The Gazette 1985

GAZETTE

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1985

Correspondence

The Editor,

Law Society Gazette,

Blackhall Place,

Dublin 7.

Dear Sir,

I wish to refer to the Editorial Comment on the subject

of the Civil Legal Aid and Advice Scheme in the October,

1984 issue of the

Gazette.

The question as to whether it is better to provide civil

legal aid in Law Centres staffed by salaried solicitors (i.e.

the system we have in this country) or, to have such

services provided by solicitors in private practice, has

been the subject of debate for quite some time, not only

here but in other countries also. As both systems involve

the commitment of public funds, it is right, obviously,

that the issue should be debated.

For any debate to be useful, however, it is necessary to

begin by getting the facts right and it is necessary, also, in

looking at the alternatives, to be analytical in one's

approach. Unfortunately, many of the statements

publicly made on the matter leave a lot to be desired on

both counts. Your Editorial Comment is an example.

One could be forgiven for assuming, on the basis of this

and other contributions, that the recommendations of the

Pringle Committee were almost totally ignored by the

Government. But this is far from being the case. It was the

Pringle Committee who recommended the establishment

of Law Centres; recommended a system of means test and

contributions which has been largely adopted in the Legal

Aid Scheme; recommended a system for the assessment of

legal aid applications which has also been followed and

which, inevitably, involves a certain amount of adminis-

tration; and recommends that the Scheme be

administered by a Board. In relation to the Board, the

Report recommended that it be a fifteen-man body which

would include six lawyers and three civil servants (one of

the roles of the latter, incidentally, is to keep an eye on the

cost of the Scheme, which is obviously a matter of concern

to the Law Society). The Government set up a thirteen-

man Board which included five lawyers and four civil

servants. The Board, now, includes six practising lawyers

and four civil servants. If the Board is "heavily weighted

with civil servants" (to quote your editorial Comment), it

is not because the recommendations of the Pringle

Committee were completely ignored and it is certainly not

because lawyers have been denied any of the places on the

Board recommended by the Pringle Committee.

The major difference between the Scheme which now

exists and that recommended by the Pringle Committee is

that private practitioners have been excluded from the

Scheme. It is understandable that the Law Society should

be concerned about this and should suggest that public

funds now directed towards Law Centres should be

directed towards the support of private firms. However to

return, again, to the facts — there is no proof that a legal

aid and advice scheme operated through the private

profession would be less costly to operate than the present

system and it is misleading to give the impression that it

would greatly reduce administrative costs. The adminis-

trative cost of the British Scheme — which is a private

practitioner Scheme run by the Law Society itself — is

now in excess of £15 million per annum (over ten times the

total cost of Civil Legal Aid here) and is, indeed, a source

of concern in England. Admittedly, the Law Society in

England has some responsibility for criminal legal aid

services, also, but even allowing for this, it is quite clear

that provision of civil legal aid services through private

practitioners involves substantial administrative costs —

it could indeed prove more expensive, administratively,

than the present Scheme.

Finally, there is the suggestion that the provision of

additional funds for F.L.A.C. would "yield far better

returns than the expensive formal Scheme". Nobody

denies the value of voluntary effort in any field. However,

one can not simply assume that funding for F.L.A.C.,

combined with private practitioner involvement in civil

legal aid services, would contribute towards a reduction

of cost. F.L.A.C. is a student organisation operating

almost exclusively in Dublin and Cork. When a F.L.A.C.

client requires something beyond advice, F.L.A.C. must

obtain the servies of a qualified solicitor or barrister. The

Legal Aid Board has, in fact, taken on a large number of

cases in which the initial contact was made with F.L.A.C.

and private practitioners have in the past taken on these

cases also. If, however, private practitioners were to be

remunerated for their services — as the Law Society

proposes — how true would it be then to say that funding

for F.L.A.C. was cost-effective?

My main reason for writing this letter is not to suggest

that the exisitng system is faultless — in fact the Legal Aid

Board has submitted detailed proposals to the Minister

for Justice for its amendment — but simply to state that

debate on fundamental issues is unlikely to prove very

fruitful unless we get the basic facts about the existing

service right and adopt a more critical approach towards

alternatives. And in looking at alternatives, it is

necessary — while certainly not denying the critical

importance of cost — to look beyond that and to consider

what features are necessary in a civil legal aid and advice

scheme so as to meet the particular needs of the under-

privileged.

Yours faithfully,

Pearse Rayel,

Chief Executive,

Legal Aid Board,

47 Upper Mount Street,

Dublin 2.

Response to Letter from Mr. Rayel

Mr. Rayel's letter gives an opportunity to correct an error

which appeared in the Editorial Comment in our issue of

October 1984. We commented that the Reports for 1981 and

1982 had not yet appeared. We should only have commented

that the 1982 report had not appeared.

Mr. Rayel is indeed correct in saying that it is necessary

to begin any debate by getting thefacts right. Unfortunately

he then proceeds to recite a number of recommendations of

the Pringle Committee which were implemented butfails to

mention the most significant recommendation which was

not implemented namely that proof of entitlement to legal

aid or advice should normally be established by production

of a medical card. This recommendation would have

obviated a great deal of the enquiry into means which is now

required.