Barry Ward (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I also welcome the Bill, which addresses an important point. The idea that any legal aid scheme would take into account income which is not really in the possession of an individual is wrong and it is right that we should act to correct that situation. I welcome the intervention of the Minister of State, Deputy Naughton, in this regard. It is important that we recognise that civil legal aid provision should be a reflection of people's disposable income, as it is in the context of criminal legal aid, for example. This Bill deals specifically with civil legal aid but the model used for criminal legal aid might also be a good one for assessing how we should administer civil legal aid.

I agree with Senator Clifford-Lee in not thinking that anyone in the Legal Aid Board is setting out to exclude any individual or category of people. The people there are obliged to work within the rules. For a long time, we have not been proactive in respect of putting civil legal aid in place and ensuring that it serves the people it is supposed to serve. Reference was made already in this discussion to many of the most dire cases where people need civil legal aid, such as those in the areas of childcare or child protection or both and barring and protection orders that one spouse might take out against another. In the latter situation, it is invariably a woman taking out an order against an abusive husband or partner. Those are the worst cases but a whole panoply of cases is covered by civil legal aid.

This includes the case of a lady I have been working with in my area. She hired a builder who destroyed the part of the house he was working on. That lady needs to sue the builder to recover the money to fix the mistakes he made, and we have been trying now for the best part of a year to get an assignment of civil legal aid. It has come now, but waiting so long has been stressful for that woman because the clock has been ticking on the Statute of Limitations regarding taking a civil action against the builder concerned. It is wrong that the process should take that long. However, that stems from an issue with resources. I do not think someone is sitting in the Legal Aid Board deciding to delay civil legal aid as long as possible in the hope that the woman in the example I referred to will just go away. I do not for a moment think that is happening.

The reality is that this concerns an issue with resources, and this applies to all legal aid. I do not level this charge against anyone in this Chamber but it is often politically expedient to criticise legal aid schemes because people see it as a payment to lawyers. Senator Clifford-Lee raised this issue as well. The reality is that anybody working as a lawyer in the context of payments from a legal aid scheme, civil or criminal, is paid the lowest fees available to any lawyer in the country. Therefore, many people choose not to be involved in that kind of work. They choose not to do work which is paid for by legal aid because of the low pay rates, delays etc. and that obviously has a knock-on effect on the level and availability of representation for people who have to operate under the legal aid scheme. It is a point that must also be addressed.

I note, for example, that I received correspondence from the Bar of Ireland recently regarding the restoration of fees for criminal barristers under that legal aid scheme. Those barristers had their fees cut, as all public servants and public workers did at the time of the financial crash more than a decade ago. However, those fees have never been restored and the barristers concerned are still working on rates dating back to the early 2000s. That will discourage more and more lawyers from getting involved in that type of law. Therefore, if we want a properly functional system in civil or criminal legal aid, we must pay lawyers at the level which makes such work viable for them. That would encourage young people, especially, coming into the legal professions, whether as solicitors or barristers, to get into that kind of work and to serve the very people who need to be served by lawyers. I know the Minister of State will take that aspect into account.

I support what the proposers of this Bill are stating about the fundamental nature of the need for people to be represented in court by professionals who know what they are doing and who know the legal landscape. I state that because it is a tremendously intimidating experience for anybody who is not used to it to go into a courtroom, deal with the formality of the proceedings, no matter how accommodating a judge might be, and face a legal issue and argument in such a court setting. It is only right and proper that people in that situation would have the benefit of professional help from people who understand what they are doing and know the landscape of the legal environment, because it will be the first time for many people to be in a courtroom. They will not be familiar with the language, the room, where to sit, when to stand and all of that kind of thing. Having the benefit of someone there to fight your corner is tremendously important and that is what the solicitors and barristers of this country are there for. It is, therefore, right and proper that we as a society pay for that provision and put those people in place to represent the members of our society needing such support.

This is an important Bill. I do not deny that point. My understanding is that the intervention of the Minister of State means that, to a great degree, what this Bill seeks to achieve is now already in train. I hope that will happen quickly. One point I will make, and I have already compared the civil and legal aid systems, is that it is a matter of course in the criminal legal aid system. In the context of our international human rights obligations, for example, everybody is entitled to access to justice and legal aid is a fundamental part of that. Criminal legal aid is assigned by a judge, however, and that circumvents the bureaucratic nature of the process of having to go to the Legal Aid Board. I say that without making any criticism of that board. The reality, though, is that people in this space, regardless of whether they are receiving housing assistance payment, HAP, or whether the process is speedy, face a bureaucratic mountain that must be climbed. We must reduce that to just a hill or even a speed bump, instead of something that will in any way substantively interrupt the opportunities for those concerned to get professional assistance and to put their best foot forward in the courtroom.