Pearse Doherty (Sinn Fein)

Tá áthas orm deis a fháil labhairt ar an mBille seo. Nuair a fhoilsíodh an reachtaíocht seo i 2006 agus nuair a tháinig sé ós cómhair na Dála i mí Meán Fhómhair 2006, chuir mo chomhghleacaí, an Teachta Aengus Ó Snodaigh, fáilte roimh an méid a bhí sa Bhille, go háirithe an moladh chun ombudsman ó thaobh seirbhísí dlí a thabhairt isteach. Cé gur chuir Sinn Féin in iúl go gclárófar leasuithe chun cur leis na moltaí a bhí ann, bhíomar sásta go raibh dul chun cinn á dhéanamh sa deireadh thiar thall. Ar an drochuair, bhain an Rialtas amach cuid de na rudaí maithe a bhí sa Bhille ar Chéim an Choiste sa Dáil. Is mór an trua é gur tharla sé sin.

When this Bill was published and commenced in the Dáil in October 2006, my colleague, Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh, welcomed the prospect of the position of a legal services ombudsman being introduced. While we indicated our intention to table amendments improving those provisions, we were happy that progress, which was long overdue, was being made. However, unfortunately and unaccountably the Government removed those provisions from the Bill on Committee Stage in the Dáil, thereby further prolonging the current and unacceptable position where a powerful and often elite profession is left to regulate itself. Sinn Féin looks forward to debating the Legal Services Ombudsman Bill 2008 in due course.

In terms of the Bill before us, the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2006, ba mhaith liom díriú isteach go háirithe ar rannóg 67, a meastar sa Dáil agus a bhaineann le legal aid. I particularly draw attention to section 67, as passed by the Dáil, relating to the provision of legal aid. This section amends section 29 of the Civil Legal Act 1995. Section 29(2) of that Act reads, "The Board may, in accordance with regulations under section 37, provide legal aid or advice to an applicant without reference to his or her financial resources and may waive any contribution payable pursuant to this section and to any other regulations under section 37 or may accept a lower contribution." Section 67 of the Bill before us would amend it to read, "The Board may (a) in accordance with regulations under section 37, provide legal aid or advice to an applicant without reference to his or her financial resources, (b) waive any contribution payable pursuant to this section and to any other regulations under section 37, or accept a lower contribution, on the ground that a failure to do so would cause severe hardship to the applicant."

As the Free Legal Advice Centres, FLAC, have highlighted, the Legal Aid Board's power to waive or reduce the contribution payable for legal aid services in the amended version is now dependent upon believing that a failure to do so would cause severe hardship to the applicant, a precondition that is not in the existing subsection. The rationale for the change provided by the Minister during the Dáil debate on the Bill is not accepted by the Free Legal Advice Centres. These centres are part of an organisation that has great experience dealing with the shortfalls of the current legal aid system. FLAC has real concerns and these are underpinned by persuasive arguments. The severe hardship test is excessive. It will overly limit and restrict the assistance that the Legal Aid Board can offer to those who cannot afford access to legal services.

The current means test already fails many because it fails to take personal indebtedness or other financial commitments into consideration. As FLAC outlined, the current means test for legal aid does not take into account financial commitments to the applicant such as consumer loans. Thus, many will have to pay a sizeable contribution based on their means, but their indebtedness will not have been taken into account. Confining the board's power to waive or reduce contributions on the ground of severe hardship will make it more difficult for persons to argue for a deduction despite their straitened financial circumstances.

The effect of section 67 will be to make only the most residual of protections available, meaning that more legal needs will go unmet. When the safety net is this low, backs will undoubtedly be broken. I call on the Minister of State to delete this section from the Bill or, at a minimum, to reduce the test from severe hardship to hardship only.