Dr. Mary Rogan:

I thank the Chairman, Deputies and Senators for giving me the opportunity to make a presentation on the findings of the research project, Changing Ireland, Changing Law. We had three key objectives, the first of which was to explore the connections between the law and social change and to examine the ways in which the law had not kept up with the pace of social change in Ireland and where it had been used as a tool of social reform. In that spirit, our second key objective was to examine a number of key public interest cases, cases which had been taken in the public interest or which were of major social importance, and to explore the stories behind them. We wanted to hear the personal stories behind them from the litigants involved and the lawyers and academic commentators who gave us a broader perspective on the relationship between the law and social change. As Senator Ivana Bacik said, access to justice was our key theme. By exploring these stories we wanted to examine the barriers which people faced when trying to vindicate their rights by engaging with public bodies and decision-making processes and the barriers and hurdles they faced when they had to take legal action. Our third key objective concerned NGOs, which have contributed so much to social and legal reform in Ireland. We wanted to hear from them about the strategies and tactics they had employed to create and support legal reform and advocacy for change in Ireland and abroad. We partnered with them to hear about their experiences of engaging in social and legal reform in Ireland.

I will say a little about the structure of the project. We were funded primarily by the Irish Research Council, with additional contributions from Trinity College Dublin. I commend the Irish Research Council for providing this funding stream, called "engaging civic society", which allows academics to partner with non-governmental organisations to carry out a piece of research or engage in public awareness work. It is a valuable mechanism whereby academics, practitioners and policy makers can bring their work together to bring research to a policy-making audience. It is in that spirit that we are before the committee. We also partnered with the Gay and Lesbian Equality Network, GLEN, and the Immigrant Council of Ireland, as well as the National Women's Council of Ireland.

We held four seminars which addressed the connections between the law and social change in these key areas. A number of findings and themes have emerged from our work and we have provided a briefing paper which has been circulated. I draw members' attention to a number of the key themes that have emerged thus far. The first is the importance of NGOs to Irish society and our democracy. This is a particularly pressing issue in the light of the ever-challenging funding environment for NGOs and the particularly challenging funding environment in which non-governmental and voluntary organisations find themselves with the planned and well flagged winding down of many philanthropic bodies. The importance of the activity of NGOs in raising awareness of issues which require legal reform and social change cannot be underestimated. Litigation may be a part of their activity, but they engage in many other strategies to support social reform and a well functioning society. This focuses attention on the importance of adequate funding for the NGO and voluntary sector.

The second key theme to emerge from our discussions is the question of how individuals navigate State bodies. When an individual is faced with a decision of a public body or an administrative organisation, a lot of barriers can be placed in his or her way as he or she tries to challenge or address that decision.

I am sure all of those present are very familiar with these types of instances.

A key factor identified throughout the seminars was the lack of reasons given by public decision-making bodies for their decisions. This can be very challenging for the individuals affected by the decision. They do not know what must be amended in their behaviour to reapply. They may not be aware of the precise basis of the difficulty which had been put forward. They may be unsure of the way forward and unable to rectify the matters which gave rise to the negative decision. Delay is often a difficulty in these administrative decision-making processes.

A strong theme in all of the seminars was the intimidating hurdles faced by people who choose to litigate or who are forced to litigate to vindicate their rights. They are often vulnerable individuals because of the circumstances giving rise to the need to litigate, and they have very limited provision for civil legal aid. Added to this is the very real prospect of being sued for costs. The financial indications of a case can have a significant effect on preventing people from taking litigation to vindicate their rights. Delay is often a factor, with many cases taking a very long time. Other issues which can be a significant barrier to people seeking to vindicate their rights are the publicity which may be attracted by the case, the fact the process can be difficult to understand and the cumbersome nature of our legal process. We felt it was important to recognise the courage of the litigants who told their stories at our seminars.

Another theme that emerged was the question of whether alternatives to litigation can be developed to vindicate rights. The legal process is a high-stakes business, and the implications for the individual are severe. The question of costs can be a huge factor influencing a person not to pursue something which is very important to him or her. This means the legal process may not be the most appropriate mechanism for the vindication of rights in many instances. We feel that rights-proofing policy and regulatory impact assessments are critical mechanisms at the preventative level for supporting the vindication of rights. We also feel the country's appearances before international human rights bodies have an important role to play in learning and promoting best practice. Other mechanisms, such as mediation and alternative legal processes, should be examined, particularly in the areas of administrative decision-making where bringing a matter to the High Court may not be the most efficient form of recourse nor the most effective.

A further key issue we identified was the lack of a class action procedure in Ireland, which gives rise to the difficulty of not having a legal process by which one can create systemic or systematic change. Ms Power from the Public Interest Law Alliance, PILA, has a number of particular and precise recommendations we wish to bring to the committee.