The Gazette 1985

GAZETTE

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1985

Correspondence

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, 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. Chief Executive, Legal Aid Board, 47 Upper Mount Street, Dublin 2.

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

32