Ms Eilis Barry:

We have submitted a more detailed paper but I will speak to some of the points we have made rather than read it out. We are a voluntary independent legal rights organisation that exists to promote access to justice. We believe access to justice includes not only legal aid but access to the courts, to effective remedies and to fair, just and socially inclusive laws. We welcome the opportunity to contribute to this pre-legislative scrutiny and we welcome that the matter will be put on a legislative basis.

We also view delay as the major inhibitor of access to justice. From our work we see that delay arises in several arenas, including waiting times for legal aid. The most recent figures from the Legal Aid Board show a waiting time of up to 42 weeks for a first appointment in the Blanchardstown Legal Aid Board law centre and more than six months in several other centres. The processing time for social welfare appeals is a problem. The most recent social welfare appeals report showed that the average time to process social welfare appeals was 23.6 weeks and 30.3 weeks in the case of supplementary welfare allowance, which is supposed to provide a basic safety net payment. The most recent report of the social welfare appeals office states that 63.6% of oral appeals were successful. The Court of Appeal was set up to reduce delay but individuals now must wait for up to two years before getting an appeal heard there.

We are keen for the committee to look at the issue of delay not only in respect of the contents of the Bill but as a systemic issue. There is a commitment in the programme for Government to commission an annual study on court efficiency and sitting times to provide accurate measures for improving access to justice. We urge that this commitment would be fulfilled. There is a real need to have accurate measures to measure improvements in access to justice.

A review of the administration of civil justice is ongoing. It is being carried out by the High Court President, Mr. Justice Peter Kelly. One of the aims of the review is to improve access to justice. Clearly, the issue of delay will be looked at by this review group. We submit that the outcome of this review should be of fundamental interest to the committee. We ask that the committee would make access to justice a central ongoing feature of its work.

I will comment on the heads of the Bill. We have seven basic points to make and I will go through them quickly. Delays that occur before quasi-judicial bodies and tribunals should be included in the legislation. This is important from the perspective of calculating when proceedings commence and should be taken into account in determining any compensatory remedy for unreasonable delays that arise in proceedings before such bodies.

Whether a delay in a particular case arises directly or indirectly through delays in a related case should not make any difference to the entitlement to apply for compensation and to be awarded it, if merited.

Our third comment on the heads of the Bill is that the direct linking of any financial compensation payable under the proposed legislation to the principles and practices of the European Court of Human Rights is problematic and undesirable. We suggest that the removal of specific references to the ECHR and Article 41 under head 8 would provide a more fluid and flexible remedy for court-based delays. In turn, we could more readily provide a remedy for any breach of EU law that might arise in that regard than the present formulation would allow.

The fourth point in respect of the heads of the Bill is that, as proposed, the assessor would be a retired judge. It is unclear to us why there is a need for a requirement for the High Court to approve awards of compensation given that it is also the forum for the determination of appeals under the proposed legislation.

Our fifth point relates to multiple claims. The proposed Bill is silent in respect of further delays that might accrue after an award has been made and if the proceedings are not determined by that time. We believe that the legislation should provide clarity in that regard.

The sixth point relates to where a case is ongoing in any application for case management before the courts. We believe that judicial notice could be taken of any determination under the proposed Act by an assessor that unreasonable delay has occurred and the reasons for same.

The final point relates to costs. There is no provision under the heads of the Bill for the expenses of making a successful application to be discharged by the State or Minister. Inevitably, this means that such costs will be taken from the award. This could possibly undermine the effectiveness of such a remedy. We are suggesting that this issue could be remedied by providing for a flat fee to a practitioner who assists the client to make a successful application. Such a measure should, in turn, require the practitioner to undertake not to seek further payment for an award.

These are our summary comments on the Bill. Ms Lucey will be happy to answer any detailed questions.