The Gazette 1977

GAZETTE

JULY

cept in obvious cases of emergency. If we agree that the wider work of the Centre is at least equally as important as the casework, though perhaps less tangible in its im- mediate results, then given our present staffing situation at Coolock, we have no other alternative. But once we take this decision we must do it openly ex- plaining to the Community why we have taken the deci- sion. Another aspect of the Centre's work which we have to look closely at is that of student involvement. Clearly the Centre needs student help in order to be able to manage the amount of casework with which it has to deal. Also students could help in the wider work of the Centre, for instance in the field of educational work, and producing literature on rights. However we should develop a greater sense of team work at Coolock between full time workers and students, if the students are to be involved fully in the Centre's future. As students are already playing a large part in the Centre's work, mainly in the evening and atweek-endsat a time when the full time workers are not there, there is a gap in the Centre's life which needs to be closed. We can do this, in the first place by organising regular meetings of all those working at the Centre, which would investigate, not only the practical workings of the Centre, but also would discuss fully the development of the Centre and its whole approach to the work. If we are to develop Coolock as a Community Law Centre which has a definite meaning for the people of the area, we cannot afford to al- low a situation where the work of the Centre is split between two groups (i.e. full time workers and students) who never actually discuss in detail their approach to the work. This is a situation which could in effect give the Centre two separate existences, a situation which could destroy the work of developing the Centre's community identity. It is therefore essential that all those working at Coolock work in the fullest sense as a team. We have to ensure that future Law Centres in Ireland are controlled by the Communities they serve, rather than by central Government. This is essential if they are to undertake the kind of wider work of advocacy for the local Community that we have already spoken of. We therefore have to look seriously and urgently at the need to develop for the Coolock Centre a base of Community control, not because the present method of management has restricted the Centre'e development, or would be likely to in the future, but because it must surely be accepted as a basic principle, that if we are talking about a Community Law Centre, then it cannot be such truly until such time as that Community is given an effective voice in its running. If we consider the Coolock Centre as belonging to Coolock, then we must accept that it can never be there until that Community controls it. Not only this, but it would make the task of expanding to the Community's needs far easier and more likely to succeed if the Centre was regularly in contact with local representatives who knew they were in a position to direct the Centre's work. I would suggest that we seriously consider such a management system for Coolock now. I believe that persons should initially be drawn from local groups such as tenants associations, trade union branches, pressure groups etc. as representatives to sit on a Management Committee for the Law Centre, and that FLAC could also be represented on such a Committee. What should be done is to at least make a commitment to such a development at Coolock, and begin to sit down and work out the details in the near future.

places the control of such centres in the hands of the local community, so that law centres do not become glorified information centres which give people the mere knowledge of their rights. Let us now look at the experience of Coolock, for while there is much to be learnt from the experience of Britain and America, in this field, we must recognise that Law Centres in Ireland must of necessity adapt to the particular situation in Ireland. In laying the groundwork for greater community involvement there are three lessons to be drawn from the Coolock experience. Because of the lack of Civil Legal Aid to date, Coolock has been geared of necessity to case work. To have ignored this present existing need for individual legal advice—which cannot be obtained elsewhere—would be to bury our heads in the sand. This necessity for individual casework is likely to continue for the foreseeable future until a proper Legal Aid Scheme takes the casework pressure off the Centre, to allow more rapid development in other fields. While casework will, for the time being, be our major concern, this need in no way exclude the community aspect of our work. Indeed to allow this to happen might set a dangerous precedent for Coolock. There is already an attitude prevailing in the area that sees the Law Centre as a casework agency. We have to start to develop our links with the Com- munity now and to extend the range of work we do. But this work cannot be seen as two distinct blocks, so that on the one hand you have casework, and on the other com- munity work. The two are very much interrelated, and so those involved in casework have an essential part to play in the Community aspect, and those primarily involved in community work must have a thorough knowledge of the casework. This can be seen from, for example, group work arising out of the Centre's casework. In order to have any real understanding of that group, and credibility with it, the community worker must have knowledge of the legal situation involved, but it is also essential that those in- volved primarily in casework, and who have the practical experience of dealing with the problem know what the group concerned is doing, and are able to introduce in- dividuals to it effectively. But this inter-relationship of work brings special problems at Coolock, because of the small number of full time staff. Overlapping of the work should not happen thus leaving the two aspects of the work isolated. While it is easier for a person engaged in community work to ar- range his time to allow himself to keep up-dated on the casework, it is far more difficult for those engaged in im- mediate casework, to arrange their time to allow for the wider work of the Centre. But if we accept that we want to make the Coolock Centre a Community Law Centre, we have to accept that the work I have already mentioned such as group and educational work, is also essential, and cannot be put con- tinuously on the long finger. This can be achieved by restricting the amount of casework adopted, and by dropping a particular category of cases, e.g. consumer rights. While this might be prac- tical in a situation where Legal Aid is available, where there is little or no other source of help, I do not think such a solution would be practical. The only other alter- native is to attempt to slow down the rate of growth of casework which will allow a day or two per week to be set aside for the Centre's wider work. This will in effect mean that people will have to wait somewhat longer for help, ex- 116