Mr. Simon Donagh:

Perhaps I will be quick in my answers then. I would have said in response to Senator Ward's question on the lack of a definition in relation to the threshold for obtaining legal aid, we do not have a definition of that at the moment and it has not raised any problems. If we tried to put a definition on it, that is exactly the kind of thing that might break what is not broken. There are other examples in the Bill. For example, head 7 relates to the requirement to make legal aid applications in writing to the board. That has the potential to delay the assignment of legal aid for everyone - victims, defendants and accused persons alike. That is general throughout the Bill. Heads 18 and 19, in its current drafting, remove the automatic entitlement to counsel for indictable matters and to senior counsel for matters in the Central Criminal Court. I do not think that is a deliberate decision but that is something that needs to be rectified because if that were to go into law in its current state, it would dramatically reduce the level of legal representation available.

Similarly, jumping forward to head 29, for example, it would be the Legal Aid Board that would determine whether an application for an expert witness would be appropriate. In our view, the court is by far the best decision-maker for that. That is the body that can do it faster and with the experience necessary. I hope that answers the question.