Amendment No. 5, in the name of Deputy Michael Woods, is out of order because it involves a potential charge on the Revenue.
SECTION 4.
It is related to amendment No. 6 so perhaps I can move that amendment and we can discuss them together.
Amendment No. 5 not moved.
Under the section you are entitled to discuss the points you would have made.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 5, subsection (3) (b), between lines 40 and 41, to insert the following:
"(iii) the Chief Executive shall be a member of the Board.".
This amendment was related to amendment No. 5 which cannot now be put. However, I obviously can discuss it with amendment No. 6 because to have the chief executive as a member of the board you would have to have some extra places on the board. Amendment No. 5 was ruled out of order because placing two extra members on the board would involve additional expense. Can the Minister say what kind of additional expense it might involve, to the extent that it prevents the House from discussing the question, in amendment form, of adding two people to the board? Will there be remuneration for a member of the board and, if so, how much? Are expenses involved when travelling to do an investigation or where members of the board would sit to examine appeals?
Amendment No. 5 seeks to increase by two the number of members of the Legal Aid Board. Since members are paid remuneration, superannuation benefits and expenses by the board, which is Exchequer funded, this amendment involves a potential charge on the Revenue. Amendment No. 6, although adding the chief executive to the membership of the board, has been allowed on the basis that it does not technically increase the overall membership of the board.
I guessed that because he is covered anyway.
Or she.
He or she. I think the chief executive is a "he" at the moment though. I will use "he or she" in future.
Perhaps the Minister can say how much the annual payment is because it is not in his note. I can understand expenses being involved if the board travels to do something, but I am surprised to hear superannuation being mentioned because one is not normally superannuated as a member of the board.
That is a mistake. There is no superannuation.
Can the Minister tell us what the amount is for a member of the board? In relation to the general question of the chief executive, the point we are concerned about is that the Bill provides for a change in the composition of the board's membership with the appointment of two staff members. In a situation where the staff have members on the board it appears that the chief executive should also be a member of the board, otherwise there is a question of perception of the chief executive in relation to his performance and functions. That is why we are suggesting that, given the desirable development of having staff members on the board, the chief executive should also be included. To provide for that change it would be necessary to increase the numbers from 12 to 14.
That would leave an extra place on the board which could be made available to a representative of Women's Aid, Aim or another voluntary body dealing with women's affairs or family issues which has been seeking representation on the board. It would provide scope to have a representative from the nongovernmental sector, including the voluntary bodies, because they are not included on the board. That would be a desirable development.
For that reason I proposed that providing the extra two members would cover both these points. The cost in terms of the overall allocation to the board cannot be of great significance to the Minister. However, I understand if it bothers the House or the Chair because there is money involved and, therefore, we cannot put the amendment. It seems ridiculous because the emolument is probably only about £1,000 per head. It is only a technicality and should be looked at so that such an issue can be raised.
A place should be found for the nongovernmental organisations and, in the context of the Bill, the chief executive should also be a member of the board.
On Second Stage I proposed the appointment of people from appropriate bodies, including voluntary organisations, with knowledge or experience who could assist the Minister. The Minister has an opening in relation to this in section 4 (3) (a) which states:
In appointing persons to be members of the board, the Minister shall have regard to the desirability of their having knowledge or experience of the law, the practice and procedure of the courts, business, finance, management and administration, consumer or social affairs, or of any other subject, which would, in the opinion of the Minister, be of assistance to the board in the performance of its functions.
I would like to hear a specific commitment from the Minister that he will ensure two members of the board will come from that background. It would be a significant breakthrough if he could give such a commitment on Committee Stage. We tend to look in a very legalistic sense at this and, for instance, the terms NGO was used for people from Women's Aid, FLAC or Coolock — the Minister knows the agencies that I am referring to.
On Second Stage I also suggested that the Minister should not specify individuals but should do what was done under the powers of the Environmental Protection Agency when an advisory committee was appointed made up of the various pertinent agencies and organisations. They were given the power to nominate the individuals. It is not perfect either but it does help the independence of a board and means that the Minister gives a degree of flexibility to the ongoing work of the board and the direction it should take. It is a co-operative venture as it relates to the proceedings of the board. Is the Minister prepared to give the type of commitment?
I agree with Deputy Keogh. Some 33 per cent of the composition of the board consists of members of the legal profession. These are two barristers and two solicitors. The two staff representatives from the legal aid board brings it to 50 per cent.
Only one of those is a lawyer.
Yes, but the representatives from the legal profession and from the board, which is delivering the service, amount to 50 per cent of the board's membership. There are two staff members, two barristers and two solicitors.
One of the two staff representatives is an administrator.
Yes, but they represent the Legal Aid Board which is involved in providing the service.
They represent the administrative staff.
Yes, but they are on the side of the people delivering the service. I see the Minister's difficulty with specifying organisations which should be represented because there are so many. Nobody would like the board to be too big or cumbersome. I can also see a difficulty for the Minister in specifically representing the potential clients of the Legal Aid Board because it is difficult to identify them. Nevertheless, over 95 per cent of the business of law centres involves family law; the figure is possibly as high as 97 or 98 per cent and the overwhelming majority of the clients are women. A number of good organisations which specifically represent women are involved in family law disputes and with marital difficulties. The Cherish organisation springs to mind but I am sure there are many more.
I ask the Minister to give us an assurance that some organisation which represents the interests of the majority of clients of the services provided by the Legal Aid Board will be specifically represented on the board. I accept his difficulties about specifically including that in the legislation but I would like an assurance on the matter. The legal establishment and the staff of the board are on one side and the other 50 per cent, who in theory are supposed to represent the consumers of legal services, simply consist of members of the rainbow parties who must be rewarded. I would like a specific commitment in relation to one of the organisations who represent women who encounter family law difficulties.
The emoluments for board members are the same as those applicable to all other comparable State boards which is £2,500 per year, plus expenses. The chairperson's emolument is £4,000 per year, plus expenses. The number of board members has been fixed at 13 since the board was established 15 years ago and the board has operated very effectively with that number over that period. Like Deputy O'Dea I am not in favour of boards with large memberships.
I have had representations to the effect that certain organisations should be guaranteed representation on the board or that I should make commitments in that regard. If I were to accede to all these representations, the board would almost double in size. Experience over the last 15 years of the efficient operation of the board convinces me that the balance is right and that no useful purpose would be served by increasing the membership further. I am not in a position to give a commitment regarding any appointment to the new board today except that I will follow the guidelines and indicators set out in the Bill which are appropriate.
Amendment No. 6 in the name of Deputy Woods requires the chief executive to be a member of the board. The effect of this amendment would be that the Minister, in appointing members of the board, would be required to appoint the chief executive of the board. The scheme as it stands does not have such a requirement, nor does the Bill. The Bill does not prohibit the chief executive from being appointed as a member of the board but the chief executive never has been appointed under any administration. It may be that he or she will be appointed as such in the years to come.
The chief executive is, as secretary to the board, present at all board meetings. In fulfilling that role the chief executive is in a position to brief the board on day to day activities and on the wide range of matters that arise from time to time. It is probable that the chief executive best fulfils that role by operating in that manner. That has certainly been the view of successive Ministers with responsibility for the Legal Aid Board. While the amendment would require the Minister to appoint the chief executive as a member of the board it ignores the provision in section 4 (4) (a) that members may serve only two terms.
The aim of the amendment appears to be to guarantee the chief executive membership of the board above anyone else. I am not disposed to such an amendment. I am satisfied that the system which has operated up to now is the best one. That is the system provided for in the Bill. The following semi-State organisations do not have the chief executive as a member of the board: FÁS, EEA, Teagasc, NRB, Pensions Board, BIN, Bord na gCon, LRC. For those reasons I regret I cannot accept this amendment.
It bothers me that the Minister kept referring to precedents and successive situations. The board is changing and being put on a statutory footing. The Minister is putting two staff members on the board and that has changed the situation. It is only in the light of this change that the question arises. It will not push it to a vote at this stage. If we are to be progressive and developmental we should not rely too much on the past, whether it is a year or two years ago. We should be prepared to work from here.
There is a change to the gender balance.
That was a Fianna Fáil-Labour policy adopted by all boards. I was part of that administration and I welcomed the initiative. Deputy Shatter referred to other incidents earlier. Each one could be debated because they were all in different contexts. It is only in the context of the change that I raise this issue. I was going to ask the Minister about the extent to which this applies in other boards but he covered that in the reply and I am satisfied with it.
I hope the Minister did not assume we intended that there would be a long list of voluntary organisations, each of which would have a nominee on the board. Of course that is not our intent. My suggestion is that two members of the board would come from voluntary organisations with the knowledge and experience which, in the view of the Minister, would be of assistance to the board. That is a reasonable request to which the Minister can accede quite readily. He has the power under section 4 (3) (a). All I ask is that he state on Committee Stage he is prepared to acknowledge the value of having such representatives on the board and say that he will at least consider it. In light of his response I will decide whether to put down an amendment on Report Stage.
The Minister said he could not accede to all the requests from various organisations. Six places on the board are fixed. There are six remaining places so he could have six organisations represented if he was so minded. I am not asking him to go that far. I am simply making the point that on one side of the equation one has the legal establishment and the board which is delivering the legal aid services. When combined this represents 50 per cent of the board — six out of 12. On the other side there are the consumers, the people who avail of legal aid.
The other six members of the Board are theoretically, supposed to represent the consumers but one has to be suspicious about the fact that those six places have been allocated to people more noted for their support of certain political parties than for their involvement with the main consumers of legal aid services. Some 97 per cent of the work of the law centres is concerned with family law. Most clients going to those centres are women and a number of very good organisations have been specifically set up to deal wiht the problems of women who encounter family law difficulties. It is not asking the Minister too much to give us an assurance that at least one of those organisations will be represented by one member on a Legal Aid Board comprising 12 or 13 members. The Minister should reconsider his attitude and give us an assurance in that regard.
All the members of the board represent the consumers. The primary function designated to all the members of the board under the Bill is to administer the scheme of free legal aid and advice; they all have that responsibility. I have listened to the points made but I am not in a position to give any indication as to the composition of the new board when this Bill is passed by both Houses. I will take into account the points made but I cannot give any commitment on the new board or how its membership may be structured other than to say that it will be in accordance with the qualification guidelines in the Bill.
I would be happy to withdraw amendment No. 6 and in relation to amendment No. 5, I give notice that I intend to propose some form of amendment, along the lines of ensuring that the non-governmental organisations have representation on the board. I ask the Minister to consider that for Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 6, subsection (4) (e), line 13, after "office" to insert" who has become incapable through ill-health of effectively performing his or her duties, or who has committed stated misbehaviour, or whose removal appears to the Minister be necessary for the effective performance by the Board of its functions"
The Minister must have good and sufficient reasons for terminating the appointment of a board member. Paragraph 217 of the scheme states that the Minister may remove from office any member of the board who has, through ill health, become incapable of effectively performing his duties or who has committed stated misbehaviour or whose removal appears to the Minister to be necessary for the effective performance by the board of its functions. The Minister is changing that position. I understand that this was discussed at considerable length in the Seanad and that the Minister undertook to consider it further but there does not seem to be any change in the Bill since it was passed by the Seanad.
The Minister could only remove members of the board for stated misconduct or incapacity under the scheme but under the Bill as it stands he can fire them at will. I do not understand why the Government wants this power. Is it part of a general centralisation of control by the Government? If so, it must be resisted. People do not want a Government controlled civil legal aid board. The Bill as it stands consolidates the Minister's position. Section 4 (4) (e) states that the Minister may at any time remove a member of the board from office. It is not possible to have any greater power than that. There is no greater opportunity to exert the influence of the Government or the Minister by having the power to fire a member at will. It is surprising that the Minister should seek this power because he has just appointed a whole board. It can be presumed that the members of the board are the best friends of the Minister and the Government so he will not have any difficulty in that regard.
Having appointed a board, it is surprising that the Minister immediately seeks the power to remove a member of the board from office at any time without conditions other than the operation of natural justice. Natural justice might be forgotten at the time but if there is a good civil servant there who realises how important that is, the Minister of the day would be reminded. This change is essential to return to the arrangement under the existing scheme. The change the Minister proposes would increase the power of the Minister and the Government. It is in line with other changes to the scheme proposed in this Bill which have been mentioned by my colleagues and by Deputy Keogh. Deputy Shatter has also recognised that there is an increasing centralisation of the Legal Aid Board. I propose this amendment to maintain the status quoin this case because it is a healthier situation.
I support this amendment and I agree with Deputy Woods. The Minister has undue influence over the running of the Civil Legal Aid Board. It is quite clear that if a member of the board does not dance to the Minister's tune, the Minister will remove that person. Has this power been brought in because other Ministers seem to have problems removing members with associations with the Fianna Fáil Party from State boards? The Minister will not have that problem if this provision is allowed to stand. This regulation does not apply to other State boards. Will we see this type of legislation brought in everywhere else?
In relation to staff members, I think the Minister told me at the end of Second Stage that the staff members would be appointed by themselves. Perhaps I am wrong in that. If that is the case, does the Minister still have the power to remove a staff member from the board and then appoint a staff member of his choice rather than somebody who is not doing what the Minister wants?
Before we stop for lunch, I will let the Minister reply.
Perhaps we could complete this item.
Other Members wish to speak on this issue.
It is now 1 p.m. I propose to suspend the meeting until 2 p.m. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Sitting suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.
I do not agree that the non-statutory scheme was quite as ineffective in this regard as Deputy Woods suggests. Section 217 of the Scheme of Civil Legal Aid and Advice states "or whose removal appears to the Minister to be necessary for the effective performance of the board or its functions". The power was there that if the Minister decided off his own bat that it was necessary to remove a board member he could do so. That was also in the non-statutory scheme. Section 4 (4) (e) states "The Minister may at any time remove a member of the board from office." There are a number of precedents for provisions along those lines. However, I am also aware that there are other precedents which exist on lines not unlike those proposed in amendment No. 7. Consequently, I am prepared to look further at the various precedents and to consider the question of an amendment on Report Stage. Under the circumstances, I ask Deputy Woods not to press his amendment at this Stage. The amendment in the Seanad was quite different from the thrust of what is proposed here.
I am happy in those circumstances to withdraw my amendment until Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 4 agreed to.