Amendment No. 9 is an alternative to amendment No. 8 and amendments Nos. 10 and 11 are related. Amendments Nos. 8 to 11, inclusive, may be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
SECTION 5.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 7, lines 20 to 23, to delete subsection (2) and substitute the following:
"(2) The Board may, to such extent and in such manner as it considers appropriate——
(a) advertise its services to the public,
(b) organise programmes of education for the purposes of informing citizens about their legal rights and entitlements,
(c) provide such other information services as it thinks fit, and
(d) undertake research projects.".
Section 5 deals with the functions of the board. The law centres currently provide information to the public and give talks to various groups. In the Seanad the Minister undertook to have a look at the role of the board in providing information and education. He appears in subsection (2) to have enabled the board to give out information about its services and not about the law or legal issues.
In amendment No. 9 we suggest that "in page 7, subsection (2), line 22, after "information" to insert "on the law and legal matters, and information"" to make it quite clear that they will be entitled to give information on these matters and to continue with what they have been doing up to now. Amendment No. 10 proposes to insert a subsection which states that "the Board shall endeavour to adequately inform and educate persons eligible for legal services under this Act as to their legal rights". Amendment No. 11 seeks to insert a subsection which states: "Nothing in this section shall prevent the Board from engaging in research related to its activities, or in the provision of information and education to the public on legal matters".
We feel strongly that the board should have a role in relation to education and research. The Pringle committee said very unequivocally that the board should deal with the dissemination of information on aspects of the law which are likely to concern those in need. The report stated:
Our view is that equality of access to the law is hindered not only by a lack of money but also by a lack of information. Financial support for litigation on its own certainly does not guarantee equality.
The Minister is very concerned with equality and I am sure he will appreciate that it is particularly important that those seeking advice from the Legal Aid Board know their rights in that regard and how to assert them. In many cases, they should know that they do not need full legal representation to establish their rights or entitlements. The Pringle Committee recommended that the staff of the law centres:
. . .should be free to assist in organising programmes of education on legal rights etc. This type of activity will be quite important if they are to make progress in identifying hidden needs. A degree of flexibility and imagination on the part of those who are responsible for legal aid services at administrative and political levels will be called for if centres are to develop as institutions which people in underprivileged areas can accept and trust.
There is no doubt the Pringle committee saw this as an important area. Added to this is the question of research and the fact that the board should participate and be involved in research related to specific activities.
Coming from a research background, I believe that any organisation that is not conducting research, even in a narrow, specific way, will not keep up with the times and will not be relevant to the needs of people. It is now accepted in industry and business that there should be research. While it is not undertaken as much as it should be, it is now accepted that research is part of a living organisation. It continues to be in the forefront and to provide the best advice and support for the people whom it serves. The board should, therefore, be empowered to provide for research.
The Minister said that the citizen's information centres would deal with the provision of this kind of information. While they may be able to give assistance in this respect, apparently only a small percentage of the queries — 15 per cent according to the most recent statistics available from the National Social Service Board — which go to the community information centres relate to legal aid issues. Explaining the process to people is especially important and they should be entitled to continue to do this. In this respect the Minister introduced an amendment in the Seanad which would enable them to disseminate information. Section 5 (2) states: "The Board shall, to such an extent and in such a manner as it considers appropriate, disseminate, for the benefit of those for whom its services are made available, information. . .". This is too narrow an interpretation of its role. It does not provide it with what it will need with regard to going beyond merely disseminating information, leaflets or whatever, and ensuring that it can, where appropriate and where it is called upon by FLAC and community law centres such as the Coolock Community Law Centre, give talks and even participate in an educational programme.
These are the two issues we wish to see covered under the section. It is the purpose of our amendments. Amendment No. 8 in the name of Deputy Keogh is closely related and doubtless she will wish to comment on it.
I apologise for arriving late to the committee. Not alone is the committee meeting on this Bill, the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Women's Rights is meeting the Minister for Justice with regard to the whole area of the courts and so on. There is a very interesting discussion at that meeting which, unfortunately, I had to leave and which bears very much on our deliberations.
The issue of education is critical. It goes back to having a vision of what the Legal Aid Board should be about, and addresses the limitation of the powers of the board. Amendment No. 8 is extensive. Deputy Woods refers to research projects, and subsection (d) of the amendment states that the board may "undertake research projects.". The Minister made some gesture towards what was required, but it is a minimalist response. Deputy Woods has already quoted the relevant subsection, section 5 (2). However, this still leaves the role of the board in this area static.
During the debate on Second Stage, I said that there could be a more proactive and interactive role for the board to the extent that people such as ourselves could benefit from its experience. The area of education does not, therefore, merely relate to mere dissemination of information. It is also concerned with reaching out, discussing issues and learning from the experience of others. It is not just about advertising a service, although that is a difficulty because many people are not aware of the availability of the service. It is certainly an important function, and that is why I have included a provision for it under amendment No. 8. Subsection (b) states that the board may "organise programmes of education for the purposes of informing citizens about their legal rights and entitlements,". There is no need to corral this kind of information or dissemination within a citizen's information centre when there is so much available within the remit of the Legal Aid Board. It is an appropriate kind of role for the board, and it could be widened. The Minister has gone some way to address this.
Amendment No. 8 (c) states that the board may "provide such other information services as it thinks fit, . . .". I have included this because the board, acting at the coal face, may be more reactive and proactive. Subsection (d) then goes on to provide that the board may "undertake research projects". There is much to be learned and the impetus should come from within the Legal Aid Board. In this respect we should direct the board to undertake various activities, and not hold it back; we should allow it as wide a socpe as possible.
I do not suggest that the board should turn from its main remit — to provide a service — to becoming some kind of research agency. However, as a developmental matter, it is important that it be given these powers. There is no need for me to rehearse the recommendations of the Pringle committee as they have been well aired in the various debates in the Seanad. However, many of its recommendations should be taken on board. This has not happened to the required extent.
The approach adopted by the Minister, although welcome, is minimalist. Section 5 (2) does no more than restate the existing position. Nobody doubts that the law centres are entitled to print information leaflets and disseminate information regarding the services they provide. The subsection simply puts this on a statutory basis. What the law centres have been doing in this regard has not been effective. The subsection will no more than allow the law centres to do what they have been doing already, which has not been every effective, as starkly demonstrated by a survey by FLAC in 1991 which found that 58 per cent of people surveyed were unaware of the existence of a system of free legal aid. That does not say much for the reaching out or the dissemination of information that has been done on a voluntary basis by the law centres to date and which they are now being statutorily allowed to do.
The Pringle committee has been referred to and it made the point that one can have a legal aid system narrowly focused or more broadly focused and it came down heavily in favour of the more broadly focused system. We have opted for the more narrowly focused legal aid system which consists simply of subsidising people who become aware they are entitled to legal aid and who apply for it. That is the system we are reinforcing and building on in this legislation.
I agree with the Pringle committee in that it saw the purpose of a proper system of civil legal aid as making the law as accessible as possible to disadvantaged people. The Minister will be aware that disadvantaged people and people living in disadvantaged areas do not avail of the civil legal aid scheme, not only because they are poor, uneducated or ill-informed but because of the vast psychological gulf that often exists between them and the panoply of the legal profession.
The Pringle committee saw this a problem, a gulf that had to be bridged, and it recommended a more broadly focused system of civil legal aid. The more broadly focused system recommended by the Pringle committee would be only marginally more expensive than the more narrowly focused system we have in place.
The failure of the more narrowly focused system which we are now reinforcing and building on is demonstrated starkly by the FLAC survey. It shows that after 15 years of operation only 42 per cent of people in disadvantaged areas who were surveyed were aware there was a legal aid system.
I urge the Minister to take the direction recommended by the Pringle committee. The foundation upon which we are building is too narrow; we are losing this opportunity to broaden the base and get a system akin to that more sensible system recommended by Pringle. It may be marginally more expensive but it will be designed to make the law more accessible in the fullest sense of the word. People who are not informed or are not aware of their rights will not avail of them. It is no good concentrating on the subsidisation system, simply subsidising people who are sufficiently aware to pursue their rights.
Amendment No. 11 is sensible and the Minister should accept it. The Minister will be aware that people dealing with these problems at the coal face are aware or become aware of lacunae in the law which might not otherwise readily come to light. The function of the Law Reform Commission is to recommend changes in the law in areas specifically referred to it by the Government. People working at the coal face will be aware of certain legal problems as they arise. They should not be prevented or see themselves as being prevented, rather they should be statutorily allowed to do a report or research on an area of the law that is causing difficulties and make recommendations for change, as Deputy Woods's amendment seeks. That is reasonable and is a function proper to a properly functioning civil legal aid system.
I find it somewhat strange for Deputy O'Dea and Deputy Woods to argue basic changes in this Bill which was agreed by the previous Government, of which Deputy Woods was a member. He has been critical of a number of key aspects and one sometimes wonders how the public responds to politicians when it sees that this Bill was agreed by the previous Government in all it aspects, apart from a number of alterations made in the Seanad.
I thought the previous Government fell out; it did not agree to anything at the end of the day.
The Bill was agreed by the previous Government. Deputy Keogh had no hand or part in that, but Deputy Woods did directly and Deputy O'Dea indirectly. Deputy O'Dea says the system is not working effectively as 50 per cent of people do not know about it, referring to a FLAC survey which was, incidentally, carried out in 1991 before I arranged for the major expansion of the service.
Thousands of people know about it because thousands of people avail of it. Notwithstanding the fact that the waiting lists have been drastically reduced from the levels at which I found them, there are still waiting lists although they are short. It is not as though there are solicitors hanging about the law centres waiting for somebody to come in who could otherwise fill their time and energies better doing legal research which the Law Reform Commission is commissioned to do. They are up to their eyes with waiting lists, dealing with cases and going to court, performing the functions for which the law centres were set up — to provide legal aid for people who need it and who are awaiting appointments to have their court cases dealt with.
Does anybody seriously suggest they should be taken off that work to start complex, major legal research which the ordinary practising solicitor might not have the resources to do, let alone legal aid solicitors? One should be objective about this.
Section 5 sets out the principal functions of the Legal Aid Board and states that the functions are to provide within its resources — remember the resources are fixed from year to year — legal aid and advice in civil cases to people who satisfy the requirements of this Bill. The section was amended in the Seanad to ensure the board would, for the benefit of those for whom the services are made available, disseminate information in relation to those services and their availability.
There is nothing in the Bill that precludes the board from providing information to individuals or organisations, where appropriate. On the contrary, section 6 of the Bill provides that the Minister may, by order, assign to the board such additional functions as are considered incidental to or consequential on the functions assigned to it under the Bill. Section 37 provides that the Minister may, by regulation, make provision for such matters. I am satisfied the board can be relied on to provide the necessary information to the public and, if the need arises, it will be possible under the Bill as it stands to make ministerial orders or regulations to deal with the matter.
That said, the 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 said in the Seanad, over 90 per cent of the cases of legal aid relate to family law, and I hope Deputies will agree this is and must continue to be our first priority.
There was a reference to the Pringle committee whose report led to the establishment of the scheme of civil legal aid and advice and envisaged a role for the board in the provision of legal information to the public. However, at the time it reported in 1977, the committee envisaged that law centres would be concerned primarily with the provision of legal advice, rather than legal aid. The practical experience of the last 15 years has shown the opposite to be the case. Law centres now spend by far the greater proportion of their time providing legal aid for court proceedings to members of the public.
As I said in the Seanad, the NSSB which was set up in 1984 is a resource agency, the aim of which is to inform and empower individual citizens and communities by ensuring they are aware of their civil and social rights and entitlements and of the services which exist to support them. At the time the Pringle committee reported the NSSB did not exist. In many respects the information and education role which the Pringle committee envisaged would be undertaken by the Legal Aid Board centres is being provided through the citizens' information centres registered with the NSSB. At present there are a total of 82 citizens' information centres nationwide registered with the NSSB, which receive an annual grant from the Department of Health in excess of £1.2 million. It might also be of interest to Deputies to know that in recent years a review was carried out by the legal aid efficiency scrutiny team in the UK into the role the legal aid service should play in the provision of information. It recommended that the first port of call for citizens seeking information and advice on their civil and social rights and entitlements should normally not be a solicitor employed by the Legal Aid Board but an advice agency such as a citizens' advice or information bureau; I share that view. The matter was discussed at length in the Seanad.
Deputy Keogh asked about our vision of law centres. The vision of law centres, for the short term at any rate, is of organisations providing legal aid and advice and representation in court on an efficient, quick and speedy basis which provides ease of access and which is fully professional, skilled and up-to-date. I am working towards this and substantial progress has been made in this area but more remains to be done. We have not yet reached the position when we could even consider expanding the areas of remit of the Legal Aid Board, much less engage in legal research. This is not realistic, the previous Government knew this when it prepared this Bill and this is why it was introduced in this format. For these reasons, regrettably, I am unable to accept the amendments.
I understand what the Minister is saying and I do not want to go overboard on this issue. When I spoke earlier about education, I said I did not see that we could turn the Legal Aid Board into some sort of research institute rather than it continuing to provide representation and advice. However, as Deputy O'Dea pointed out, people who deal with the law on a day to day basis are in a good position to understand its effects and how it does or does not work.
There should be some structure to enable us as legislators and other bodies to learn from this experience. This does not mean we have to turn the board into a research institute, which we do not want it to be, but it means we can have a proactive role so that, as well as fire fighting and dealing with specific cases, we can learn about what does and does not work. This is a reasonable point but it is not catered for in the Bill. If the Minister is not happy with my amendment, I would be happy to redraw it or he could introduce an amendment on Report Stage. I do not think we should put up barriers on this issue.
I am disappointed with the Minister's attitude when he questioned the bona fides of Deputy Woods and raised questions about the public perception of politicians. Whatever about the public perception of politicians, I can tell the Minister about its perception of Labour Party policians, which is that they are political acrobats who keep their balance by doing the opposite to what they said they would do.
The Minister congratulated himself on eliminating delays and I agree he has provided money which has increased the number of law centres and has, to some extent, eliminated delays, but he did so with money provided by the then Minister for Finance, Deputy Bertie Ahern, when the Labour Party was in Government with Fianna Fáil. This funding was agreed with the majority party in Government.
I agree.
In the other hand, in the early 1990s a person from Limerick seeking a judicial separation, had to wait 18 months for legal aid and there was a delay of a further year before the issue went to court. Delays in the provision of legal aid have now been reduced to between three and six months and I applaud this. However, the delay in going to court has increased to two and a half years. Therefore, the period between the time people seek help and can go to court to vindicate their rights has not shortened and the delays in the courts, which are increasing every day, are the responsibility of the Government of which the Minister is a member.
The Minister gave the game away when he said solicitors in law centres were not waiting for business. If they advertise the fact that the legal aid service is widely available, more people will avail of it, they will learn they have rights which they never thought they had, queues will again increase and the Government will have to provide more money but this is the way it should be. A legal aid service which serves fewer than half the people it is supposed to serve is not much good and only half as valuable as it should be.
With regard to research, the Minister has the wrong end of the stick. We are not talking about legal aid solicitors taking time off, they would not have this time as they are hard working conscientious people. We are not talking about them taking six month sabbaticals to do esoteric research in some fine point of law.
We are talking about practical problems in the operation of the law which legal aid solicitors come across everyday. They notice things which are wrong and could be easily rectified. We simply envisage a situation where somebody in a law centre can be told by whoever is in charge of the centre to do research on an issue for a half a day, a day or a weekend so that it can be recommended to the Government or the relevant Minister what can be done to straighten out the problem in question. It may be because legislation was interpreted in a way which was not intended or because of a genuine gap in the law. Legislators and parliamentary draftsmen are not perfect.
The Minister will be aware that citizens information centres are, by and large, staffed by volunteers. People who made submissions to me — I am sure they are the same people who made submissions to the Minister — envisaged that the structure of legal aid would be recast and that these centres would be the first port of call with the right to refer people to legal aid centres. Only 15 per cent of the problems with which these centres deal are legal. This is very far removed from the recommendation of the Pringle committee which was that the system of civil legal aid should be more broadly focused. I am strongly of this view and I heard nothing from the Minister or the Government side to disabuse me of this. We are building on a narrow base, for marginally more money we could have a much broader base and a more equitable system. This is our last opportunity to achieve this.
Since I went into Opposition I do not know what the papers are talking about in relation to our difficulties in this position. Government representatives and Ministers talk about the situation when we were in Government. As far as I am concerned, we have been in Opposition since December and we are passing on with matters from that position. Because of the allocation of functions in our party, I have a duty in relation to this area which I did not have in a particular way previously, even though I had a general duty and responsibility. I previously relied on the Minister and trusted him. Was I right?
One of the commitments in the Government programme was a provision for tribunals. The Minister may feel he has the power to enable the board to do some of these things if it or he wishes. However, information, education and research are of such importance that it would be preferable to cover them explicity in this Bill. Deputy Keogh's amendment comes to the same conclusion as ours but expresses it in a different way. It is broadly similar to our amendment and we support it. It is an important amendment. Why should the Minister stonewall on this question when solicitors, FLAC and Members say these matters should be covered explicitly? The community law centre in Coolock put some time into analysing this Bill and this has been a great help. If that is the case, why not provide for these matters in the Bill, not leave them to the whim of the Minister of the day and say they can have a function in this regard?
Committee Stage of a Bill is the ultimate in openness in our democratic system. I get annoyed when people want to rush legislation through without dealing with it adequately. That is how bad legislation is introduced. It may be a nuisance to go through it in fine detail. The people who want a soundbite may be happy but we are obliged to pursue it in greater detail. Having had an extensive discussion on this matter, I ask the Minister to look at this question again.
Deputy O'Dea said the waiting time to avail of the Limerick law centre was 18 months in 1991. I am pleased to inform him that it is now down to one month. I know the Deputy will be pleased to hear that.
That is great news.
Deputy Keogh is right. Ideas and thoughts as to how the service is progressing are picked up all the time by solicitors in the law centres and that information comes back to the Department. I also pick it up when I visit the law centres, which I do regularly, and discuss with solicitors how their work is going and what problems they are experiencing. Therefore, it is a mistake to think there is no interplay or exchange of information between the solicitors in the law centres, myself and my Department. Many of these improvements have been widely welcomed. The Domestic Violence Bill, for example, emanated from discussions I had with, and suggestions made by, various solicitors in law centres across the country. There is interplay and feedback.
I have already dealt with the question of research and it is not realistic. However, providing information is realistic and important. Legal education is an inappropriate description. We are talking about giving information about the services available and people's right in connection to them. That is now provided for in the amended Bill. I accepted an amendment in this regard on Report Stage in the Seanad, although I cannot remember which Senator proposed it. I did what many Deputies suggested, by leaving the discretion for its arrangements in the hands of the board. Many Deputies said the discretion on what to do and how to do it should be left to the discretion of the board to the maximum possible extent. I have provided for this in such a manner as the board considers appropriate; it may disseminate, inform and so on. The board prepares leaflets. I saw some of the documentation prepared in many of the law centres and it is excellent.
The board may decide, as necessary or appropriate, what to do. It may do this at its discretion under section 5 (2) and I have no problem with that. I encourage it to do this to the maximum possible extent. However, it should not cut across the basic priority aim of the law centres and the service, which is to provide people with the aid and advice they need.
I ask Deputies to accept my response. I met the matter as best I could by taking on board the Seanad amendment which now appears in section 5 (2). Substantial progress is being made in the service. It is very much improved from that in 1990 and 1991. I do not know how accurate or widespread the 1991 FLAC survey was, but these increases must be because of the fact that there are many new centres operating and because of the dissemination of information, people are becoming more aware of their rights. They are using the service and thousands of people are going through the doors of our law centres.
Is amendment No. 8 being pressed?
Yes. The Minister has reacted to our arguments to some extent. However, I wish to press this amendment because the people working at this level are looking for an amendment of this nature and I want to state their case.
As there are fewer than 22 Members present, under Standing Orders we are obliged to wait eight minutes or until a full membership is present before proceeding to take the division.
Amendment put.
The Select Committee divided: Tá, 9; Níl, 12.
|
Tá |
|
|
Browne (Wexford), John. Ellis, John. Kenneally, Brendan. Keogh, Helen. |
O'Dea, Willie. O'Donoghue, John. Smith, Michael. Wallace, Dan. Woods, Michael J. |
|
Níl |
|
|
Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny), John. |
Mulvihill, John. |
|
Creed, Michael, |
O'Keeffe, Jim. |
|
Harte, Paddy. |
Shatter, Alan. |
|
McCormack, Pádraic. |
Timmins, Godfrey. |
|
McDowell, Derek. |
Walsh, Eamon. |
|
McGinley, Dinny. |
Taylor, Mervyn. |
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 7, subsection (2), line 22, after "information", to insert "on the law and legal matters, and information".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 7, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following subsection:
"(3) The Board shall endeavour to adequately inform and educate persons eligible for legal services under this Act as to their legal rights."
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 11
In page 7, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following subsection:
"(4) Nothing in this section shall prevent the Board from engaging in research related to its activities, or in the provision of information and education to the public on legal matters.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.