Ms Rebecca Keatinge:

I thank the Chairman and the committee for the invitation to address it today. We welcome the committee's focus on access to justice and legal costs and we are very glad of the opportunity to address its members. They have our full statement, which I will draw on to explain the work of the Mercy Law Resource Centre as a community law centre in facilitating access to justice, and to speak to some of the specific questions set out by the committee.

Mercy Law Resource Centre, MLRC, was established in 2009 and is an independent law centre and registered charity, providing free legal advice and representation to people who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. We have a vision of a society where each individual lives in dignity and enjoys equal rights, in particular the right to a home, which is fundamental to each human being. MLRC also envisages a society where each individual enjoys equal access to justice and legal recourse in order to vindicate those rights. The need for Mercy Law's services far exceeds demand. The number of people to whom we have provided advice and representation since 2009 has increased year on year, and in 2018 we assisted over 1,300 individuals and families.

There is a vital role for access to justice in the housing sphere. The UN special rapporteur on adequate housing has highlighted this, stating:

Violations of the right to housing are as much failures in the administration of justice as they are failures of housing programmes. If those living in inadequate housing and in homelessness have no access to justice, they are deprived of agency to bring violations to light, to address root causes or ensure appropriate responses. They are unable to challenge the policy choices and decisions that created the conditions in which they live.

Mercy Law sees access to justice as an enabling right which allows those who perceive their rights as having been violated to enforce them and seek redress. Access to justice encompasses effective availability of access to legal information, timely advice and remedies, accessible legal representation, conflict resolution services, and to the courts system and a fair system of remedies. Similarly to Community Law and Mediation, MLRC enables access to justice through the operations of legal outreach clinics, ensuring advice is embedded in the community and is accessible; free legal representation for marginalised groups; the provision of legal support for professionals and community organisations which are supporting homeless people to promote resolution of legal issues without the need for legal intervention; delivery of formal training on housing law to community groups and professionals; and active engagement in law reform and policy change. Mercy Law's work is evidence that a community law centre model, similar to CLM's, can facilitate real access to justice. At a recent MLRC event, the Chief Justice recognised the "vital role" that dedicated, community-oriented groups were providing, which would not be provided in any other way.

I will touch on some of the specific issues raised by the committee in its invitation. Regarding barriers to accessing the courts, the primary challenge for any individual with a potential legal issue is access to legal advice and information in the first instance. Many of the vulnerable groups and individuals Mercy Law engages with would struggle to access legal advice in the absence of our service, let alone access the courts system. With respect to legal aid, the majority of our clients would be eligible under the Legal Aid Board's means test, but are essentially deemed ineligible because the Civil Legal Aid Act 1995 specifically excludes the granting of legal aid in disputes concerning rights and interests over land.

An exemption to this exclusion does apply in limited circumstances but in our experience, this is not widely known or availed of. MLRC believes that the current delivery of civil legal aid, specifically with regard to housing and homelessness matters, is wholly inadequate. The level of legal aid provision on housing and homeless matters currently delivered by the board is negligible. The board is not empowered or resourced to disseminate legal information and to have a community presence and outreach service, nor does it have any substantive role in law reform or policy. The substantial delays in accessing advice present a further practical barrier in accessing justice through the scheme. Often clients facing homelessness require a nimble service that can proactively reach out to local authorities in order to negotiate solutions. This is not achievable if clients are required to wait weeks and months to meet with a solicitor.

A common theme in our contact with lay litigants with housing issues is the challenge of identifying the relevant legal issue or rights violation without proper legal advice. A disproportionate number of our clients who are in homelessness are migrants or those from ethnic minorities. Together with individuals with literacy issues or a disability, as many of our clients do, these groups can face substantial challenges in engaging with court procedures and representing themselves adequately in court as lay litigants.

I wish to highlight one issue regarding court structures, which is the absence of any tribunal or alternative dispute resolution process regarding housing matters. MLRC frequently engages with local authorities on housing matters and sees the wide variation in how appeals are processed and a general lack of transparency and formalised process. MLRC would welcome the development of an independent appeals forum outside the court system to protect housing rights and make a remedy more cost-effective and accessible, and reduce inconsistencies and related unfairness of current procedures. In several instances, MLRC has advised and legally represented a large of number of clients who have been impacted by an identical issue. In such situations, bringing individual sets of proceedings may be necessary to remedy the wrongs. Class actions would provide for a much more efficient and cost-effective means of providing access to justice for a potentially large group of litigants.

MLRC warmly welcomes the current focus and expansion of pro bonoin Ireland. In 2017, MLRC initiated an innovative pro bonoproject in partnership with A&L Goodbody, Focus Ireland and the Public Interest Law Alliance. This project involved corporate solicitors from A&L Goodbody attending a legal advice outreach clinic at Focus Ireland and providing legal advice and follow up legal representation. Together with many other examples, this pro bonoproject has had a real impact. This is extremely welcome but we firmly believe that pro bonocannot replace community-based and properly resourced legal advice and representation to vulnerable groups as a vital element of access to justice.

In conclusion, I will highlight some key recommendations we made in our substantive submission. We would like to see an amendment to the Civil Legal Aid Act 1995 to ensure that legal aid is available on housing and homeless matters on the basis of established need for this service, a restructuring of the delivery of civil legal aid to bring it in line with the community law centre model and better resourcing, support for and visibility of existing community law centres. We warmly welcome this opportunity to share our concerns with the committee and look forward to engaging with members on questions surrounding this issue.