Amendments Nos. 17, 18, 19 and 21 are related and may be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
SECTION 11.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 8, lines 33 and 34, to delete subsection (3).
This section is central to the Bill and relates to the staff of the board. Subsection (1) states that: "....the Board may appoint such number of persons to the staff of the Board as may be approved by the Minister." Subsection (3) states that: "An officer of the Board shall, upon his other appointment as such, be a civil servant in the Civil Service of the State."
Amendment No. 17 calls for the deletion of subsection (3). The board should be empowered to recruit its own staff, who would be staff of the board and not civil servants. If this principle is accepted, it will be necessary to insert a new subsection which is catered for under amendment No. 21 and would be a transitional arrangement towards the independence of the board.
Amendment No. 18 involves the deletion of subsection (5), while amendment No. 19 proposes the deletion of subsection (6). Amendment No. 21 proposes that the following new subsection be inserted:
A member of the staff of the Board shall not be a civil servant within the meaning of the Civil Service Regulations Act, 1956, but, notwithstanding the foregoing, civil servants in the Civil Service of the State on secondment to the Board on establishment day may continue to be seconded to the Board for a period not exceeding one year from establishment day.
This provides for a transitional arrangement. At present, under subsection (5) and subsection (6), the position of solicitors recruited after the Act comes into operation is not clear. Must a solicitor be appointed initially by the board and then become a civil servant? My view is that the board should recruit its own staff.
This is a fundamental issue and was discussed at Second Stage. This board should be clearly seen to be independent in its operation and free to develop its services within certain parameters set out in the Bill. The Minister has a great deal of power, by regulation and by order, to make amendments within the general framework of the Bill.
In Australia, the report of the National Legal Aid Advisory Committee 1993-1994 considered the question of the independence of the Legal Aid Commission in great detail. The committee concluded that the notion of independence in relation to legal aid commissions was initially directed towards ensuring their independence to act against Government — whether as the initiating party or defence — uninhibited by Government interference. Consequently, they suggested that there are two elements to independence from Government control. The first was that employees should not be servants of the Crown and the second that they should not be subject to ministerial direction and control. The committee gave a great deal of time and consideration to this issue and came to the same conclusion as I did, from my consideration of this Bill. The board should be established separately from Government. It should be independent, and seen to be independent, in its operations. The Government should not be afraid to allow the board to pursue its tasks in an independent manner.
Consequently, the staff should not be tied into the Government as civil servants. A principal theme running through the Bill is centralisation and control. Somebody — we do not know if it is the Minister, the Government or the Department — is afraid to allow the Legal Aid Board to stand on its own feet with its own staff and do the job given to it. Members of the committee, including Deputy Shatter on the Government side, have pointed out that obvious conflicts of interest arise, especially if one includes suggestions to be addressed later by the committee regarding, for example, the provision of tribunals in certain limited circumstances. In this respect the Minister has an open mind, as long as he can find a way to deal with tribunals, such as the Employment Appeals Tribunal, in such a way that it does not become abused.
With regard to the powers to set up tribunals, the situation could, and should, arise where the board could be asked to inquire into an issue which may affect the Government. An example is the issue of equal treatment, raised by Deputy Shatter, which is one of the biggest issues of its kind in the history of the State. Equal treatment was not introduced at the end of 1984 as it should have been, although arrangements had been made prior to that date for it to be introduced. However, presumably the Government was short of money at the time, given that it would have wished to see equal treatment implemented. It decided not to introduce it then, but ultimately did so in the latter stages of 1986, but without providing for any retrospection. In consequence cases arose which went as far as the European Court.
Given the powers the board has at present, would it have been possible to take such cases under the Free Legal Aid Scheme? If so, much difficulty and pain might have been saved over the years. In any event, cases were taken up by a number of people, including, I understand, Deputy Shatter and the organisation with which he was involved. Others, who are Members of the House, also became involved because they knew what was going on and had legal views on the matter as they were involved in the legal profession. They pursued cases which took a long time to resolve. Indeed, Deputy Shatter refers to the length of time taken up by Ministers on these cases.
However, Ministers' time was taken up with the complexity of the cases and the fact that the High Court had to refer them to the European Court to have them resolved. When they were resolved in 1991, the then Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy McCreevy, acted immediately to pay the arrears. Arguments followed as to whether steps taken were right or sufficient and some additional theoretical elements had to be — and were — pursued further. When this arose, I decided that a test case was required to resolve matters. This duly followed and matters were eventually resolved on the basis of this test case. It is, therefore, amazing that those involved in the legal profession can say that the cases could have been resolved in a simple manner. There was nothing simple about them. They became very complex and ultimately very expensive.
In such cases, it would be far better to take a test case against the Government. Regardless of who is in Government there should be a system in our public administration that allows for resolving these issues. In this respect the Minister for Social Welfare is critical that solicitors have pursued so many cases and have charged fees in respect of them. However, there must be a system in place which can oppose the Government and resolve issues, especially where they are complex.
Deputy Shatter appeared to suggest that there were other issues which could go further and which were not resolved as everybody was not necessarily satisfied. This remains to be seen.
It is hard to satisfy everybody.
It is, as some of those who have been critical over the years will find out. The board should be independent in the operation of its functions. The staff should be the staff of the board and should be given the independence to operate these functions. The board should be independent to ensure that, with regard to our public administration system, it should be able to act against the Government where necessary to resolve a matter, and this should include an ability to take a test case. If I were a Government Minister I would be happy for the board to have this power. Reviews, such as judicial reviews can be called for, but it is desirable that the board has the independence to operate in a free, vigorous and open way. That is the kind of society we have become and we should provide for this.
I, and others on this side of the House are disappointed that the Minister is making the staff into civil servants who will be responsible to him no matter what way you look at it because that is where their bread and butter and opportunities for advancement will derive. We want to see the board independent and operate independently. I do not mind what people said one, two or three years ago. The committee should face the situation as it is today, and as we consider it to be in Dáil Éireann.
During the debate on Second Stage I was impressed with the arguments put forward by Deputy Woods. This morning I referred to the semi civil service board, and expressed concern about it. I am also concerned with autonomy and independence and the way in which it is perceived. Much of what happens regarding the workings of the board has to do with the perception of people. No matter what the intent might be, it is part of the equation and one must be aware of this. If people see this as a Civil Service board they will take a certain view of it.
There are a couple of elements which I raised on Second Stage which, to my disappointment, the Minister made no reply. They represent genuine gaps.
For instance, if the board appoints somebody to the staff of the board and that officer will be a civil servant, what is their position in relation to the rest of the Civil Service? How will other people who aspire to enter the Civil Service feel if people in the Civil Legal Aid Board become civil servants? Will they have entry to the general Civil Service?
The suggestion in Deputy Woods's amendment is that civil servants will be seconded to the board. If they are to be civil servants they will come in through the Civil Service on secondment for a period not exceeding one year from establishment day. What is the reason for the period of one year?
That is to cater for the people who are already in on secondment. They will come through the Civil Service Commission now anyway.
How can that be? Will people come in through the Civil Service Commission and be interviewed by them or will they be appointed directly by the board?
Deputy Shatter referred to the fact that solicitors will become civil servants. What future possibilities are being opened up? Perhaps this has all been well thought through but I would like to hear the arguments for it. I do not like the idea in the first place. The board should operate separately and appoint its own staff. Will it operate like the EEA? Such bodies should be autonomous. Expertise is built up and people wish to make careers in a certain sector. Some people feel that being appointed to separate boards isolates them and diminishes their career prospects.
What possibilities will be opened up by having civil servants on the board? Would it not be better to have the board autonomously appoint the staff?
If people are appointed to the staff of the Legal Aid Board and, thereby become civil servants, can they transfer or request to be transferred to other areas of the Civil Service and come into the mainstream? Will the same apply to solicitors employed by the Civil Legal Aid Board if the Minister uses the power to make them civil servants? Will they also come into the mainstream of the Civil Service?
Deputy Woods asked whether the married women seeking arrears would have been entitled to civil legal aid. It seems there is a conflict in the Bill in relation to that question. On the one hand, class actions are excluded and on the other hand there is a subsection by which the fact that another person may benefit from a case taken by one individual will not necessarily preclude that individual from getting legal aid. I would like the Minister to clarify that.
I am disappointed in the philosophy which underlies the section. Subsection (3) states that the Legal Aid Board will be independent in the exercise of its functions. That seems to be stated only for the sake of it. As we go through the sections the Minister is taking upon himself dictatorial — almost Stalinist — powers over the operation of the Legal Aid Board — I do not mean to make any allusion to the Labour Party in mentioning that.
This is the last straw. The legal aid solictors who are supposed to represent members of the public independently and without fear or favour will become civil servants. What will the position be when a Government Department is a potential defendant in a case? Can people who work for the Government act without fear or favour and with total independence and vigour when their political masters are on the other side?
Deputy Woods referred to the report of the Australian Law Commission which considered such an arrangement in some detail and concluded it is inappropriate. I ask the Minister to reconsider. Nobody would suggest the courts should be an arm of Government or under political control. We must remember the functions of the Civil Legal Aid Board are of a quasi-judicial nature. It has an important function to decide who will be assisted with taxpayers' money to vindicate their legal rights. Quasi-judicial functions should not be performed by an agency which is only an arm of Government.
The notion of independence which the Minister has included in the Bill and with which we all agree is becoming a chimera. It is like the legendary ship the Marie Celeste which disappeared into the mists. We do not know what happened to the Marie Celeste but we know what happened to the independence of the Civil Legal Aid Board. It has disappeared because the Minister prefers it to operate as an arm of Government rather than in a vigorous, independent and separate way. That is the way in which any organisation with a quasi-judicial function of the importance of the Civil Legal Aid Board should operate.
It should be independent and separate, and people representing those who seek legal aid should be able to operate without fear or favour. They cannot and will not be able to do so if the Legal Aid Board is simply an arm of Government and its employees are in the full-time employ of the Government. Common sense tells us that; we do not have to be experts or have detailed knowledge to realise that. What has been said reinforces that view.
We had agreed to finish at 4 p.m. but we could, by agreement, go on to 5 p.m. to finish consideration of the Bill.
If the Minister is helpful we should have a reasonable chance of finishing.
Unfortunately, some of the amendments have been ruled out of order.
That may be a help. I call on Deputy Kemmy and offer him our congratulations on becoming Mayor of Limerick.
Thank you, Chairman, for your kind words. I am reluctant to intervene in the debate. Deputy Woods made an eloquent plea for the independence of the board and, in an abstract way, I support that concept. However, there is a more important consideration which is that the board would work in an efficient way, the law centres under the control of the board would deliver the service to the people who need it in an efficient way and the people employed in the centres and by the board would be qualified and competent people who would do their jobs in a competent and committed way. These are the most important considerations, more so than the points made by Deputy Woods.
In my limited experience of dealing with such matters there was a long wait for poeple who went to the law centres and people were often mystified and befuddled by meeting a receptionist at the law centres instead of a solictor. The waiting lists have been cut and more people are being seen. It is important to have a uniformly efficient standard in the law centres throughout the country, that the board works in an efficient impartial way, and that the people who need the services of the centres are treated with courtesy and compassion. People are often distressed when they go to public representatives' clinics and we send them to law centres. It is not good enough for a person going to a law centre to just meet a receptionist. An early consultation with a solicitor could achieve a great deal. I ask the Minister to reassure us that the centres will work in an effective, efficient and compassionate way.
The point made by Deputy Woods is an abstract one where he says that independence is of paramount importance. Who guards the guards and who will guarantee the independence of the board? We can play about with the word "independence" but it is more important for the board to be staffed by capable, competent people who will deliver a service to those who need it in the most effective way possible.
The Minister has already said twice, on sections 1 and 5, that this legislation was approved by the previous Government. That suggests that no section should ever be amended when it has been agreed by Government. If the Minister looks at the records he will see that he brought in more amendments on Committee Stage to various Bills than anybody else. It is ridiculous to suggest that——
I was a very hard working backbencher.
I am talking about when the Minister was in Government. It is a smokescreen to suggest that just because this was agreed by the previous Government we should go along with every part of it.
That is a true reflection.
It also appears under this section that not only does the Minister want to control the board, which he can summarily dismiss whenever he desires, he now wants to control the solicitors by making them civil servants. Perhaps, the Minister is engaging in his own form of decentralisation in that we will have 22 or 24 offices of the Department of Equality and Law Reform dotted around the country. They will not be legal aid boards but will all be part of the Department of Equality and Law Reform, which is regrettable.
It is extremely important that the solicitors remain independent. Those who go into law centres do not want to go to the Department of Equality and Law Reform or the Department of Justice to look for representation. They want to be independently represented, particularly if they take a case against an arm of Government. Deputy Shatter outlined that position very well this morning. The items which drag on longest at constituency clinics — and I am sure we all have these experiences — are those in relation to citizenship or naturalisation. With the greatest respect to the civil servants present, they are past masters at delaying proceedings. It is nonsense to proceed in this way and I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.
If solicitors become civil servants what promotion rights will they have? Will they be able to go only to a certain grade while administrative staff will be able to go further? If they become part of the mainstream Civil Service there may be some inbuilt discrimination against them.
Civil servants are subject to the Official Secrets Act. How would that affect how open the members or employees of the board could be?
Section 11 of the Bill provides for the appointment of staff of the board and provides, among other things, that staff currently employed by the board who are civil servants be made civil servants of the State. It also provides that staff currently employed by the board who are not civil servants may also be made civil servants of the State if that is their wish. The effect of Deputy Woods's amendments would be to remove Civil Service status from the staff of the board who area already civil servants and also remove the provision whereby non-civil servant members of the board may be made civil servants if they wish.
To ensure an orderly transition of the board from administrative to statutory status, and to ensure that the board retains the highly experienced and capable staff it has at present, the board and my Department, in consultation with the Department of Finance, engaged in a long series of meetings with the trade unions representing solicitors and administrative staff. As a result of those meetings, detailed provisions which were acceptable to all parties have been agreed and their framework is contained in section 11 of the Bill.
I am not willing or able, as the amendments propose, to ignore the best interests of staff and the board. I strongly reject assertions made by Deputy Woods on Second Stage that solicitors of the board would somehow be less independent if they were to become civil servants, there is no basis for that assertion and it would have been better if it had never been made. Many staff would rightly feel, mystified by the assertion.
Deputy Woods's objection to my approach is based on the theoretical argument which suggests that members of the public who want to take actions against the Department of Equality and Law Reform or the State will be concerned about the independence of the board because its staff are, by and large, members of the Civil Service. I cannot accept there is any validity in that suggestion.
Whether the board's solicitors are civil servants in the Civil Service of the State, or otherwise, they will, ultimately, be paid out of Exchequer funds. That is the unavoidable reality. To suggest, however, that those solicitors will be inhibited in acting against the State because they are ultimately paid by the Exchequer is to do a disservice to a highly trained and remarkably committed group of people. As I pointed out on numerous occasions, in the Dáil and Seanad, I hold the board's solicitors in the highest regard. I know that they are committed to the principle of equality of access to justice and that they would never contemplate abandoning a client in any circumstances.
Staff in both the Ombudsman's Office and the Garda Complaints Board are civil servants in the Civil Service of the State. I have never heard any criticism of those offices in respect of their independence. Similarly, most of the staff in Leinster House are civil servants in the Civil Service of the State and I have never heard any suggestion that they are anything other than impartial in carrying out their functions. I see no difference between those staff and those of the Legal Aid Board.
On Second Stage, Deputy Woods referred to the 1993-94 report of the Australian National Legal Aid Advisory Committee in support of his argument.
On page 14 of that report the committee stated:
It was clear to the NLAAC that the independence of commissions from Government was never intended to be absolute. Rather, their independence is directed towards ensuring that they are uninhibited by Government interference. Subject to the requirement of independence of this form, the commissions were to carry out their duties and functions in accordance with their governing legislation.
I am more than satisfied that the independence which the board requires, and which was envisaged by the Australian NLAAC, is ensured by amendment No. 13.
If Deputy Woods is, on the other hand, more concerned about public perception than the real effect of having solicitors as civil servants, I would point out that the bottom line is that the solicitors will, at the end of the day, always be paid from Exchequer funds. This fact remains unalterable. Any change in the provisions of the Bill could only have two effects, the first simply to mask the fact that the board's solicitors are employees of the State and the second be disimprove the industrial relations climate within the board. I regret, therefore, that I cannot make any changes to the Bill which will disimprove it and, for that reason, I cannot accept these amendments.
The Minister read a prepared statement and I strongly criticise what is going on behind the scenes. We are talking about the Oireachtas, which is the overall governing body in our democracy, and what the approach should be in the interests of the people. It is hideous of the Minister to use the staff as a shield for his centralisation of the Legal Aid Board. This is what he is trying to do and I doubt if what he said is true because I believe some of the staff——
Is the Deputy suggesting I said something untrue?
I am suggesting that some of what the Minister read is not true because I doubt if all the staff want to be civil servants. When the Minister referred to the Australian commission, he did not refer to the point I made about the necessity for independence. He stated that commission said independence should not be absolute. The Minister, or whoever wrote the statement for him, took the trouble to refer to part of my Second Stage speech. In another part of that speech I said that it was part of the conclusion of the commission that this power should not be absolute. I said there is no suggestion that the independence of legal authorities was never intended to be absolute. The Minister should not misquote what I said because this is what I specifically said on Second Stage. The person who prepared that note for the Minister made a blunder. The commission made it clear the board should be independent but that its independence should not be absolute and should relate to the work within its remit.
The purpose of the Bill is to set down the functions and policies to be pursued by the board. The Minister came to the point which is behind a great deal of his thinking. He sees the money for the board as coming from the State and that, therefore, the State should control its activities in a direct, centralised way. This is where we differ. Many semi-State bodies to whom functions are given and the funds for which come from the State are allowed to get on with the job. We want to see a vigorous and progressive Legal Aid Board being able to participate in education relevant to its activities and in research. We want to see it doing a better and more comprehensive job and being able to undertake certain kinds of test cases. We see a developmental and important role for the board in the future and being given a brief from the Oireachtas and reporting to and being in a general way responsible to the Minister but not being under his thumb or that of the Department.
We were alerted to this issue when the Minister and the Department intervened publicly in an appointment to a position in Monaghan. When the Keegan study was completed, it transpired that the board had been entirely honourable and correct in what it did. The Minister does not need to worry that those who make up the board will go wildly astray, especially when we consider the controls he has over it, including appointing members to the board.
With regard to the workings of the board, I am concerned that the Minister has tried to present a fait accompli to the Oireachtas. It is not right for the Minister to pre-empt and presume the outcome of the proceedings of the Oireachtas. Until the Bill is passed and the President signs it, the Minister and his Department should not make the arrangements which derive from it. I cannot accept the Minister’s approach, his statement is political and designed for outside these discussions and not for consideration of the issues before us. I will press the amendment.
The Minister said the majority of solicitors wanted to be civil servants but this is not relevant. The Legal Aid Board does not exist exclusively for its staff and the solicitors who work for it but for the benefit of the people availing of its services. We must consider whether a truly independent Legal Aid Board would provide a better service for the consumers of legal services than a board completely controlled by the Government and which, in effect, is an arm of the State, which is the type of board proposed in the Bill. The Minister said there is no basis for saying people would be in any way more inhibited than if they were civil servants. If people were employed on contracts as solicitors in law centres for a number of years and the public perception of their performance was not good, they could be let go at the end of that period, whereas if they were civil servants they cannot be let go. All they would have to do is go through the motions and there would be no incentive to perform.
Is the Minister seriously expecting us to believe that somebody in the service of the State — nobody has more regard for the Civil Service than I have — can be as vigorous, independent and robust in taking on the State on behalf of people than somebody not in the service of the State and who is truly independent and apart from it? The answer is no, this is not a theoretical argument, common sense tells us the opposite.
The Minister argues that it makes no difference because they would ultimately be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas regardless of whatever they are. The Judiciary is paid from moneys provided by the Oireachtas. Does anybody suggest the State should have such control over the courts? Members of the Garda Síochána are paid from moneys provided by the Oireachtas but does anybody suggest there should be such political control over the force as there will be over the Legal Aid Board as a result of this legislation? Deputy Woods gave many other examples.
This is our last opportunity. We are debating Committee Stage of this Bill and I ask the Minister to reflect carefully on what we say between now and Report Stage. We have the option of either having a civil legal aid system administered by an independent board with the usual checks and balances or one administered by the State. If the legislation remains in this format, forget about this Bill, get rid of the board and this delusion of independence and let the Minister operate the system. That is the net effect of the way in which the legislation is drafted.
I asked the Minister a number of questions about the exact Civil Service status of the administrators in the Civil Legal Aid Board and the solicitors who will become civil servants when employed by the board and I want specific answers.
The Minister is confusing control and accountability. It is possible to have accountability to the Minister without going through these mechanisms. The Minister is not just going for belt and braces but wants to bring everything under his control by every means possible. Maybe this is ideological thinking and if so, these arguments are incompatible. Deputy O'Dea said there were specific questions the Minister did not address, such as the knock on effect of having this semi-Civil Service board? The Minister might as well open a room for the board next to his office because practically speaking, he will be close to it in all but its physical location.
Section 11 says "the Board may appoint such, and such number of, persons to the staff of the Board as may be approved of. . . .". Will new staff members be appointed by the board or through the Civil Service?
They will be appointed to the board through the Civil Service procedures.
Will the Civil Service Commission appoint them?
Yes. They will be staff of the board, not of my Department.
Will they get the entitlements due to other civil servants?
Will the solicitors also get those entitlements?
Yes. They can also move and get promotion if this comes about. However, nothing in the Bill says this will happen. This is an optional provision and will depend on a number of factors. The Bill does not make them civil servants.
The administrators are currently civil servants and their positions will be unchanged. They indicated they want to remain civil servants and that is their right. I am told that all the solicitors indicated they want to be considered for Civil Service status when this Bill becomes law.
Naturally.
It may be natural or unnatural, but they are entitled to their views and are represented by a union. One must discuss these matters with them on an industrial relations basis and that has been done at great length. Assuming that comes to pass, they will be staff of the board, not the Minister.
The activities will be controlled and dealt with by the board, not by me. I will be entitled to information about what goes on there, but the notion suggesting that I or my Department would be controlling and interfering in the day to day activities of the board is not in accordance with the fact that it is not provided for in the Bill. It specifically precludes it and I want to make that clear. The board will run its activities and I am specifically precluded from any interference in specific cases coming before it. However, as public money is being expended, it is responsible and answerable to me and the Dáil and that is the appropriate position.
Deputy Woods referred to the Keegan report. This is a good example. I am glad he raised it and I will deal with it. Two trade unions made an allegation calling into question an appointment made in one of the law centres offices. Is anybody suggesting that I ignore that in the interest of anybody, most of all the person who was the subject of the suggestion raised? In that person's interest, as much as anybody else's, I arranged for Mr. Keegan to carry out an investigation and it exonerated her position and found her appointment to be in order. That was a satisfactory result for her. It would not have been possible if I had not done that.
There was more to the Keegan report than that. It found many practices in the administrative systems of the Civil Legal Aid Board were not satisfactory and required attention and tightening up in a number of material particulars. That too indicates there is a responsibility to see that taxpayers' funds are properly expended and a Minister and the Dáil are entitled to have their say. The Dáil had its say on the Keegan report and rightly so.
Is anybody suggesting that because a solicitor is a civil servant, they would be frightened or nervous to issue proceedings or be involved in a case against the State as opposed to the present position? There is ambiguity in some of the comments coming from the other side of the House. Solicitors are more vulnerable if they are not civil servants. A solicitor who is a civil servant knows he has security of tenure except in exceptional and unusual circumstances on which the Government would have to decide. Knowing they have this security would make them less intimidated, if any were, which I doubt, than if they were dismissible as a non-civil servant without security of tenure in the job purely as an employee of the board. The fact they would have Civil Service status, if that is the end result, would give them added security.
We are talking about skilled and trained professional solicitors. The whole basis of their training and responsibilities as officers of the court is that they are not intimidated and they carry out their responsibilities and functions to their client in the most upright manner. That is their profession. The solicitors who work in the Civil Legal Aid Board, and I have met most of them, are of the highest calibre. They would not be pleased at any suggestion that the fact they were a civil servant would in any way impact on how they respond to the conduct of their professional duties. That is not the case and Deputy O'Dea knows that well.
This talk of independence has little substance. We have conducted discussions and negotiations about the new situation on an industrial relations basis with the people who run this service and they have to be kept onside. If one has a disaffected staff, the level of service that one can expect from them will not be that great.
Casual outside observers listening to this debate might be forgiven for coming to the conclusion that I or the Department are seeking to impose Civil Service status on these people against their will when the reverse is the position. It is an industrial relations matter and a new situation will arise when this statutory board comes into being.
The solicitors and administrators raised this matter through their unions — this is their function and they are entitled to do so — and discussions with them were held on a prolonged ongoing basis by officials in my Department. Nothing has been finalised but I concede it is possible that, as a result of those discussions, they will end up as civil servants in the service of the State. It is not certain yet but that is a likely outcome. This is the position and how the matter has evolved. It would have evolved in precisely the same way if the previous Government had still been in office.
The Minister has spoken at length and we are trying to facilitate him by getting through the amendments.
I will not say any more. I apologise.
That is the value of Committee Stage, it bring out the various issues. From our point of view, the more the Minister talks, the better because one begins to have more conviction about what is going on.
As the debate proceeds, I am becoming increasingly convinced the Minister has made up his mind that he wants it to be a Civil Service controlled body. He does not want an independent body, which is what we are suggesting. He has gone a long way towards making arrangements to put that in place in the first instance.
On Second Stage and other occasions, everybody on this side has congratulated the board and staff on their work and what they have accomplished recently, particularly in taking on an extra burden of work, handling it very efficiently and reducing delays. One of the Minister's final points was about how he believed in the staff and thought they were doing a good job. We all believe that and we should not make this a political issue.
The issue is whether this will be an independent board in terms of our understanding of it as a semi-State body and whether on that basis it will have the freedom to carry out its work without undue restrictions. Whatever happens in relation to staff, there must be transitional arrangements. We are anxious that those arrangements will suit the staff and accommodate those who may be there on secondment or any other basis. The Minister mentioned the Keegan report. At the time we held the view that if the Minister had just asked for a report from the chairman, he would probably have got all he needed. However, the way the matter arose is what led to the difficulties at that stage.
I have outlined the basic political difference. Both sides of the House want the staff to do well and to be happy. However, we must consider the interests of all the people in terms of the provisions of the Bill and what the future will hold for those who are served by the Legal Aid Board. We must concentrate on what type of service will be given and how independent it will be. There are a number of questions in this regard. Deputy Keogh raised an interesting point that when a person becomes a civil servant he signs the Official Secrets Act and is, therefore, gagged to a certain extent in relation to what he can say. However, if it involves a solicitor, they have a client relationship and I am sure this can be relied on to maintain confidentiality. We are concerned about many issues which arise in relation to this area. I intend to press the amendment.
Amendment put.
The Select Committee divided: Tá, 8; Níl, 12.
|
Tá |
|
|
Gregory, Tony. |
O'Donoghue, John. |
|
Kenneally, Brendan. |
Smyth, Brendan. |
|
Keogh, Helen. |
Wallace, Dan. |
|
O'Dea, Willie. |
Woods, Michael J. |
|
Níl |
|
|
Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny). |
McDowell, Derek. |
|
Connaughton, Paul. |
McGrath, Paul. |
|
Finucane, Michael. |
Mulvihill, John. |
|
Fitzgerald, Frances. |
Taylor, Mervyn. |
|
Harte, Paddy. |
Timmins, Godfrey. |
|
Kemmy, Jim. |
Walsh, Eamon. |
Amendment declared lost.
We had agreed to adjourn at 4 p.m. and Members will have made arrangements. This is an important Bill and we are trying to get it finished. It is now approaching 5 p.m. Can we reach agreement on whether to proceed?
The difficulty is that, because we were expecting to finish at 4 p.m., some Members have made arrangements accordingly. They have been urged to stay until 5 p.m. Some Members on our side must leave by 5 o'clock as they have made arrangements. I know the Minister is anxious to finish the Bill, as is Deputy Woods. If we can organise a pairing arrangement, we will be happy to let the meeting run for another hour of so. Otherwise, if there is a danger of a vote, we will have to finish now.
Will Fianna Fáil agree to a pairing arrangement?
That is possible.
Can the Deputy give me the names of four people?
That should not be a problem.
On that basis we will continue. I thank everyone who is staying.
Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 not moved.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 9, subsection (7), lines 37 and 38, to delete "such, and such number of, persons" and substitute "such barristers and solicitors in private practice".
Having read the rest of the Bill, it appears that subsection (7) deals with private solicitors and barristers. If that is the case, the subsections should be explicit. I am not sure about architects, engineers or the board's own legal counsel. I ask the Minister to explain the section which provides: "The Board may engage under contract for services such, and such number of, persons to provide such services to the Board under such terms ...." It does this deal with private solicitors and barristers.
The effect of the amendment would be to give the board authority to engage staff under contracts for services without the need for the approval of the Minister or the Minister for Finance. As a public service, it is vital that the board should have prior authority for staff which it engages under contracts for services, otherwise the board would be at liberty to engage such staff in such numbers and at any price it wished. It is worth recalling that the board will be almost entirely dependent on funding from the Exchequer and, because of the nature of the organisation, it will never be in a position to generate funds on its own to any degree. In those circumstances it is proper that the board should be required to have ministerial approval for the staff it engages under contracts. However, as at present, it may be assumed that some degree of delegated sanction would be given to the board to engage certain staff under contract. Nevertheless, the amendment is not acceptable.
The amendment only suggests deleting "such, and such number of, persons" and substituting "such barristers and solicitors in private practice" for employment under contracts for services. If the Minister is confirming that it covers barristers and solicitors in private practice, that is fair enough. The phrase "with the approval of the Minister given with the consent of the Minister for Finance" would stay in place.
We do not want it confined to solicitors and barristers although it would include them. There could be other categories.
Including engineers and so on.
It could, yes.
But it includes them anyway.
Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 21 not moved.
Section 11 agreed to.
Sections 12 to 25, inclusive, agreed to.