Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

The time has come when we should look at system where civil litigants have at least as good access to legal aid as criminals. It is a poor reflection on our society that we seem to believe it is imperative to give absolute protection to those who readily admit to being professional, outgoing criminals. The reason I say that is that if a citizen can prove the bones of a case exists, they should have as much right to free legal aid as those in the criminal law courts. Otherwise, it appears that we have two laws or standards, one that applies to protect criminals and the other that is slightly above and beyond the reach of the ordinary citizen. I hope the Minister, if not immediately then sometime in the course of examining what needs to be done, will examine this. It is something ordinary citizens talk to me about. They ask why they are not entitled to free legal aid while criminals are.

I raise this issue because what I refer to as ordinary, professional criminals nowadays are a fairly hardened, scary bunch. They intimidate, terrorise, offer protection and do all the nasty things we abhor. If the system is good enough to give them the kind of support to which they feel they are entitled then ordinary litigants in the civil area should have at least some similar recourse. The Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, may reply and tell me I am wrong but I merely relate to him what I have found through dealing with people who come to my clinics at weekends.

The other matter to which I wish to refer is legal separation, family law and the courts. We were all in this House when the various items of legislation were passed. I will always remember listening to how it was intended to simplify these matters. Relationships do break down and legal separations do take place. That cannot be changed. However, we can simplify or at least reduce as much as possible the procedures under the law to which people must resort. From what I see, legal separation has become very expensive. This issue may fall to be dealt with in the course of the legislation because the ombudsman may deal with it.

Some of the legal costs I have seen are frightening. In addition to the problem of legal costs, we must also examine the causes of the significant delays that are commonplace in such circumstances that affect whatever plans the parties have to achieve a new life. The current system is not living up to expectations and is incredibly expensive. It is almost unworkable, to the extent that if each side digs in, in respect of fighting down to the last line, it gets very difficult. This makes a sad situation worse. I am sure the Minister of State has had similar experiences.

I advise ordinary working people who do not have access to major resources to come to some agreement, go to court and have it notarised and walk away. If it drags along and polarisation and entrenchment set in, everything goes by the wayside and the situation becomes very difficult. I hope the Minister of State will make some reference to that in his reply, and that perhaps in the context of the legislation it might be possible to streamline matters in this regard.

Occasionally constituents ask me to go to court to see how they are being treated. I do not think the legal profession likes that. One would be amazed at how the system operates in terms of the frequency of adjournments, the nature of offences and the total costs to the Exchequer of processing what in many cases are minor offences involving all the paraphernalia of legal representation for both sides. In the UK there is a system of magistrates dealing with minor offences. I know the legal profession is not too keen on this either. I believe similar systems obtain in France and other countries where a senior member of the legal profession operates in a magistrate's court or similar and the costs are considerably reduced as it does not involve all the paraphernalia of the system trailing after it with all the entailing expenses. I wonder if the time has come to look at changing that aspect of the legal process to accommodate minor offences.

For instance, if somebody has not paid his or her television licence he or she is brought before the court. I have no difficulty in accepting there must be a penalty for it but I wonder if it is really necessary for such cases to go before the court. Is there not a lesser forum than the District Court where the matter can be resolved? This would make matters far less expensive. This area requires some consideration with a view to freeing up the system.

I have tabled a number of questions in recent times on the number of cases going through the courts, the speed with which they are processed and the reasons for delays. I do not always get replies because very often Ministers, even Tánaistí, get sensitive about questions of that nature. There is nothing personal involved. It is just a matter of getting the information and trying to identify where the snarl-ups arise. With the best of efforts such as an increase in the number of judges and so on, currently the process still operates very slowly and courts are full. We get complaints from time to time regarding the sitting times in various courts etc. It should be possible to identify the most common causes of the delays. In the area of criminal law, in many instances books of evidence have not been prepared and when cases come before the court they have to be postponed. Delays involve expenses. The more often one goes back to court, for whatever reason, the more expense is involved. All the trappings of administration have to go along with it.

If we look at the success of the ombudsman system in other jurisdictions it is obvious it has much to offer. The creation of a legal services ombudsman here will also prove of use. It is a forum where both sides can look forward to fair play — the defendant as well as the complainant. We all hear horrendous stories about what has happened to constituents and resorting to the existing bodies does not always bring about the resolution people would like. The ombudsman might not do that either but at least the system will hopefully be impartial, fair and will have the ability to deal effectively with complaints, whatever their nature. If not, at least it will be able to put in place some kind of recommendations or procedures whereby the same thing does not recur.

I welcome the Bill and am pleased to have had an opportunity to speak on it. I hope some of the things about which I have moaned will become the subject of some amending legislation, if not in this Bill, in the not too distant future.

See this speech in context