not eligible for assistance and I ask the Minister to confirm they will be covered in the Bill.
Last week many Members said that, while they support what is in the Bill, they were critical about what was left out. I realise the Minister does not get everything he wants from the Cabinet and he has decided how best to distribute the limited resources available. The Bill puts the old scheme on a statutory basis but it does not enhance it. There are financial constraints and to do what everyone would like would require much more funding. However, during his time in the Department he will undoubtedly improve both the scheme and the funding available.
Senator McGennis mentioned the article, "Legal Aid: it's not just Cash" in The Irish Times by Mr. Gerry Whyte, a law lecturer in TCD. I support the arguments in that article. When we consider access to the law we think of litigation in court. Many stages arise before that and perhaps matters could be prevented from getting to court if people knew their rights, were educated and given advice.
When a person is an expert in their chosen profession they do not hold the subject in awe. However, if one is outside the legal, medical or other professions one can forget that ordinary people are quite frightened or in awe of those professions. Many people and particularly those who will seek the services of the civil legal aid scheme, do not know what the law is about; they do not even know if their problems have legal solutions. They do not know that they could go to court or that they could secure legal redress for particular problems. That is why education and information are important. I appreciate that the Minister will tell me that he is doing his best with limited resources, and I am not criticising him for not providing such services. However, a civil legal aid system does not simply involve providing aid for people going to court. In many cases, if people knew their rights their problems often would not escalate to the extent that they would have to go to court. Education and information are important in that regard.
This issue was looked at by the commission. It felt that there was a lack of public availability of information on family law matters and civil legal aid. The National Social Services Board provides information through local communities on these matters. That system should be encouraged. However, it is probably just the first step. The Civil Legal Aid Board should have the function of educating and informing the public about these matters. The Director of Consumer Affairs distributes leaflets and information about people's rights regarding consumer affairs. Could there not be a role for the board in educating and informing the public on legal matters? Should there not be an educative role whereby its representatives could visit schools or talk to the public about civil legal aid, people's rights and entitlements and related issues? That would be important. Only then will we be able to say that we have a civil legal aid system that enables people to avail of its services and to know their entitlements.
Perhaps the Minister would indicate whether he wishes to address these matters in the future when further funding is available. The Minister said last week that certain designated matters were excluded from the scheme because of lack of funding. However, in section 28 (11) the Minister may by order deem any of these matters to be no longer designated. Perhaps the Minister would outline his thinking a little further on this issue and on where he sees the scheme going in the future. We are not getting everything we would wish for in this Bill. However, this is the first time the civil legal aid scheme has been put on a statutory basis and that serious funding has been allocated to it. I would like to hear the Minister speak about his future plans for the system.
In the original civil legal aid scheme there was a provision for the establishment of community consultative committees. This does not appear to be included in the Bill. That is a backward step in the development of legal aid services. Would the Minister not consider amending the Bill to enable the Minister to establish such committees by regulation or would he outline his thinking on this issue? Why has he decided not to provide such enabling legislation in this Bill?
Other Senators have mentioned the fact that the people who will avail of civil legal aid do not know their rights and do not know that their problems might have a legal solution. They perhaps have difficulty with solicitors and barristers who are not part of their community — they do not know them personally and there is a barrier between them. The aspects of community involvement and the community based centres, such as that in Coolock, are very good and enable people to be involved and to use the system.
The Minister dealt with many of these matters in a detailed way in his address to the House last week, but I am interested to know where he will go from here. In this respect, I am concerned about some of the issues which cannot be dealt with in the Bill. If there was community involvement and consultation within an area, people could identify the problems and decide on the priorities which must be dealt with.
On the issue of debt collection, does the exclusion apply to the person who owes the money? For example, is it correct to state that if I owe money and apply for civil legal aid, I will not get it? Perhaps the Minister will clarify this matter because many people who seek civil legal aid, or even advice, would have problems with money, debt collectors, etc. This could be a problem for many people and I ask the Minister to clarify it.
We had briefings from FLAC — the Free Legal Advice Centres — and one of the issues about which they are concerned is that the law centres will not have a role when it comes to making proposals for law reform. Will the Minister indicate his views on this? The fact that the centres deal with and are exposed to so many cases and issues, especially issues of family law, suggests that there should be some process enabling them to have an input into law reform.
When we discussed the Family Law Bill recently, we addressed the fact that because family law cases are held in camera, much information is not reported and that the public is not aware of much of what is happening in family law, or in families, here. The Minister indicated that he would consider the matter of in camera hearings of family law cases. In this respect, the law centres could be useful in bringing forward law reform in the future. I look forward to the Ministers views on this.
Most of what I wished to say was addressed by other Senators last week, and I will not repeat what they had to say except to remark that civil legal aid came into existence as a result of the Airey case — which was taken to Europe in 1979 — and the Pringle committee on civil legal aid and advice. The Minister said that many of the recommendations of the Pringle committee have been taken on board, but this is not the case in respect of many of the recommendations regarding community involvement and community consultation, together with the education and information roles etc., of the Civil Legal Aid Board. Does the Minister agree that these recommendations should be included or is it just the lack of funding which is preventing him from proceeding on this basis? What are his ideas for the future? What would he hope to do if further funding was available?
Equal access to justice for all members of society is something to which we would all aspire, and we would hope it could be achieved. The Minister knows he has the support of all sides of the House for the Bill he is introducing, but we need not only a combination of the legal services; we need advice, education, information and community involvement.
I support the Bill as far as it goes but there are many other measures I would like the Minister to take on board. Perhaps we could discuss them further on Committee Stage. I support what he is doing and I thank and congratulate him for what he has done so far for family law and civil legal aid. I also thank him for introducing the Bill in the Seanad and for giving us an opportunity to discuss it before it goes to the other House.