The Gazette 1984

215 / 322

INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY OF IRELAND
GAZETTE
Vol. 78 No. 8 October 1984
In this issue
Comment 207
Crossword 224
Executive Editor:
Editorial Board:
Advertising:
Printing:
Comment
Mary Buckley
William Earlcy, Chairman
John F. Buckley
Gary Byrne
Charles R. M. Meredith
Michael V. O'Mahony
Maxwell Sweeney
Liam O hOisin, Telephone 305236
Turner's Printing Co. Ltd., Longford
The views expressed in this publication, save where
other-wise indicated, are the views of the contributors
and not necessarily the views of the Council of the
Society.
The appearance of an advertisement in this publication
does not necessarily indicate approval by the Society for
the product or service advertised.
ABC Membership has been approved pending first audit
for the period July to December 1984.
Published at Blackhall Place, Dublin 7.
THE reports for 1981 and 1982 of the Civil Legal Aid
Board have not yet appeared, allegedly because of
difficulties with the Comptroller and Auditor General
about one aspect of the Board's accounts. It is ironic that
this should be the case because when the Board's last
report was published in 1981, for the year 1980, we were
able to praise the Board for including in that report
comments on matters which had actually arisen after the
year end. It is most unsatisfactory that the reports have
now fallen so much into arrear and that no
comprehensive statement of the Board's activities in
recent years is available. There is however sufficient
evidence from other sources about the working ol' the
scheme to show that all is far from well. It gives us no
particular pleasure to say "we told you so" about the
scheme. Fears that any scheme based exclusively on law
centres would be crippled by financial restraints have
proved only too accurate. The scheme, as we said in early
1982, is unbelievably expensive on a cost per case basis. It
has been the archetypal Irish public service project.
Firstly: ignore the recommendation of the committee
which advises on the establishment of a scheme.
Secondly: establish a board, apparently representative of
all interests but heavily weighted with civil servants.
Thirdly: set up an administration staffed largely with civil
servants on secondment. Fourthly: buy or rent expensive
premises for the central administration so that before a
single act takes place, in this case a client walking in the
door of a law centre, enormous administration costs have
been ensured. The Legal Aid Board has established a
network of offices, and incurs substantial travelling
expenses in servicing clients who are far from the
network. Finally, the Board has been hit by the public
service embargo with no replacements being made where
one of a two solicitor team resigns.
The fact that the formal establishment of the Scheme
on a statutory basis has not yet occurred may provide an
opportunity to re-think the Scheme and reduce its
operating costs.
The Government should do away with the present
scheme and implement the recommendation of the
Pringle Committee. The private practitioner should be
used. The Scheme's costs can be readily cut by using the
services of solicitors whose offices are already established.
The operating costs of those practices can be shared by the
legal aid clients and the ordinary fee paying clients. The
means test procedures should be revised and the contribu-
tion arrangements simplified. The voluntary activities of
FLAC should be encouraged and supported. Modest
sums for organisations such as FLAC will yield far better
returns than the expensive formal scheme. There is an
opportunity here for the public sector financial commit-
ment to be reduced while providing an improved service
to the community. •
207