Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 22 Feb 1995

Vol. 142 No. 1

Civil Legal Aid Bill, 1995: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Ms Honan

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.

Mr. Enright

I welcome the Minister and thank him for introducing this Bill in Seanad Éireann. The whole area of civil legal aid has come a long way since Mrs. Airey brought her case in the Court of Human Rights for access to the courts in 1979. At that time, people had great difficulty gaining access to the courts to have their cases heard. To some extent, people were able to gain access to courts as many solicitors and barristers were prepared to take on cases where there was genuine hardship. However, due to pressure of work, time and finance this became increasingly difficult.

It is essential that legal aid be put on a proper statutory footing and we have seen important progress in that regard. There have been sizeable increases in the level of funding for legal aid, particularly since 1992. We have seen an important commitment from the Government to the cost of running the civil legal aid system.

The establishment of the Civil Legal Aid Board by this Bill is absolutely necessary. It is intended that the board's main function will be to deal with family law cases. It is essential that we have separate court hearings for family law cases, that is, special days should be set aside for such cases. In most summary cases, such as speeding offences, there are huge numbers of gardaí, solicitors and defendants in court. The courtroom is packed, particularly with members of the Garda. Those cases are followed by indictable offences and more serious matters, where there are also huge numbers of people present. In many instances, civil cases are then heard. Finally, at the end of the day, family law cases are heard.

I witness on a regular basis husbands, wives and children waiting to have their cases heard. As the day progresses they grow more tired, worn out and exhausted this reduces whatever chance there might have been of a sense of goodwill and a spirit of co-operation. As people become more tired there is less possibility of a satisfactory outcome.

I appreciate that the workings of the court are very difficult and that an ever increasing number of cases is heard. However, we talk about the cost of Garda overtime and having to cut down on Garda services, yet huge numbers of gardaí have to attend courts in Dublin and the District Courts; their day is wasted hanging around the courts. This could be sorted out on practical basis if all those cases could be heard on a specific day each month. There has been some amalgamation of District Court venues across the country, of which I am not totally in favour. However, we have to make a genuine, positive, determined effort to ensure that family law cases are heard on a specific day. I do not wish to labour this point but I want to get across to the Minister that while I support his Bill I want him to examine that situation.

I have had many dealings over the years with the staff of the legal aid centres and have seen them working in very difficult circumstances and under enormous pressure. They have been very courteous to the litigants with whom I have dealt. I have had to ring the offices on many occasions and they have looked after the cases in an exemplary manner. It is difficult to believe that people have to work under such pressure. There are huge backlogs and staff often have to spend their whole day in court waiting for a case to be called. I congratulate the staff on their hard work.

I am pleased that there has been such an expansion in the number of law centres. There is now a law centre in almost every county. It is essential to have at least one in each county and some counties will need several. However, there has been a major improvement. I note that the Minister intends to allow the solicitors in the legal aid centres to take on apprentices. This is a positive move with many benefits. Many young people who wish to enter the legal profession have difficulty getting apprenticeships. In addition, people who wish to study law will get first hand experience of the practical side of family law cases. This is to be welcomed.

I am open to correction but I think the fee charged per case in the pilot scheme established by the Minister is approximately £75. I have had just one case under that scheme, involving a solicitor from a well known firm in Dublin. I marvelled at the time, effort and expertise put in by that individual because given the time spent, it involved a considerable loss for that firm and for the solicitor. This situation needs to be examined. There must be a sizeable increase in funding because the time spent on this case, for example, involved 30 or 40 hours and the individual would have received less than £2 an hour. I was very satisfied with the professional manner in which the matter was approached. The Minister should examine this situation.

This pilot scheme may only be in Dublin but it should be extended throughout the country. Funding must be very much increased. It would be of tremendous benefit if both these measures were introduced. This scheme would involve private practices but, given that many young solicitors are opening firms, I believe they would be anxious, agreeable and willing to practise in this field. A special type of person is required for family law. They need to have a special interest in this type of work. One needs a particular approach because there is the legal side but also the human side. The human factor must be taken into account by anybody involved in this area.

With regard to members of the Judiciary, family law is entirely different from probate actions or those involving accidents or rights of way. It is a particular field and great thought should be given to the appointment of members of the Judiciary to hear family law cases, whether they are Government appointments or otherwise. Appointees should have particular skills in this area.

The establishment of this board and its staffing is to be welcomed. I will not go into the detail of the Bill at this point but I have some reservations about section 36, which states that costs awarded by a court or a tribunal to a person not in receipt of legal aid against a person who is in receipt of legal aid, the unsuccessful litigant, shall not be paid from the fund except in certain unusual circumstances. Section 36 (2) (c) states:

...the successful litigant will suffer severe financial hardship unless an ex gratia payment is made,

This is unfair. A person should not have to defend themselves in a particular manner, have costs granted and then show that they will suffer severe financial hardship unless an ex gratia payment is made.

Mr. Mulcahy

Hear, hear.

Mr. Enright

If costs are awarded by a court of law, the case should go for taxation. However, after the costs are taxed, they should be paid. This situation as it stands means that if a person goes to the Civil Legal Aid Board, is granted legal aid and the case is fought, the person who had to defend himself and was successful then finds that he may get an ex gratia payment if he is suffering severe financial hardship. This is a flaw in the section and I hope the Minister has the power to amend it. It is inequitable. I compliment the Minister on the Bill, which is well thought out, prepared, researched and formulated, but this is a flaw which I hope he will take on board.

I wish the Bill speedy passage through both Houses and I wish the Minister well.

Mr. Mulcahy

I too welcome the Minister to the House. There is a bad joke that solicitors are members of the junior profession. However, there are two solicitors and only one barrister in the Chamber so perhaps it would be an inappropriate joke to make on this occasion.

Minister for Equality and Law Reform (Mr. Taylor)

Three solicitors.

Mr. Mulcahy

My apologies, three solicitors. I pay tribute to the Minister for grasping the nettle with regard to this problem which has been neglected for too long. I understand that this Bill will merely give effect to our international obligations, specifically the European Convention on Human Rights. There are relatively clear statements in that convention to the effect that citizens, who otherwise cannot afford it, should be given the opportunity of a fair hearing. The reality in the modern world is that a fair hearing is almost impossible without fair or equal legal representation. The Bill is most welcome in so far as it seeks to equalise this situation.

There was never a Minister for Equality and Law Reform prior to the Minister's appointment. I hope a time will come when law reform will no longer be necessary and that all our laws, many of which date back hundreds of years, will be brought into the 21st century. I also hope, in a much shorter period, that there will be no need for a Minister for Equality because we will have finally dealt with that issue. However, until this is the case, there is a need for such a Ministry and for somebody to give their particular attention to this area.

Other speakers made general comments on the Irish legal system as it pertains at present. This is not really relevant to the Bill given that we are only dealing with one aspect of it. However, to a certain extent, we must put the Bill in the context of the system as we find it. We have a common law system and some laws, which predate 1922 and 1937, are still in force in this country. We have a written Constitution; other countries have unwritten constitutions. Ireland is a member of the European Union by virtue of the Treaty of Rome and the Maastricht Treaty, and it is also a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights.

By and large, we are fortunate to enjoy a highly respected legal system. I emphasise the word "respected" because one can travel not very far from this country and be unpleasantly surprised by the way in which some countries go about settling disputes and prosecuting criminal matters.

I know of an Irish person in prison in a member state of the European Community 16 or 17 months after an alleged incident who has not yet been formally charged. I will not mention the name or the exact circumstances but such a scenario is absolutely unthinkable in our jurisdiction, and there are many other examples of how our jurisdiction, in my opinion, compares very favourably with other jurisdictions.

Similarly, we are well blessed in this country with the quality of the Judiciary — District Court, Circuit Court, High Court and Supreme Court. To my knowledge, there has never been any question mark over the integrity of any judge while sitting as a judge in any Irish court; or maybe there was one of which I did not hear. Certainly, one does not have to travel too far into mainland Europe before all sorts of accusations in that regard are made. We can be proud of our Judiciary.

There are certain things, of course, of which I am sure the Minister would agree we are not terribly proud. Up to now, we have not been very proud of our legal aid scheme. I do not think the Minister, any member of the Government or any of us, is particularly impressed or proud of the fact that there are such long delays in the courts. In Dublin Circuit Court the time between an incident occurring and it coming to trial could be three years; between the time when all the pleadings have finished and the matter is set down for trial by way of notice of trial, one could be waiting up to 18 months. Justice delayed is justice denied. This Civil Legal Aid Bill must be enacted in the context of looking at the entire judicial system in terms of speed and efficiency.

Senator Enright mentioned one important aspect in relation to the family courts. We now use video evidence in incest cases, and so on. There are all sorts of improvements but I do not think there is any point introducing a Civil Legal Aid Bill if it is will not be in the context of a complete revamping, reassessment and modernisation of the entire courts and judicial system.

Having said that. I am sorry, Sir, if I was rambling but I felt I should put my comments about this Bill into some kind of context. It has been approximately 22 years since the case taken by Johanna Airey. Since then, very good people working in under-resourced legal aid boards have struggled valiantly in difficult circumstances to do a job, but it was a well known complaint that people could wait weeks or months simply to get their first appointment. Every politician has had experience of someone coming into our clinics saying they needed legal advice. We are all perhaps a little reluctant to send people to the local legal aid centre because we are nervous as to how they would be received. Obviously, they would be received courteously, and so on, but they might not get an appointment for months. For many people that simply was not good enough. If we can have a system under this Bill where people will be able to access legal aid relatively quickly, then that in itself will be a major improvement.

There is one other aspect of the broad thrust of the Bill that I would ask the Minister to contemplate. I have noted that the staff numbers have been increased from 99 to over 200 and that is very laudable in itself, but we should carefully consider the following question: do we want the legal aid service to be administered by people who are, effectively, civil servants, by people who are employed and paid by the State? It is my understanding — I could be wrong and could stand corrected on this but I think it is the case — that in large measure the legal aid system in England operates by way of what we call the private sector. In other words, if you have a case and get a certificate from the legal aid board you more or less pick your own solicitor and counsel and you are represented by them. That system appears to work quite well. The Minister is aware that their resources are far in excess of ours. Solicitors and barristers can make a lot of money in this way in England but there should not be an over-dependence on public lawyers to represent members of the public when they seek legal representation and I politely ask the Minister to place less emphasis on that. Try to devise a scheme whereby, for reasonable fees, people can more or less choose their own solicitor and barrister having, of course, first received a certificate from the Legal Aid Board to the effect that they come within the financial criteria and that the case is one with which the Legal Aid Board should be involved.

Another element in the context of the legal background in Ireland at the moment is the regrettable over-supply in the market of solicitors and barristers. I think there is in the region of 5,000 solicitors and 900 barristers. I cannot say with accuracy what degree of gainful employment exists for that number of solicitors and barristers but, at a rough guess, approximately a quarter or maybe a third of each branch of the profession is under-employed. It might be more economically viable to give a young solicitor or a barrister £95 or £125 to take a case. In this way you do not have all the associated overhead costs of a solicitor or barrister with full-time staff because they must provide office accommodation, secretarial support, holidays, superannuation and so on for the staff. We are constantly told people want to see reductions in their tax bills. The people went through a lot of pain in the late 1980s trying to get their tax bills reduced so, not wishing to preempt any changes the Minister might make and with a wry smile I say, do not be too socialist about this, do not be too hung up about the legal aid boards employing too many people directly. There is plenty of talent out there, there are many fully qualified young people out there willing to take on these cases. Let us have this scheme and let them take some of those cases.

I do not wish to treat this as if it were Committee Stage but, in deference to the Minister, I feel we should make a few comments on some of the specific provisions in this Bill.

It might be a good idea if in the preamble to the Bill we said, "an Act to comply with our obligations pursuant to the European Convention on Human Rights". That might be a tribute to Mrs. Airey and to all those people who have had recourse to the European Convention on Human Rights, and it might be an acknowledgement of that convention.

The setting up of the board is well done. It is good to have a mix of people with experience of the law, the practice and procedures of the courts, business, finance, management and so on. It is a good idea to have in the board a minimum of two barristers and solicitors, two staff members and a minimum of five men and women. There is little room in the structure of the board for it to be unrepresentative. It is not for me to give ideas to the Minister but maybe some former, or even current, members of the Judiciary might sit on that board. However, that is a matter for the Minister to decide in due course.

I would also like to mention section 5 of the Bill, which has been touched on by other Senators and is the absolute kernel of the provision of a free legal aid service. "The principal function of the Board shall be to provide, within the Board's resources...". This is the million dollar question; what will the board have as a resource? From year to year it will consult with its Minister, who will consult with the Minister for Finance, who, with the Government, will make a decision on the resources of the board. This includes the possibility that the board may not have the resources to carry out its work in a certain year. That is not good enough. There should be an openended provision to the effect that the board must have the resources necessary to comply with its international obligations. There are also precedents for it, which might soothe the objections of any mandarins in the Department of Finance.

The Refugee Bill is coming before both Houses because of our international obligations, in that case under the Geneva Convention and the New York Protocolumn If we have obligations, then we have to be serious about them. There might not be a Labour Minister for Finance one day. If that happened one might find a Minister for Finance——

Ms Gallagher

Less socialist.

Mr. Mulcahy

——who was not as enamoured with the concept of free legal aid. In that case that Minister might say "We do not have enough money this year, so I am sorry, Mr. and Mrs. Bloggs, you cannot have an appointment or free legal aid this year."

Mr. Taylor

I wonder from what party such a Minister for Finance would come?

Mr. Mulcahy

It would obviously not be from this side of the House.

Mr. Neville

Now, now.

Mr. Neville

Fianna Fáil are leaving the Progressive Democrats off the hook.

Mr. Mulcahy

I made the point in a humorous way because we all know that there is no possibility that there will never not be a Labour——

Mr. Neville

Bertie Ahern will be delighted to hear that.

Mr. Mulcahy

——or a socialistic minded Minister for Finance. We have international obligations and we must comply with them. Section 5 of the Bill gives the Government a let out clause in that the board can only fulfil its obligations to the extent that it has resources. Those resources, as the Minister fully knows, will come from the Minister for Finance of the day and not pursuant to a legal and international obligation.

The same point can be made about sections 18 and 19, primarily section 18, which states:

The Minister may in each financial year, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, advance to the Board out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, such sum or sums as the Minister, after consultation with the Board, may determine for the purposes of expenditure by the Board in the performance of its functions under this Act.

This will take place only after consultation and that is too weak. There should at least be some onus on the Minister for Finance to explain to the Oireachtas why they are deliberately not giving the Legal Aid Board the resources needed.

Section 19, the setting up of a legal aid fund, is an excellent idea. I understand the fund would consist of moneys provided by the Minister and also moneys which are obtained by way of court awards for costs or damages. If the Legal Aid Board supports a successful litigant and gets an award for costs, those costs will be paid into the legal aid fund, thereby enabling the board to continue its work and the next litigant to make their case.

Sections 26, 27 and 28 are the criteria for obtaining legal advice.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I remind Senators that we are currently dealing with the broad parameters of the Bill. This is not a Committee Stage debate.

Mr. Mulcahy

I will stop quoting from the Bill and speak from memory.

There have been cases where people have gone to the Legal Aid Board office, a certain deciding officer takes a certain view of their case and decides, either on the financial criteria or the merits of the case, that they should not be supported. That is giving a large power to that deciding officer. In may ways it could be argued that it is unconstitutional. The Constitution guarantees access for all citizens to the courts. Accordingly, if a section or a deciding officer prejudges the merits of a case then they are putting themselves in the place of the court, which in itself is unconstitutional.

I did not notice anywhere in the Bill any reference to frivolous or vexatious clauses; perhaps there is. There should certainly be a mechanism where a deciding officer can say "This is a frivolous or vexatious case and we are not going to support you.". It would be dangerous — I am not sure if it is adequately covered in this Bill — if a deciding officer or an officer of the Legal Aid Board can make that decision and it should be policed closely. Maybe I have missed the reference and perhaps the Minister will address the House later on this point, but there does not seem to be an appeals procedure to contest the decision of such an officer if the decision is made against a person who wants to make a case — there is such a mechanism to the board; I stand corrected and I am glad it is there. There must be some sort of an appeals procedure if it is either a meritorious case or if one does not fulfil the various financial criteria. In both cases there must be a provision where either of those decisions can be appealed, either to the board or to some third party — perhaps the Ombudsman or the court itself. The courts could not tolerate the Legal Aid Board making, in effect, a quality decision without an appeals mechanism being in place. Perhaps the Minister will also be able to help me on that matter.

This is not Committee Stage and I will not detain the Seanad much longer, but I wish to make one or two more points in relation to solicitors and barristers. I saw provision for a panel of barristers and solicitors in this Bill. The work should be spread around; this is very important. Of course officers of the Legal Aid Board should be able to engage whom they want in a generally unfettered way, but because public money is involved, it would not be acceptable if a small group of barristers or solicitors were to dominate the majority of the work. There should perhaps be some policing mechanism in the legislation whereby a rota system of barristers and solicitors is included.

I wish to make a point about the exclusion of election petitions. Perhaps it is more a matter for Committee Stage, but I am very surprised at it. An election petition should be available to the poorest of the poor, who should be able to go to court and say that an election was unfairly held — that is what election petitions are all about. There can be no more important function of free legal advice than to help a person who has taken the trouble to challenge a particular election and make sure that it was fairly held. There are one or two more worrying aspects, a Leas Chathaoirligh, which perhaps I will return to on Committee Stage.

I absolutely agree with the point made by Senator Enright that if you look very carefully at the provisions in relation to an unsuccessful litigant supported by the Legal Aid Board, there is a scenario where the Legal Aid Board is supporting a person suing another person, the Legal Aid Board is unsuccessful and yet the person the board sued only has a discretionary or ex-gratia right to their costs. That is very dangerous. It is probably an unjust attack on the property rights of the person being sued, because normally costs are a discretionary matter for the courts. If the courts award costs against the unsuccessful party and the Legal Aid Board has taken that case, and of course the Legal Aid Board would only have taken that case if it felt there was a good case and if the person they were representing did not have enough money to take the case on their own in the first place——

Mr. Taylor

The Legal Aid Board does not take the case, it funds the case. The case is taken by the person.

Mr. Mulcahy

It funds the case, but it is funding a person who in its view does not have enough money to take the case alone and it is funding a case which, having examined it, at least superficially, it believes to be a bona fide case. All of a sudden we are left with the possibility that the successful party will not receive their costs. There is no point in that person pursuing the person the Legal Aid Board was supporting because by definition that person is in most cases a person of little or no means, so I say that this provision in the Act is probably an unjust attack on the property rights of the successful litigant in cases where the Legal Aid Board has intervened.

To sum up, perhaps I have been a little long winded, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, but I hope my contribution has been useful. It is very important legislation. The Minister is to be complimented, but I reiterate what I said to him at the beginning. He should not be too concerned about employing many people. We are trying to get the burden of taxation down. The Minister should try to use private barristers and solicitors in so far as he can, or do an audit, maybe run this scheme for a year or two and get in some economists to see which is cheaper.

I reckon that on a case by case basis, it could well be cheaper for the State to use the services of private barristers and private solicitors for a modest agreed fee. The advantage is that in every case where a solicitor or counsel is specifically briefed, they will give that case their specific attention. The fear might be that in some cases where solicitors of the Legal Aid Board are employed as such full time, they would have a very large workload and perhaps some administrative functions to undertake at the same time and so would not be in a position, through no fault of their own, to give each case their full attention. That is the first fundamental point.

The second fundamental point is that the Minister must get a guarantee for the resources for this Bill. This Bill is not worth a whit without money. There must be money, not just for the legal system but also for legal aid.

I want to finish my remarks by repeating what I said at the beginning. By and large we are very well served by the judicial system in this country. We are well served by barristers, solicitors, by the clerks and all the court staff, by the Law Society, by the Bar Council and by the Judiciary. If this Bill comes into force, perhaps slightly amended, in the context of an overall improved environment of the legal system in this country, then it will have been an effort well worthwhile and I commend the Minister for his efforts in that regard.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I call Senator Lee. Sorry, I call Senator Quinn.

Mr. Quinn

Thank you, a Leas-Chathaoirligh. We are about the same height, so I can understand the error.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

My apologies.

Mr. Quinn

I regard myself as a small grocer; I am sure Senator Lee is regarded as a small teacher.

I speak here with some trepidation, particularly after the words of Senator Mulcahy. He pointed out how many barristers and lawyers there were in the House today earlier and finished, if I might dare say it, by suggesting towards the end of his speech that an economist join us. I compliment him on his speech: it is not his maiden speech but we are very proud to hear the words that he has used and to hear it done with such panache, if I may say so.

I welcome the Bill as well as far as it goes. It is like putting a Band-Aid on a tumour. To address this issue properly we need much more than a Bill like this. We also need to make a frontal attack on the scandalous costs that are part of the legal system here in Ireland. It is a fundamental tenet of our system, and one that we have always supported in a democracy, that justice should be available to all, not just to those who can afford it, so it makes perfect sense that the State should support the cost of litigation undertaken by people who cannot afford it themselves. However, it makes no sense whatsoever, in fact it makes perfect nonsense, that the State should take virtually no interest at all in the task of reducing the cost of litigation in the first place.

I have been very interested in listening to the cases made here today. Senator Mulcahy has made some very worthy suggestions in regard to competitiveness and competition in order to tackle that area of costs. I also heard Senator Enright earlier on speaking about the large number of costs not associated with the legal profession at all, the number of gardaí on overtime who must be paid. What do ordinary people think of the legal system when they look at it from outside? I think most of them see it as a gravy train for the relatively small number of people lucky enough to make a living out of it. Senator Gallagher last week talked about the image of the big bad wolf and called for sympathy, is that correct?

Ms Gallagher

I was refuting that image. Many of us do a lot of work for nothing.

Mr. Quinn

Of course, I understand that. I am not talking about that but about the overall cost of the system. Most people think the simplest case involves big legal fees even when it does not go to court but is settled on the steps outside the court. They know that an investigation like the beef tribunal can cost taxpayers tens of millions of pounds, almost all of it in legal fees. They know that amounts awarded by way of damages or compensation are often dwarfed by the legal costs of cases themselves. The cost of going to law in Ireland creates very wide ranging problems for society as a whole. Most of them will not be addressed by this legislation. I know this is not the Minister's intention but I am calling for them to be addressed some other way.

The cost of going to law has a knock-on effect on the price of everything we buy. It undermines the competitiveness of everything we attempt to sell abroad. The high cost of insurance is partially, even largely, due to the cost of litigation. This has a side effect which goes far beyond the issue of cost. Many cases are not contested in court because insurance companies, on the balance of risks, decide not to defend but to settle even though they believe they are in the right. This also applies to business firms, other than insurance companies. The cost of the legal process encourages people to concede cases they might otherwise win. The cost of losing is so great that the risk involved becomes too high a price to pay for those involved, whether their businesses are small or large. This not just adds to costs but does greater harm.

The side effect of this is that it encourages the litigation mentality which is on the rampage in our society. People know that many doubtful or unjustified claims get settled and there is an encouragement for less scrupulous people to have a go and try it on, especially when they are also encouraged by legal representatives who are ready to work on a no foal no fee basis. This is what happens when people see the legal process as a gravy train. Some of them look to see how they can get a ticket on to that train and perhaps arrive at the destination and get a refund on the ticket.

Ms Gallagher

They might make more money in the supermarket business.

Mr Quinn

I am concerned about the effect of this on the mentality of society as a whole. We should welcome the Bill and do what we can on Committee Stage to improve it but we also must not forget that there is another job to be done and the passing of this legislation will not lessen the need to tackle that job. Senator Mulcahy spoke about grasping the nettle. This nettle has not yet been grasped. It may not necessarily be this Minister's task to grasp it but I urge that we, as a Legislature, grasp it and face up to the dangers and huge effects of the costs on society. I urge that in looking at this Bill we accept the responsibility on us to tackle the heavy cost of litigation on society so that we can look on this as a job well done.

Professor Lee

I will be very brief partly because I have not had an opportunity of listening to most of the discussion so far and I hope I do not repeat drearily points which have been made already. I heard a little of Senator Quinn's contribution and I found myself in enthusiastic agreement with the general thrust of what he said about finding ways of controlling litigation costs.

I wish to indicate an interest in the subject matter before we come to Committee Stage and to make some points on the Minister's comments at the beginning of the debate. Essentially I want to associate myself with the tributes paid to the Minister for the interest he has taken in this issue, his commitment to it over the years and the manner in which the budget allocated to the legal aid programme has been increased from its derisory original basis to a much more substantial amount.

I am in sympathy with some of the criticisms made by Deputy O'Dea in the Sunday Independent last Sunday about the balance between the individual and collective in the way one approaches these things. It is because one is unlikely to find a Minister in the foreseeable future who is as sincerely committed to improving the legal aid scheme that we should take advantage of the legislation before us to optimise its potential.

I am very sympathetic to the view that there is gross under-education of the public, particularly of the categories who would be most eligible for consideration, regarding their rights to this and many other aspects of civil life. Senator Gallagher spoke on the Order of Business about the innocence displayed by a large number of pupils in County Wicklow, which I assume is representative of Ireland in this respect, when asked about the identity of their TDs. I do not think anybody thought about asking them about Senators, which is a sad reflection on the status of this House and the public perception of it.

When the Senator raised this matter I thought about how much more important it would be for them, even in our culture of personal clientage and brokerage, to be familiar with the type of legislation about which we are talking and with the rights and responsibilities of their families under it. This should be part of our education system at second level. This would involve co-operation between a variety of Departments. One of the greatest lacunae of our education system and of educating for citizenship is the neglect at second level education for subsequent civic existence. I regard legislation of this type and its provisions as a major component of the type of education which ought to be available as a standard package at second level.

This is not the only way in which one can disseminate and diffuse information on rights to potential applicants. There is major work to be done at local level for those who never had an opportunity of taking advantage of second level education. I would like to see this extended in the legislation. If there is a genuine commitment to and a case for local empowerment — I hate using the word "empowerment" because it can be so abused in conventional rhetoric — this is one of the mechanisms through which it can be made more effective. I am not a Utopian in these matters and appreciate the problems which arise in trying to put into operation terms like "empowerment", but I believe there is potential through this mechanism to do something concrete, particularly in communities most in need of it. There is a great deal of potential in this legislation, if it is fully teased out and harnessed, for people to learn about organising themselves, presenting their case effectively, behaving in a way and taking the sort of steps which would be regarded as normal in less underprivileged communities.

As good as the Minister's speech was, a little too much of it is concerned with the technicalities of the board as distinct from the longer term potential of the legislation but this is a balance which can be corrected, if indeed it is an imbalance, at a later stage. But where he is, quite rightly, talking about gender balance on the board I would like to see the opportunity taken in legislation of this type to talk also about class balance because we are dealing with probably the most substantial, underprivileged section of the community. It is desirable that voices directly from that section should be included as a matter of course in the composition of the board. Those who have had the opportunity to acquire higher incomes should not be, in however well intentioned a manner, entirely deciding these matters. I do not say that in an adversarial way but there is a major problem in bringing the voices of many of the inarticulate in our society into positions of significant influence on legislation which affects them. Some thought should be given to the possibilities that might be available in this legislation to do something to correct that gross imbalance in the composition of boards of that sort.

With those few general reflections I will be as good as my word and conclude. I look forward to a number of constructive exchanges and amendments on Committee Stage.

Mr. Norris

I welcome the Minister back to the House. He seems to be spending quite a lot of time here, which is welcome indeed. I congratulate him on this Bill. I had a private word in his ear in the ante-Chamber and said that I would confine myself to five or ten minutes. He expressed some scepticism, but I do have an appointment with another member of the Government which poses a certain degree of constraint.

I welcome the Bill as a forward step. I remember the days when this scheme was in such disarray that senior members of the legal profession actually resigned from it and held press conferences because they were worried precisely about the problem of underfunding. In this Bill the Minister seeks to make justice accessible to all. The principal barriers for many have been those of finance and class, which I witnessed on the many occasions when I was called on to represent, give advice, comfort or provide a character reference for people appearing in the Dublin District Court. It became quite clear to me that a kind of, perhaps unwitting class system was in operation. This was not only in terms of finance but also because people with certain social skills and dress sense had a far greater chance of obtaining bail or getting a probationary sentence than somebody who was scruffy, ill-advised, not advised at all and who did not have these social skills.

I received a briefing document from the Free Legal Advice Centre group, FLAC, which also welcomes the Bill, but with certain qualifications, and I would like to place on the record some of the information the group provided me with. I do not believe in simply listening to a group that seriously attempts to brief. There has to be some degree of interaction so I immediately telephoned them to say that their argument pointed towards a couple of amendments. Since they are in the law business and I am not, I suggested they might be kind enough to frame a couple of amendments.

I would like to signal the Minister and his advisers that it is my intention — in fact I have already advised the Seanad office — that I will be placing these amendments on the Order Paper. I am taking this opportunity to flag them in advance in the hope that the Minister may find it possible to accede to them. The amendments do not violate the spirit of the Bill, in fact they amplify it, and also deal with matters that were originally contemplated under the scheme of civil legal aid and advice.

I am glad the Bill is being introduced, particularly by this Minister and in the Seanad. I must also express my appreciation to the FLAC group for advising me and place on the record my admiration for the work they have done over many years. The scheme of civil legal aid and advice was introduced by the Minister for Justice in 1980 providing for the establishment of the Legal Aid Board, which is charged with the provision of civil legal aid through full-time and part-time law centres around the country. Since then, however, the scheme has developed almost exclusively as a family law reference point. The figures which have been provided to me are quite stark and make the point dramatically. Legal aid certificates awarded in family law cases in 1992 amounted to 1,791 while a mere 63 legal aid certificates awarded in other cases. That makes a substantial point about the direction in which this scheme is going and FLAC believes that it is a regrettable development due to a number of factors.

Firstly, some areas of law are outside the remit of the scheme and the Minister is aware of this. One of my amendments hopes to ameliorate this situation. Secondly, the board has no role in educating the public as to their rights and obligations at law, which is an important point. I recall that a previous Government — in which I should discreetly say there was no Labour component — introduced a particularly mean piece of budget cutting which removed information and advice centres as well as people's capacity to discover their entitlements. The thinking behind it was not that this particular body cost the State or the Exchequer a huge amount of money, it was far more subtle and machiavellian. The intention was that by depriving people of information and understanding about their entitlements they would save the State a great deal more money.

If we are serious about making the law and the courts accessible to people, one of the roles we ought to undertake is that of educating and informing the community generally about their entitlements. I know there are budgetary constraints but I am sure that the Minister's heart would be in this area and so I hope it may be possible to move the Bill in this direction.

The third point in the argument that has been made to me is that law centres operate independently of the community they serve. The proposal in the Bill gives statutory effect to the current scheme with one or two minor changes. FLAC believes that a major opportunity to develop the service beyond a purely representational one could be missed if we do not make certain amendments. With regard to community consultation, the model for this is a scheme with which I have had some marginal contact, of which I thoroughly approve and I expect that the Minister probably does too. It is the Coolock Community Law Centre which has provided a valuable focus for a marginalised community in a deprived area.

In the original scheme of civil legal aid there was provision to set up community consultative committees. As far as I can see, this section does not feature in the Bill and, therefore, it could be said to represent a backward step. Although it was proposed initially it is a pity that it is not in the Bill now. I hope that the Minister may consider introducing some scheme of community consultation and for that reason I have asked FLAC to supply me with an amendment enabling the Minister to establish such committees by regulation. These committees could be empowered to consider conferring additional duties on individual law centres.

For the record, and because the Minister is well supplied with advisers, I can give the substance of the amendment as follows:

The Minister may, by regulation, establish committees representing local interests in a particular area to consult with the person responsible for the management of the local law centre and to consider conferring additional duties on individual law centres. No member of such committee shall have access to any client's file or personal documents held in the law centre nor shall a member be entitled to any information provided to the staff of the law centre by any person who has availed of, or is about to avail of, the services of the law centre.

Perhaps that could be positively considered for inclusion. I do not imagine that it creates a charge on the Exchequer which is the usual method of kicking it into touch. I cannot see how it does; perhaps it does, but it would be very marginal if it did. The Minister might perhaps consider the argument and, if he does not accept this amendment, frame an amendment of his own.

The Legal Aid Board, as currently constituted, is not given a role in the education of the community it serves. It is very important that education be made part of the overall legal services package. Equal access to justice requires that all members of society are aware of their rights and obligations. There is little point in having rights if one does not have the capacity to exercise them. Part of the capacity to exercise one's rights consists of being aware that one actually has entitlements. That is an important point.

I have an amendment dealing with education which I should read into the record. It provides that:

The principal function of the Board shall be to provide, within the Board's resources and subject to other provisions of this Act, legal aid and advice in civil cases to persons who satisfy the requirements of this Act. The Board shall also make such arrangements as in its opinion are necessary to ensure that information in relation to the law and legal services provided for in this Act, is adequately disseminated.

That comes in at section——

Acting Chairman (Mr. Fitzgerald)

I have to interrupt the Senator. You are discussing an amendment. We will allow general discussion on the Bill and on Committee Stage you can come in as often as you like with your amendments.

Mr. Norris

I accept your point, particularly as I just concluded that element of what I wanted to say. However, I stand reproved.

The final point I want to make on the substance of the Bill relates to the absence of funding for representation at tribunals. It would be important to include some measure here to allow people to avail of legal aid when appearing before tribunals. I beg your pardon. It extends it to certain tribunals — I retract that statement. Do you see what you did to me, Sir? You threw me in the reading of my script. I withdraw that comment and replace it with a compliment to the Minister. Apparently the Bill empowers the Minister to extend legal aid to tribunals by order, which is to be welcomed. The hope I express is that the Minister would make the appropriate order at the earliest possible date. I regret that I was almost misleading the House on that final point.

In final, absolute, total and utter conclusion — as opposed to confusion — I welcome the way in which the Bill is drafted. It has been drafted very sensibly, particularly with regard to gender balance. I notice right in the first page the statement that not less than five members of the board will be men and not less than five will be women. That is precisely the way in which legislation should be framed. There should be gender balance on all boards throughout society.

I was particularly pleased to note on page two a little heading which says: "Implications for Women". It states: "The Bill is drafted in gender neutral terms and its provisions apply equally to men and women." Hear. Hear. Well done. That is splendid.

I remember introducing the Interpretation Bill, which was a short Bill to remove sexist language from legislation. In the beginning it was laughed out of the place, but eventually made its way on to the Order Paper and the Government introduced it. It has been passed and is now in operation. Some people were very dismissive of this, but I believe that the way in which we frame legislation creates a mental framework within which we operate and from which we can unconsciously absorb a degree of prejudice and discrimination. I am very pleased indeed, but not at all surprised, that this Bill is framed in such a civilised manner.

Minister for Equality and Law Reform (Mr. Taylor)

I thank Senators for their constructive contributions. I greatly appreciate the general welcome for this Bill. I have been in the House in the past two weeks with this Bill and also with the Family Law Bill. I am heartened by the genuine support from Senators for both Bills and by the appreciation shown to the Government's efforts to put in place legislative and administrative structures for the care and protection of the family.

With the introduction of the Civil Legal Aid Bill we are putting the Legal Aid Board on a statutory basis after 15 years of operation on a purely administrative basis. In the context of the continued development of the legal aid service, this of itself is significant. Of greater significance however is the fact that for the first time it underpins in law the State's commitment to access to justice for all of its people.

A number of issues were raised by Senators in the course of the debate. While I will have further opportunity on Committee and later Stages to deal with these issues in greater detail, there are a number to which I propose to refer briefly in the course of my reply.

A number of Senators, particularly Senators McGennis, Neville, Henry, Gallagher, Honan and Norris, referred to the recommendations of the Pringle committee on the establishment of community law centres and involvement by local communities in their development. In this context they also refer to the need for the Legal Aid Board to provide for the dissemination of information on aspects of the law which are likely to be of concern to those in need.

I would like at the outset to put the Pringle committee's proposals in this regard in context. In discussing these very important issues we should consider carefully what the Pringle committee in fact had to say. In the first instance the committee, as Senators have said, recommended the establishment of what it termed community law centres. However, this recommendation must be examined against the background of the committee's deliberations on the general question of the establishment of law centres.

The committee considered several suggestions about the establishment of law centres, the number of centres which should be provided and their location. In particular it considered whether such centres should be established directly by the Legal Aid Board, by local community groups or by local authorities. In relation to the establishment of law centres by local community groups or by local authorities the committee recognised that such centres would be required to satisfy conditions laid down by the Legal Aid Board before they could be recognised and financed by the board.

The committee had no advice to give on the number and location of such centres. It stated that it was not in a position to say how many centres would be required or where they should be situated and simply confined itself to the recommendation that a total of six centres be established in the main urban centres of Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Waterford and Galway. While the committee recognised the value of participation on the part of the local community in putting forward proposals for the establishment of law centres, it stated that:

It is not an approach which can be relied on completely because the communities which suffer the most serious disadvantages are likely to be the very ones which will lack the organisation necessary to put forward realistic proposals for the establishment of centres.

Consequently, it recommended that the Legal Aid Board should at the outset take the initiative in establishing law centres. Government policy since the establishment of the scheme has been to operate it through law centres established directly by and under the control of the Legal Aid Board.

In 1977 the Pringle committee suggested the establishment of a total of six law centres in the main urban centres. Since then, and particularly as a result of the expansion of the service I initiated since coming into office, the service has been expanded dramatically, with the result that by the end of this year we will have a total of 47 law centres nationwide. This development of the service, which could not have taken place if local community initiative alone had been relied on, ensures that the service is brought ever closer to the communities and the areas of greatest need. I am convinced that the manner in which we are now proceeding is the correct one. However, there is nothing which precludes the Legal Aid Board from consulting with local community groups, and they have done so in the past, nor is there anything in this Bill which precludes them from doing this.

I now turn to the other question raised in relation to the role of the Legal Aid Board and the dissemination of information on aspects of the law likely to be of concern to those in need. The Pringle committee envisaged such a role for the Legal Aid Board. However, it should be noted that the committee envisaged that law centres would be principally concerned with the provision of legal advice rather than legal aid. The practical experience of the operation of the scheme has shown the opposite to be the case. In fact, the staff in the law centres spend by far the greater proportion of their time providing legal aid to the public before the courts. Experience over the years of the board's operations differs greatly from what the Pringle committee envisaged in 1977 and the reality is that the scope for the board's involvement in the dissemination of information is quite limited.

In this regard, I draw Senators' attention to the role of the National Social Service Board — the NSSB — which was set up in 1984 under the aegis of the Department of Health. Responsibility for the board is being transferred to the Department of Social Welfare this year. The NSSB is a resource agency whose aim is to inform and empower individual citizens and communities by ensuring that they are aware of their civil and social rights and entitlements and of the social services which exist to support them. There are a total of 82 citizen information centres nationwide registered with the board which receive an annual grant from the Department of Health in excess of £1.2 million. At the time the Pringle committee reported, the NSSB did not exist and, in many respects, the information-education role which the committee envisaged would be undertaken by the Legal Aid Board's law centres is today being provided through the citizen information centres.

It might be of interest to Senators to know that in recent years a review was carried out by the legal aid efficiency scrutiny team in the United Kingdom into the role which the legal aid service should play in the provision of information. It recommended that the first port of call for citizens seeking information or advice in relation to their civil and social rights and entitlements should normally not be a solicitor employed by the Legal Aid Board but rather an advice agency, such as a citizens' advice information bureau. I share this view.

While I am conscious there may be a need in some instances for the Legal Aid Board to become involved in the dissemination of information, since the establishment of the NSSB the information role, as envisaged by the Pringle committee for the Legal Aid Board, is now, in many respects, being filled by the NSSB. Nevertheless, where there is a role for the Legal Aid Board in the provision and dissemination of information, however limited, I would, in the context of the development of the service, encourage it to do so. As I said, there is nothing in the Bill which precludes the board from providing information to individuals or organisations where appropriate. However, I must emphasise that in the light of experience some 18 years on from the Pringle committee's deliberations, the Legal Aid Board can best ensure access to justice by addressing the priority of providing legal aid and advice to those most in need in society.

As I indicated in my introduction to the debate, over 90 per cent of legal aid cases relate to family law. I am sure Senators will agree when I say that this is and should continue to be our number one priority. Senator Norris commented on the fact that the bulk of the resources of the scheme were directed to fulfilling the needs in the family law area. However, the need is there. Consequently, the bulk of the resources of the board are directed towards fulfilling that need and demand.

Senator Henry and Senator Honan, among others, made reference to the provision of legal aid to persons before tribunals. Section 27 (2) (b) of the Bill gives the Minister the power to make orders enabling the Legal Aid Board to provide legal aid to individuals in respect of proceedings in any court or tribunal which is not at present covered under the Bill. The question of extending the scope of the board's activities to cover tribunals, such as the Employment Appeals Tribunal and the Social Welfare Tribunal, is being considered in the light of the impact of the additional resources being provided this year on reduced waiting lists.

Senator Henry suggested that I name a date on which representation will be provided for cases before the Employment Appeals Tribunal, and I understand the point she is making. However, my priority remains, as it has been since I took over responsibility for the scheme of civil legal aid and advice two years ago, the expansion of the network of law centres, the recruitment of additional staff to the board, the reduction of waiting lists of substance and the generation of a more broadly based service throughout the country, thereby giving an enhanced quality of service to those who rely on the Legal Aid Board's services. When those targets have been met, I will consider the matter of tribunals, having regard to the prevailing budgetary situation applicable from time to time. I should, however, point out that legal advice on labour law matters is available under the scheme at present and legal aid, as such, is available where court proceedings are concerned on appeal from those tribunals.

Senators also referred to the impact of judicial separation proceedings on the work of the board and further referred to the likely effect which divorce proceedings would have if divorce is introduced here. Since 1990 a significant proportion of the backlog of cases being dealt with by the law centres has been generated as a result of the enactment of the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act, 1989. That legislation still has a major impact on the work of the board. Applications for separations are more complex and time consuming to process than applications were under the old remedy before the 1989 Act. In 1988-89, 133 people applied for legal aid for a divorce a mensa et thoro hearings, whereas there were 279 applications for legal aid for proceedings under the 1989 Act in 1990. The number of such applications has continued to rise since, with 416 applications being made in 1991, 503 in 1992 and 760 in 1993. I have no doubt that the figure for 1994, when it becomes available, will show an increase on the 1993 figure.

Compounding the difficulties this spiralling number of applications causes for the Legal Aid Board is the fact that judicial separation cases are taken, for the most part, in the Circuit Court. For that reason, the proportion of legal aid cases being taken in the superior courts has increased significantly each year, from 28 per cent in 1988 to 38 per cent in 1990 to 55 per cent in 1993 and it continues to rise. Obviously, a solicitor's preparation for Circuit, High and Supreme Court cases is both demanding and time consuming to a degree not normally applicable to cases heard in the District Court. The impact of this on case management by the board has been more than offset by the additional resources which I provided for the Legal Aid Board. This is clearly evident from the size of the reductions in the law centres' waiting lists.

The fruits of the increased allocations, which I have secured for the Legal Aid Board in recent years are already evident in the reduced waiting lists in the law centres. Senator McGennis remains concerned about what will happen in the future given the existing pressure on the board's resources. The position is that the full impact of the increased allocations has yet to be realised. The opening of new law centres and the recruitment of staff had, of necessity, to be done on a phased basis and, as I said in my introductory speech, the remaining elements of phase II of the board's development plan are now approaching completion and phase III is about to commence. I am satisfied that this continuing development of the Legal Aid Board will enable it to meet any foreseeable demand on its services. If circumstances change, I will examine the situation afresh and take whatever action may be appropriate while always having regard to the budgetary position applicable from time to time.

In the course of her comment on the pressure under which the law centres operate, Senator McGennis referred to a person in Malahide who will be waiting 12 months before a legal separation case will be taken. This would arise from the scheduling of court hearings, which is a matter for the courts and comes within the ambit of my colleague, the Minister for Justice. I will refer the matter to her.

Senators mentioned the recommendation of the Pringle committee on the involvement of private solicitors in the legal aid scheme. As I said in my opening remarks, the Bill specifically provides for this. On taking over responsibility for the Legal Aid Board I initiated a pilot project involving the employment of solicitors in private practice. The scheme operated relatively smoothly and has contributed to the reduction in waiting lists. I am reserving judgment on the matter for the moment as a full review of its efficiency and effectiveness is ongoing. I take note of Senator Enright's suggestion that fees being paid to solicitors in private practice are not sufficient. That will form part of the overall review of the matter in the Department. I expect a report shortly.

When referring to the provision in section 26 (3), whereby free legal advice may be granted to victims in cases involving rape or serious sexual assault, Senator McGennis was concerned that free legal aid be also available to the victim. In providing for legal advice the Bill is continuing what has always been permissible in law: that a woman who has been raped or seriously assaulted may bring a lawyer with her to the court in the capacity of friend during the hearing of the trial. The Law Reform Commission report on rape and allied offences, published in 1988, expressed serious reservations about introducing any change in the law to permit the active involvement of a victim's legal representative at the trial of an offence and adverted to possible constitutional difficulties which might arise in that regard. In the circumstances I am sure the Senator will agree the Bill goes as far as possible in providing legal assistance to the unfortunate victims of rape or serious sexual assault.

Senator Mulcahy expressed concern that the officers of the board could refuse to grant legal aid on the merits of the case. He can hardly be suggesting it is unreasonable for Legal Aid board solicitors to refuse to grant legal aid where the solicitor considers there is no merit in the case: I hope he is not. However, I assure the Senator that where a solicitor refuses to grant legal aid, an appeal mechanism is provided for, under which any person refused legal aid may appeal that decision.

Senator Quinn spoke about a number of matters much discussed recently, such as excessive legal costs and the compensation culture, which are not directly referable to this Bill. I will not say much about those matters as they are not within the ambit of the Bill nor in my ambit as Minister for Equality and Law Reform. The Senator commented on the compensation culture. That may exist, but I think we should advocate a safety culture. If many firms, factories, supermarkets and local authorities paid more attention to the question of safety on their premises, there would be much less compensation payable and a good deal less legal costs incurred. Unfortunately we do not hear much about safety projects being undertaken and much remains to be done in that regard.

Senator Honan referred to a proposal made by FLAC that the Legal Aid Board should have a role in law reform. The Law Reform Commission was set up specifically to examine our laws and bring forward proposals for reform and it does a wide ranging and excellent job. I do not think it appropriate for the Legal Aid Board to have such a role. However when preparing proposals for reform of the law my Department consults widely with many organisations on the issues under examination from time to time. In many cases the Legal Aid Board has an appropriate input.

To quote the general observation of the Pringle committee on the objectives of the civil legal aid scheme:

The fact that views differ as to the objectives of a comprehensive legal aid and advice scheme emphasises the need for flexibility and pragmatism in developing it. There is no such thing as a ready-made blueprint for the ideal service. Consequently the basic structures of the legislation bringing it into being have to be such that they will allow for the speedy implementation of any changes which experience may show to be necessary.

A number of Senators asked where the legal aid service goes from here. In response I say we have experienced a huge expansion in the service in the last two years. A large number of additional centres have been opened at various locations throughout the country. The numbers of staff in the law centres have more than doubled. The type of staff taken on has radically changed; I have arranged for law clerks and solicitor's apprentices to be employed in the centres, which did not happen before. Many of the law centres are well equipped and have the ideal module for a well run solicitor's office — two to three solicitors, a law clerk, a solicitor's apprentice and support clerical staff. In my visits to law centres, both old and new, throughout the country I was impressed with the degree of professionalism exhibited by all the staff in those centres.

Something I was most anxious to achieve in this development programme was that law centres would have the most modern technology. In the early stages computers with precedent banks were not present. These are necessary for a modern law office and I am happy to tell the House that all the law centres now have this facility, which has increased their efficiency. The offices are comfortable and where possible accessible, although that has not happened yet in all cases. I have asked the Legal Aid Board to give every possible attention to ensuring the centres are made accessible where that can be done.

In framing this Bill I have drawn on our experience of the operation of the scheme over the years. I have been acutely conscious of the need for a flexible approach to the development of the service. I think Senators will agree the Bill has the flexibility to allow for the speedy implementation of any changes which may be necessary to enable the service to develop and grow. I thank Senators for their contributions to a valuable and informed debate. I look forward to discussing the Bill further on Committee Stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 1 March 1995.

Sitting suspended at 5.10 p.m. and resumed at 6 p.m.