Vincent P Martin (Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State to the Chamber and commend Sinn Féin on introducing this Bill. It is self-explanatory and its proponent makes a very compelling argument. Indeed, supporting it is irresistible. Sinn Féin is in opposition but this is a good example of how Opposition works.

The Bill invites us to consider the bigger question of whether people are equal before the law. We have a constitutional right to be treated equally before the law and every citizen in Ireland is treated thus. The next question is whether people have equal access to the courts and in my experience, having been a practising barrister for well over 20 years, the answer is definitely "No". The courts are, by and large, for the very well off or, in certain cases, the extremely less well off. The costs are exorbitant and the majority of people in the middle could not afford to put one foot in the Four Courts without thinking long and hard about it first. There is not equal access to the courts in Ireland and we should make that perfectly clear.

This initiative by Sinn Féin is a small step in the right direction and should be fully commended. The Government has taken a very pragmatic view of things and has recognised that this is a good Bill and I commend it for that. However, I would love to see more ambition from this House. We are sorting out one dreadful anomaly in the system whereby HAP was regarded as part of disposable income. I am so pleased that this will be rectified and find it hard to believe that this change would not be happening were it not for the timely intervention of the Bill before us. This shows that politics is working, albeit on a small scale. We must unreservedly welcome this initiative.

There is no equal access to the law in this country. In terms of education, law is not even on the curriculum in this country so people are unaware of the careers of barristers and solicitors. The acoustics in court mean that it is often impossible for people to hear what is going on. The language of the courts is archaic. Some people choose to represent themselves, giving rise to the phrase that they "have a fool for a client". Often massive issues are at stake and people are going into court, representing themselves. When I founded New Beginnings more than a decade ago, people were about to lose their homes. At that point, there was no civil legal aid scheme that covered them but now we have a personal insolvency regime on a statutory footing. We also have Abhaile, which is very good and a step in the right direction.

What happens if people have been defamed and their reputation has been destroyed? If they are not rich, they cannot go to court unless they meet lawyers who are willing to get stuck into the case, potentially for years, without getting paid.That is due to the time-honoured pro bonotradition of the Bar, where lawyers have filled the gap, albeit in an admittedly arbitrary way. They cannot catch every case and save everyone. They invest months in a case and if they bring it home, they get the costs. If they do not win the case but it is a matter of much public significance, there is a chance of getting costs from the court.

A case involving a slip or fall in a supermarket or a road traffic accident would need a person to be a very good communicator so as to sell the case to the solicitor if he or she cannot afford to pay for it. That person would have to hope or pray that the case would be taken. If it is a 50:50 case, the solicitor might have to make a business decision and may not be able to risk it if resources do not support it. If it involves a family asset or custody of children, it is a really tough one for lawyers. I know they all do their best but there may be no asset to distribute after a divorce. Such cohorts may have no voice and the most vulnerable are exposed.

We should really have a more fundamental debate about the barrister profession. I know it has changed but these professionals may not get paid for years. It attracts a certain type of person that would be utterly resilient, preferably unmarried and with no loans, or else somebody with a very well-off relative or parent in the background to support him or her during many impecunious and challenging times in the early years of practising at the Bar. Solicitors may not be as badly off as they can get a salary straight away. Barristers may starve for years trying to make it.

I would love to see a greater socio-economic mix of all types in the Law Library. It is slowly but surely going in the right direction. The judges would then reflect Ireland in a better way in having experience on the front line. Judges, by and large, have done a very good job but many of those judges might not know what it is like not to have any food in the fridge, let alone a fridge in the house. It is very hard for them, although they do a brilliant job, if they do not have direct empathy. They have sympathy nonetheless.

There is much more we can do and Sinn Féin has taken a very pragmatic step on which it deserves to be commended. I hope there is more to follow and there will be much more co-operation between the Opposition and the Government to make the system more equal for everyone. It is about reflecting what is enshrined in the Constitution, which is that everyone is equal before the law. Unfortunately, that is not the case now.