Mary Seery Kearney (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome this legislation. It is well done and it is a welcome item of Private Members' business for this evening.

I welcome the decision to act sensibly, compassionately and rightly with respect to disregarding HAP in the calculation of eligibility for legal aid. It is an inappropriate inclusion and should have always been an inappropriate inclusion. It is an important step. However, it is in the context of the review of the entire civil legal aid system that that needs to be done. In the context of the justice plan, I welcome all of the five goals that have been set out in that, but particularly No. 2, which is to improve access to justice and to modernise the courts system. That is badly needed.

There no question that the pathway to justice is prohibitive, at times, for people. In the last year, there have been cases around the leaving certificate and injustices that people felt as a result of the use of the algorithm in the calculation of grades. I know of many parents who were unable to take any sort of action because they just could not afford it, yet feel that their child was discriminated against in that. Therefore, there are instances that occur every day where there is no opportunity to move forward because the costs of litigation are so high. Senator Martin referenced defamation actions as being particularly difficult to initiate. If one is waiting on legal aid to initiatie a defamation action, it will be a long wait and outside Statute of Limitations.

A number of the speakers spoke about fees in their contributions. I am mindful that in a context in which we are talking about setting aside HAP as being inclusive so that particularly vulnerable people can get access to justice, the discussion, particularly by lawyers, of fees may appear to be quite a difficult or, dare I say, a vulgar one. However, I wish to put it into context. In the early years of being called to the Bar people can go and sit for a whole day making a bail application, and at the end of the day, get paid €25. When we talk about it, we are doing so while being mindful that there is a huge attrition rate out of the Bar. People pay a lot of money to get through college, to equip themselves, ambitious for what that might bring to their lives and their desire to advocate on behalf of others, but that is the sort of thing that happens.I took cases in the District Court in the beginning, and one was paid €125 and a solicitor would take his or her cut out of that. I wish to put that in context lest anybody think we are talking about thousands of euro here, because we most certainly are not.

The remuneration of solicitors employed in the Legal Aid Board, and I brought this up with the Minister, Deputy McEntee, when it was first brought to my attention, is dealt with differently from how it is dealt with for other solicitors employed by State entities such as the Chief State Solicitor's office or the Office of the Attorney General. If one is an experienced solicitor coming into the Legal Aid Board, one's salary does not start at an appropriate point in the scale. One is always started at the lowest point in the scale. Consequently, there is a large turnover of staff because it is just not financially viable as people become more experienced. As a result, experienced people are not attracted into going there or if they go there for a period to have the financial security that goes with being employed, they do not stay. Then there is a lack of continuity in the solicitors dealing with the legal aid cases. That contributes to the difficulties of the situation and to the frustration clients and people in need have with the situation. That has to be borne in mind.

I believe the length of the waiting lists is a resourcing issue and definitely must be addressed.

My final point relates to the areas that are not covered by legal aid. We need a mechanism to deal with change. Recently, for example, there was a decision of the Supreme Court that changed the operation of the Workplace Relations Commission. It is going to oblige oaths and cross-examination. Not everybody is represented by a trade union. While there is no fees risk in the Workplace Relations Commission, there is still a need to brief a solicitor in some instances because the areas of law are quite complex. It is not straightforward even though it was set up to be such. Members of the Law Society of Ireland and the Bar Council have been saying for a long time that there must be an element of legal practitioners there. However, there would be no legal aid and even if there was, the Statute of Limitations on any employment law matter would be well and truly passed by the time any sanction would come that would permit the legal aid element of it. We need a mechanism that responds to a Supreme Court determination in a such a situation and recognises that the circumstances have changed and that perhaps a legal aid element is required. There must be constant reviewing of what is included and funded in order that we can appropriately ensure that the most vulnerable have access to justice. Ultimately, everybody should have access to justice.