James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Egan for that very useful overview of her role and the service the Legal Aid Board provides. We will take questions from members now. I propose to the committee that we allocate four minutes per member instead of the usual six because we are under pressure with the number of items we need to get through this afternoon. We can have a second round if there is time left.

I have a few questions for Ms Egan. We have been sitting as a committee for almost four years now, we have produced a body of reports and we had a couple on legal aid in the past. A couple matters arose from that. Ms Egan mentioned she had a background in childcare. I am a barrister outside of the hat I wear here today and it is something relevant to my own practice. I have seen it happen first hand. There seems to be a gap in childcare proceedings where a person is in a scenario where their child is permanently placed in care, and that may or may not be with their consent. If it is not with their consent, they are entitled to representation and to have that argument made. It is a very fundamental right, the right of the family bond, where a child is being taken away. If that person engages with the Legal Aid Board, they can be represented and enjoy proper representation. In my practice, I saw many cases where people presented. People who in end up in a situation where their child is taken away are probably very vulnerable, probably have multiple challenges in life - perhaps addiction or other factors are at play - and they may not be in a situation where they are able to get to the Legal Aid Board or to engage sufficiently to complete forms and have an engagement.

I have seen it happen and I have heard it said in hearings here as well that some of these people end up either without representation or relying on the goodwill and pro bonoapproach of certain solicitors and barristers who might take them on, I suppose in the public interest. It strikes me that there is a scheme for criminal legal aid to be assigned from the Bench. It happens every day in every court in the country where a judge says that Mr. or Ms X does not have representation and assigns him or her to a local solicitor so that he or she is represented from that point forward. That seems to work well. I wonder if it is something the board could look at. It is something that strikes me as a gap. I am concerned that there are vulnerable people in extreme challenging circumstances who run the risk of being unrepresented because of that lacuna. That is my first point.

I will put a few questions as a block, merely for time purposes, and then hear what Ms Egan has to say. The second matter I would like to raise, which also came up in the committee's report on legal aid, is around the District Court, the administration of the scheme and the split-fee idea whereby counsel are briefed by solicitors, go into court and use the split-fee arrangements. The sums involved are very small: €50.40, and €25.20 if it is 50:50. Also, the process of putting in for that is cumbersome. It does not really seem to work. I wonder if Ms Egan has any views on whether that system is adequate or whether it needs to be revised and, I would say, brought into the 21st century, perhaps akin to the Circuit Court where one signs a form and it is processed automatically. It might save a lot of time and cost all round if that could be modernised.

I will conclude with a more general point. It is often said - I think it has been said in this room previously - that only the very rich and the very poor can afford to go to court. Is there a gap in the middle, perhaps for civil cases? I appreciate it is difficult because the State should not be funding somebody's particular grievance or hobbyhorse if it is unfounded, but there may be potential litigants who have a genuine cause or action but lack the means to pursue it or even to defend themselves. Ms Egan referred in her opening statement to the means test and suggested that the entry point is too low. I ask her to address those three points: the childcare point, the split fees and then the general point.