Apologies have been received from Senators Michael McDowell and Garret Kelleher. I remind members to turn off their mobile phones. I apologise to our guests for the delay as we had to deal with a private housekeeping matter.

The purpose of this meeting is to engage with a number of stakeholders on civil legal aid and related matters. On behalf of the committee, I sincerely thank our guests for coming to discuss what is an incredibly important subject. This committee has repeatedly raised and heard concerns about access to civil legal aid, particularly in the context of our discussion around victims of domestic violence who have tried to secure barring orders. A number of the stakeholders who we have received written correspondence from and those who are represented here today have been raising these matters on an ongoing basis.

On behalf of the committee I welcome Ms Sarah Benson, CEO, Women's Aid; from the Bar of Ireland, Mr. Seán Guerin SC and Ms Cliona Cleary BL; from Free Legal Advice Centres, Ms Eilis Barry and Mr. Christopher Bowes; representing the Legal Aid Board, Ms Joan Crawford and Ms Emily Sherlock; and representing the Law Society of Ireland, Mr. Keith Walsh SC and Dr. Brian Hunt.

The format of the meeting is that we will ask each organisation in turn to make an opening statement of three minutes. We will then call on the members of the committee in the order in which they have indicated to me to put any questions or make comments. I ask members to stick within the defined timeframe so that we can perhaps allow for a second round.

Before I invite opening statements, I have to advise the following in relation to parliamentary privilege. Witnesses and members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if a speaker’s statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

With that out of the way, I invite Ms Benson from Women's Aid to kick off proceedings.

I thank the Chair, Deputies and Senators for the opportunity to address the committee on the reforms required to ensure that the civil legal aid system adequately meets the needs of those experiencing domestic violence and abuse.

As an organisation working every day to prevent and respond to this harm, Women's Aid witnesses the critical role that legal aid plays in survivor safety, access to justice and long-term protection. We must acknowledge upfront that the civil legal aid system is already in crisis. The system is under-resourced, overstretched and unable to meet current demand, resulting in unacceptable delays that place survivors at risk and deny them timely access to justice.

Women's Aid has carefully considered the reports of the civil legal aid review and makes the following observations and recommendation. Broadly, our views align with those expressed in the minority report. In respect of both reports, however, we assert that visibility and assessment of need and risk for victims of domestic abuse, including children, need to be more cross-cutting and front-loaded in all aspects of civil legal aid reform. All legal aid practitioners and expert assessors should receive specialist training on domestic abuse, including coercive control, risk factors and the impacts on survivors, including children. If the State expands legal aid to include additional case types or tribunals, it is essential that funding is increased accordingly so that existing services, particularly those relied on by domestic violence survivors, are not diluted.

Domestic violence order cases must continue to be treated as urgent priorities and fast-tracked. In addition, for all family law cases where domestic abuse is a factor for an applicant, such as separation custody, access and maintenance should also be prioritised, recognising that these matters are often equally urgent and critical for safety. If a triage stage is introduced into legal aid, domestic abuse screening should be built in as standard, and triage should be undertaken by qualified legal professionals who can provide accurate early advice rather than diverting survivors away from the appropriate legal routes available.

Co-operation is key. We strongly support expanding the successful model used in Dolphin House, where legal aid, mediation and our domestic violence specialist drop-in services are co-locating. Replicating this in more court buildings would allow survivors to access support quickly and safely and support efficient mutual referrals between these services.

Mediation should never be required where domestic abuse is present and before mediation is considered, robust safety screening is essential. Mediators must be trained to recognise abuse and its impacts. Should the parties be genuinely willing to participate in mediation notwithstanding domestic abuse, strong safeguards must be in place and survivors must retain access to legal advice.

In respect of eligibility and means testing, financial barriers must not stand between survivors and justice. Domestic abuse survivors should not be required to pass a means test to access legal aid. If full removal of the means test is not possible, flexibility is essential. It must be recognised that survivors can often be prevented from accessing joint finances or documentation by abusers. In other cases, more generous financial thresholds recommended in the minority report should be implemented swiftly.

Regarding contributions, survivors should not have to pay contributions for domestic abuse-related cases. Where contributions remain, they should be calculated only on income and assets survivors can actually access, with limits for those subjected to prolonged or repeated proceedings. The Legal Aid Board should also ensure that victims of domestic abuse are aware of the possibility of asking for a contribution waiver in an accessible manner.

The merit test should not apply to cases involving domestic abuse and future rules must explicitly reflect this, while also preventing abusers from using legal aid to vexatiously harass victim survivors through the courts.

Regarding pay, Women's Aid recommends that the salaries and fees of solicitors, barristers and report experts are increased urgently, in line with minority report recommendation No. 3.

Finally, Ireland should consider establishing a dedicated women's legal centre specialising in domestic, sexual and gender-based violence, including technology-facilitated abuse, drawing on effective models in other jurisdictions.

I thank members for their time and attention, and I am happy to respond to any questions they may have.

I thank members of the committee for the invitation to appear before them today. The Council of the Bar of Ireland welcomes the opportunity to address members of the joint committee on justice on the topic of civil legal aid.

Civil legal aid is a cornerstone of the justice system. It exists to ensure that access to justice is not dependent on means, particularly in cases involving family breakdown, domestic violence, the welfare of children, capacity and international child abduction. These are among the most sensitive and consequential matters that come before our courts, often involving the most vulnerable people in the State. Experience across the civil justice system demonstrates that early access to specialist legal advocacy materially improves how cases progress. Properly prepared cases are more focused, issues are narrowed at an earlier stage and court time is used more efficiently. This is particularly important in sensitive civil legal aid cases such as childcare, domestic violence, capacity, and family law proceedings, where the law is complex, the factual matrix is often contested, and delay is not a neutral factor but one that can cause real and lasting harm. When that level of specialist input is stretched or cannot be sustained, proceedings are more likely to become prolonged, fragmented and resource-intensive, with knock-on effects for court efficiency, delay and the experience of litigants. In this way, the continued availability of experienced counsel in civil legal aid is not a professional preference, but a public interest safeguard central to the effective administration of justice.

Our concern, as set out in our written submission, is that the current fee framework for barristers operating within the civil legal aid system is no longer fit for purpose and is now undermining that public interest objective. The present fee structure dates back to 1998, when the Legal Aid Board and the Bar Council first agreed case fees. The rates were calculated by applying an hourly rate to the average number of hours typically required for a case in each jurisdiction. Those averages have never been reviewed. During the financial emergency measures in the public interest, FEMPI, era, between 2008 and 2012, rates of pay were reduced substantially, and those reductions have never been reversed. By 2012, the rates payable for Circuit and High Court cases were approximately 32% lower than in 2008. In the District Court, the reduction over the same period was approximately 40%, and for certain categories of District Court cases, higher still. The fees have remained stagnant since 2012, despite inflation.

The difficulty is not simply the level of fees, but their structure. Barristers are largely paid by fixed omnibus case fees, which cover all work involved in a case, regardless of complexity, duration, volume of documentation, extensive preparation or repeated attendances due to delay. The increasing legal and procedural complexity of cases is routinely absorbed without additional remuneration. At the same time, the demands of civil legal aid practice have increased markedly. Legislative reform, evolving jurisprudence, enhanced child-centred procedures, greater volumes of digital evidence and more complex family and social contexts all require a higher level of specialisation and preparation than was required when the framework was designed. The consequence of this is now becoming clear. Barristers are increasingly withdrawing from civil legal aid work because it is no longer economically viable.

Our members overwhelmingly report that the system as it stands is unsustainable. This poses a real risk of a loss of experience and expertise from areas of law where it is needed most, with knock-on effects for court efficiency, delay and, ultimately, public confidence in the justice system. The Bar of Ireland is therefore asking for recommendation No. 22 of the independent review group to be implemented, an immediate review of fee levels and structures, the restoration of FEMPI-era cuts and the establishment of an independent mechanism to ensure that fees remain fair and sustainable into the future.

This is, at its core, a public interest issue. A civil legal aid system that cannot retain skilled practitioners cannot deliver effective access to justice. We urge the committee to treat this as a matter requiring timely and decisive action. We welcome the committee's questions.

Before I start, I thank the committee for considering this vital topic, as it is extraordinarily difficult to attract political attention to and achieve change in this area.

What I will be saying is a summary of the opening statement, which is summary of the FLAC submission, which, in turn, is a summary of the minority report. It is impossible to do justice to it in three minutes, but I am going to give it a go.

The civil legal aid system is in crisis. It cannot meet huge amounts of legal need, particularly among those experiencing poverty, disadvantage and discrimination. It may collapse due to the demands of the migration pact this year. It is chronically underfunded. In 2025, it had a budget of just over €64 million. To put that into context, the horse and greyhound industries receive €100 million per annum, private education receives €100 million and the Ryder Cup received €58 million, which was €1 million less than the Legal Aid Board's budget for 2024. The total civil legal aid budget equates to one quarter of 1% of the €29 billion allocated for social welfare spending.

The Baker Tilly report found that the staff of the Legal Aid Board had to pay for IT packages themselves in order to carry out their work. What possible justification is there for the pay levels of Legal Aid Board solicitors being lower than their counterparts in other parts of the Civil Service? This naturally causes difficulties in hiring and retaining staff, which lead to critical legal aid deserts, an overreliance on the private practitioner scheme - in respect of which there is a low take-up due to the level of payment - and delays of over a year regarding a first appointment for a solicitor. On the latter issue, the delay in Sligo is 64 weeks. The Legal Aid Board also cannot pay for essential child welfare and other reports. Then there is the wholly outdated, narrow means test and overly strict merits test. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul regularly has to help people to pay the requisite financial contribution.

While resources are absolutely essential, they are not the only answer. There is an urgent need to address three issues. The first is preventative legal services, which prevent catastrophes and reduce legal issues before they escalate. The FLAC phone line is overwhelmed with callers desperate for legal information. We can only answer a fraction of those calls. The Legal Aid Board cannot provide essential legal representation in sexual harassment, discrimination, disability or employment claims before bodies like the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, or in social welfare appeals. There is also a lack of targeting and community legal services.

I want to stress that comprehensive, meaningful reform is doable, practical and cost-effective. The infrastructure is already in place in the context of the network of Legal Aid Board and citizens information centres all around the country. We need a tiered approach, with a range of different services and service delivery models to respond to various kinds and levels of unmet legal need. Simple amendments to the Legal Aid Board and Citizens Information Board legislation would, first, require that the Legal Aid Board would provide preventative services in the form of general and targeted legal information and, second, enable the Citizens Information Board to provide advocacy in non-complex cases before bodies like the WRC, with the Legal Aid Board then taking on more complex cases.

We need to introduce and support targeted and community legal services, bringing services to where people are, deliver services in a collaborative way, alongside housing, homelessness, healthcare, the courts and welfare services. We also need a network of community law centres in areas of very high deprivation and targeted special services, for example, for Travellers and people with disabilities. A trained and resourced private practitioner panel along the lines of the existing mental health tribunal panels is also required.

Access to justice has to be treated as an investment, a vital public service like healthcare and education. Research firmly establishes that for every euro spent on access to justice, there will be savings and benefits not just for individuals but also for communities, the courts and society. It is alarming that the Minster has not yet provided any timeline for when he will respond to the review. As the Chief Justice said recently, the pace of change is frustratingly slow. The justice committee has a key role in ensuring that the reviews lead to a comprehensive legal assistance system, including and beyond resourcing, and ensuring that the potential collapse of our civil legal aid system can be avoided.

I thank the committee for the invitation to address it. I welcome this opportunity to contribute to its examination of civil legal aid and the wider system of access to justice. The Legal Aid Board is the State’s statutory provider of civil legal aid, legal advice and family mediation services. In 2025 alone, over 37,000 applications for legal services were received, and 25,869 of them proceeded past the application stage. In 2025, our family mediation service supported 2,133 new cases, achieving more than 1,000 mediated agreements. These numbers reflect both the scale of need and the critical role that an effective, modern legal aid system plays in upholding people’s rights, protecting family welfare and supporting the functioning of our courts.

The Legal Aid Board strongly supports the direction of civil legal aid reform proposed by the review group. Both the majority and minority reports highlight the need for a system that is more accessible, more prevention focused and better resourced. Our written submission sets out six priorities that we believe should guide implementation.

First, reform must be sequenced and sustainable, building system capacity, modernising eligibility and extending scope. Without this careful phasing, there is a real risk of overwhelming services that are already under pressure.

Second, we strongly support the expansion and strengthening of family mediation. It is one of the most successful elements of the current system, reducing conflict, cost and delay. With investment in mediator capacity, structured mediation plus legal advice supports, and a public awareness strategy, mediation can deliver even greater benefits for families and for the courts.

Third, eligibility thresholds require urgent modernisation. They have not been updated since 2006 and no longer reflect the realities of living costs. We recommend increasing the disposable income threshold to align with the 2026 national living wage, along with proportionate increases to dependent, childcare, and accommodation allowances. Without this reform, access to justice will continue to erode.

Fourth, digital transformation is essential. Our ICT strategy for the period 2024 to 2027 is already under way, but full modernisation requires multi-annual investment to ensure a fit-for-purpose case management system, integrated triage tools, accessible digital services, and robust data insights. A modern legal aid system simply cannot be delivered with outdated infrastructure.

Fifth, recruitment and resourcing challenges across solicitor grades, private practitioners, barristers and expert witnesses must be addressed urgently. These issues directly affect waiting times and service availability in many regions. Reform will increase demand further. Therefore, capacity must be strengthened in parallel.

Sixth, the Legal Aid Board believes that the goals of reform will be best achieved through coherent governance, strong collaboration with the Courts Service, NGOs, community partners and the wider justice system, and a clear focus on the needs of the individuals and families who rely on our services.

Civil legal aid is essential public infrastructure. With the right sequencing, resourcing and digital investment, Ireland can establish a modern system that is fair, accessible and sustainable. The Legal Aid Board is ready to support that vision and to work closely with the Government and the Oireachtas in doing it. I will be happy to answer any questions.

I thank the committee for the invitation to address it and share the perspective of the Law Society of Ireland on civil legal aid. I am joined by Dr. Brian Hunt, director of policy. Members of the Law Society represent court users every day in every court in this country. We want to see a better civil legal aid system in the public interest and to support the rule of law. We want to assist in achieving this goal.

First, everything we say today must be prefaced by the basic point that the civil legal aid system is in crisis and in need of immediate reform, which cannot happen without proper resourcing and restructuring of the system. This needs to happen immediately. This change can and must be delivered by the Legal Aid Board in collaboration with the other stakeholders in the system. The Legal Aid Board is the principal way that civil legal aid is delivered in this country and is staffed by hard-working solicitors and public servants who need to be supported, but the Legal Aid Board must be restructured and resourced. The Law Society supports the Legal Aid Board and wants to see it have a much greater role in the delivery of civil legal aid, but also a greater role in the strategic overview required to reform the current system. Its staff need to be properly paid at the same level as other public servants.

The majority report proposes the creation of two new bodies: a legal aid oversight body and an implementation group. The Law Society believes these bodies are unnecessary and will detract resources from the Legal Aid Board, while taking away from its ability to lead the necessary reforms and restructuring of civil legal aid.

In short, we would like to see civil legal aid being properly resourced and the Legal Aid Board being allowed to lead the reforms and being supported and properly resourced with the support of other stakeholders like the Courts Service, FLAC and everybody else present here. This would ensure value for money by avoiding the mistake of creating unnecessary new bodies.

Civil legal aid is a cornerstone of the Irish justice system. It directly upholds the constitutional principle of access to the justice and the right to an effective legal remedy. However, in Ireland, civil legal aid is not funded to anywhere near the level it should be, which results in people being denied access to justice every day. The Law Society of Ireland has been actively campaigning for an expansion and proper funding of civil legal aid for nearly 50 years, dating back to the seminal Pringle committee report of 1977. In more recent times, the Law Society contributed to the independent review group chaired by the then Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Frank Clarke. Our representative on the group was Ms Áine Hynes SC. The Law Society is supportive of many of the recommendations contained in both the majority and minority reports. The recommendations are a step in the right direction towards the reform of our civil legal aid system, which, as we have said, is in crisis. The demand for civil legal aid has doubled in the last four years, as we have heard from the Legal Aid Board. The law centres are overstretched and have long waiting lists.

The Law Society has seven specific recommendations for reform. The first is that there must be immediate funding for the legal aid system with a commitment to longer-term increased funding to cope with existing demands and to ensure the Legal Aid Board is in a position to effectively cope with its expanding remit, particularly in new areas such as civil restraint orders and the impending implementation of the EU migration pact. The Law Society calls on the Government to revise the financial eligibility thresholds for legal aid applicants, which are currently set at €18,000. However, if those thresholds are increased without resources, we will see the system get worse rather than better. We do not want the thresholds increased until such time as the funding is put in place. Otherwise, we are going to make a bad system worse.

The Law Society asks that Government adequately resource the Legal Aid Board and ensure that it can take steps to attract solicitors to be part of the private practitioner scheme, which is currently not happening. We have what are called legal deserts whereby people cannot access justice. We also call on the Government to provide adequate funding for expert reports or voice of the child reports under civil legal aid. There are currently inadequately funded. The proposal to establish a legal aid oversight body is unnecessary. The Legal Aid Board must be backed and supported. We are in favour of the immediate establishment of the mediation council of Ireland under the Mediation Act. Along with other stakeholders here present, the Law Society is working to achieve that. While the proposed removal of the blanket ban on legal aid for quasi-judicial cases is welcome, the Government should also reconsider the list of exceptions to legal aid under the Civil Legal Aid Act to see whether they are still fit for purpose in a reformed system.

Civil legal aid is an integral part of the Irish justice system. It provides legal advice and representation to members of society who would otherwise not be able to avail of it. The sooner people can get access to legal advice, the better and the less the cost. When you get legal advice early on in the process, it can prevent cases going to court, it can permit mediation and it can allow things to be dealt with in a much more effective manner.

Having worked in this area for 30 years, it is a privilege for me and for the Law Society to be here with many of the heroes of the legal aid system, people who have worked tireless in FLAC, in the Bar of Ireland, in the Legal Aid Board and in Women's Aid to try to achieve civil legal aid without remuneration. They have tried to make bricks without straw and to provide access to justice for people. We hope this can now be formalised in a better, more effective and more cost-effective civil legal aid system.

I thank Mr. Walsh for that. All of the opening statements have indicated very clearly that access to justice is being denied to people every day. The imperative for movement on this issue has been set out in very stark terms. I will invite the members to engage with the witnesses in the order they have indicated to me. There are quite a number of members indicating so I suggest each member will have six minutes for interactions in the first round. I hope that will allow for a second round.

I welcome our extensive range of guests. We are in a crisis situation here. As a committee, we have a mandate to put this at the top of our agenda. What Ms Barry said about the preventative mechanisms that can be used in the community and advising people early on was very interesting. I do that every week. We have a great citizens' advice centre in Nenagh but, frankly, it is between the two of us. I am essentially lost in many cases because I am proscribed as regards giving advice. I am more trying to guide and help in a sort of holding-hands way rather than giving fermented qualified advice. In some cases, that does help. You are putting people on a pathway rather than giving them advice. That needs to be dialled up. There are resource issues as well. They are across the board. I just wanted to make that point.

There is obviously a difference between the majority view and the minority view in here. To speak frankly, I think everyone is three quarters of the way towards one view or the other. My personal views probably lean more towards the minority view. We are in a crisis situation as regards resources. What are the witnesses' views in that regard? There is obviously an issue in relation to practitioners' pay. That is going to have to be dealt with. This has been going on and on. I have lots of friends who work in this area and they keep doing it almost because it is a vocation or out of goodwill. There is another issue which I did not realise existed until the last year or so, particularly as the EU migration and asylum pact came in. I am talking about the complexity of some cases. This is the one question I really wanted to ask. What can we do? Even if we dealt with the financial resource issues as regards pay tomorrow, what could we do to divert more people towards work in this area to deal with the complexity of how these cases are managed? Some of the people I listen to tell me that some cases take up so much time that they do not have the bandwidth to get through the amount they need to. Can I have a quick comment from each group on that?

Speaking for the Women's Aid's beneficiary group, the complexity of their cases arises because there may be a fast track for applications relating to domestic violence but not for those relating to custody, access, separation or any of the other concurrent proceedings that might be going on. They need to be taken as a package. Having spoken to many legal professionals - there are plenty here who will speak for themselves - I know that the entire model of the private practitioner list for civil legal aid and the availability of civil legal aid solicitors is such that one case can take a huge amount of time. You almost need a critical mass of cases. How to make the model financially viable for professionals in order for them to also be able to manage concurrent cases needs to be looked at.

On behalf of the Bar Council, I agree that there is a crisis. The position of many of our members is that they are effectively doing the work for vocational reasons only. To answer the simple question of what can be done to improve the situation, recommendation 22, which is for immediate implementation, is to review the pay rates.

Surely it is not the only answer.

It is the first answer to the question because it is a recommendation for an immediate review.

I accept that.

Sometimes a resource issue is just that. Civil legal aid is an important public service, but there are issues with the structure. Those issues should be reviewed.

Both reports recommend that in different ways. In the very short term there is a need for an immediate review of pay rates, and if those rates are not addressed-----

I agree. I think that is 90%, but there are others.

To reiterate, I am always reluctant when people park resources because the World Bank and the OECD have carried out research on a whole lot of legal aid systems that shows it benefits the state. For every pound or euro invested, there is payback. I would love the message to get home that resources spent on legal aid are an investment for the state.

It saves money at the other end.

Yes. That is not just me but the World Bank and the OECD.

It is common sense.

The best way to free up the Legal Aid Board to deal with complex cases is to strengthen the preventative services, which again are not resource-intensive, an try to bring information to people early on when they can sort out their problems before they get to litigation and have to bother with the Legal Aid Board. The Citizens Information Board should be resourced so it can provide assistance in areas like social welfare and before the Workplace Relations Commission.

Resources, which we may come to later, are a real issue for us in every respect. However, I suggest mediation be expanded beyond just family law matters. That would prevent a lot of matters going onto the court lists. The Family Courts Act will also assist in locating all family law matters in hubs. A lot of private practitioners will be at that hub for the day in any event. They are just a few ideas.

I echo what has been said, but FLAC and the Law Society have proposed a restructuring of the private practitioner scheme. We would have fewer people doing it but they would become experts. It would be a narrower and smaller scheme to encourage a quota of solicitors and barristers to specialise in legal aid and they would get enough work so it can be done more cost-effectively.

I thank everyone for coming in. They are really pushing an open door where I am concerned. Ms Benson talked about an independent legal centre. Will she outline how she envisages that working? Do the other witnesses agree with an independent legal centre?

I have a question for Ms Cleary about barristers' fees. I will put my cards on the table and say I am a qualified barrister and I dip in and out of the courts still. I am aware of the criminal fees structure, but perhaps Ms Cleary would outline what a barrister could expect at District Court level as a fee for a case and the hours around that so we have a more concrete example.

On mediation, if we can get cases mediated before moving into the courts, it is far more successful and cost efficient, but can anyone, perhaps the Law Society, give me the rate of success and some hard facts about mediation? Do we have a 50% success rate when we mediate cases? I am looking for something along those lines to demonstrate how effective mediation is and why it deserves to by fully resourced and funded.

I will refer to our submission so I stay on track. We were suggesting building on some of the comments from FLAC about the benefits of dedicated and specialist independent law centres. We also concur with the needs for some of our other marginalised groups and communities. We recognise the work of the likes of Community Law and Mediation and Mercy Law. What we do not have, which some other jurisdictions do, are targeted legal services for women specifically that specialise in relevant areas of law and especially domestic, sexual and gender-based violence. There are some models in Australia. There is the New South Wales legal service and the Women’s Legal Service Queensland. In the UK in England and Wales there is Rights of Women. These services provide specialist advice and representation in a number of areas with a primary focus on domestic, sexual and gender-based violence but also other areas such as family law and employment. What we see at the moment is a rise not just in the issue of domestic and sexual violence but also other forms such as stalking and harassment. A model that included, perhaps, online mechanisms could be a very beneficial addition to what FLAC has mentioned about the benefit of local and community-based specialist law services.

I think the Bar was asked about the fees.

Unless anybody wanted to expand on the independent legal services.

In the minority report it was recommended that there be specialist services. While we mentioned services for Travellers, obviously something like domestic violence would be critical, but it would be important it did not just deal with that but also with issues like housing or social welfare related to the family law issue arising. It would be quite a comprehensive service that would be offered.

I will give an example in the District Court of some of the most important cases, which are the child protection ones. They are described as child welfare, but it is child welfare and child protection. The case fee for a junior counsel in the District Court, including all preparatory work, consultation and court appearances up to the full hearing, is €750. There is an additional €150 for every interim application. The care applications have to be reviewed – all the interim applications – every 29 days. These cases can go on and on. It is all documented very well by Maria Corbett and Carol Coulter under the auspices of the Child Law Project. I think Dr. Coulter was reappointed recently by the Minister for justice to continue that project. She submitted a report to the Department in 2018 having examined particularly complex childcare cases in the District Court that went on for over a year and she came to the same conclusion. As such, I am not just speaking on behalf of members and what they are telling us about their personal experience. This has been objectively studied by Dr. Coulter and Dr. Corbett and in that report they identify and highlight how complex these cases are.

There are limitations on time in the District Court. Cases might start and then be broken up. They could be part-heard cases and parties have to go back and read into the case again. There are a multiplicity of experts involved, including social workers and psychologists. There would be solicitors acting instructed by the Child and Family Agency, CFA, who are paid differently. When the CFA retains counsel, it does so at a completely different rate from counsel retained by the Legal Aid Board, so there is a complete inequality there.

Coming back to the fees, the case fee is €750. Then there is a refresher fee of €400 when the case comes back if there is a full hearing of the matter. It is €150 for taking judgment. Junior barristers carry out this work but it is very junior barristers. In the past more senior barristers continued doing this work for a very long time. There is a vocational element to it and it is also very interesting work a lot of barristers enjoy doing, but at a certain stage in a barrister’s career it just becomes completely and utterly unviable to continue working at those fees. We conducted a survey of all our members last year and we got significant feedback about the sense of morale and the number of people who are continuing to work in childcare and other areas of the civil legal aid system. We are aware there is a very substantial exodus of barristers from the system after a certain number of years. They simply do not continue to engage on behalf of the Legal Aid Board. Some very senior practitioners will still carry out the work if they have a relationship with a particular solicitor from a given law centre, but by and large you will find very junior practitioners in the District Court. In the report I was talking about Dr. Coulter recommended – this is in line with what Mr. Walsh is suggesting about increasing the level of speciality of solicitors – a panel of childcare experts from the Bar who would have-----

There might be time to elaborate on that later. I am just conscious of other members.

That is all dependent on fees, however.

I apologise to the Law Society. I will bring them in first on the next occasion.

I thank our witnesses. There is a line in the opening statement from FLAC which is quite extraordinary in terms of capturing where we are when it comes to this area, "Ireland's system of civil legal aid may go from crisis to collapse altogether during 2026 (because of the huge increase in the LAB's workload arising from the implementation of the EU Migration Pact) if urgent action is not taken." I do not think urgent action is being taken at the moment, so how close are we to collapse?

We have an existing caseload of international protection, IP, cases. Last year we had over 8,000 applications on top of what we have already. With the EU migration pact at the moment, we are piloting a system that we hope will lead to more efficiencies and that will be able to put in, when the migration pact is implemented in June, a viable minimum service, which we will build on. We will learn from what we do in the first month or two and we will build on that throughout the end of the year. We are focusing at the moment on resourcing that service and on putting in place a pilot project in Citywest in order that people out there, the international protection applicants, can access our service more easily. At the moment, only about 63% of international protection applicants are accessing our service, and we feel that needs to be increased. We believe that our being on site in Citywest, where a lot of the people are, will increase that. We are piloting a service to allow for that increase. Obviously, it is reliant on more resources, and we believe that in 2027 we will need more resources to be able to keep up with what comes in to us in 2026. For the moment, however, we are putting every effort into being ready for the implementation of the EU migration pact legislation in June 2026.

Ms Barry said that FLAC's phone line received 70,000 calls but had the capacity to answer just over 11,000 of them. Can she give us some sense of who FLAC is missing, not through any fault of its own? Who is missing out on justice, basically?

We are very conscious of the figures. It is only in the past few years that technology has allowed us see who we are missing. We run a telephone information line where people can get basic legal information. It used to be run by students. Now, because of the nature of the need, we hire qualified solicitors to answer the phone calls. In 2024, over 53,000 calls were made to the phone line. That is just during opening hours. The number rises to 70,000 if you look at calls made during the evening and at the weekend. A fraction of them may be repeat callers, that is, people who are absolutely desperate and who just keep ringing the phone line. The majority of calls relate to family law and employment law.

A common theme in family law cases is that people have been granted legal aid but cannot access the private practitioner scheme. That is a major issue. It is that or they have a court case coming up and they have not had a solicitor appointed yet but they believe they are entitled to one. The question is how they access a private practitioner on the Legal Aid Board panel or what they should go in and tell the court, in that they are entitled to legal aid, but whether they should be looking to adjourn the case. That is family law and it would be mostly divorce, separation, custody and guardianship. There has been a notable increase in domestic violence calls to the phone line as well.

After that we deal with employment law issues. In 2024, 2,341 people were able to get through on our phone line with employment law queries. While our FLAC clinics can provide basic legal advice, after that there is nowhere to send people because there is no legal aid in employment cases. People contact us looking for representation before the Workplace Relations Commission and there is nowhere to send them. We are conscious that we send away every year over 2,000 people who have to try to represent themselves before the WRC. They tell us that they face employers who may be represented by junior counsel or senior counsel and they just do not feel able to deal with the matter. Since the Supreme Court judgment in the Zalewski case, all the procedures have become more formalised as well.

That is the unmet legal need from our phone line, but we also run a Traveller service and a Roma clinic-----

I have 40 seconds. I might just ask Ms Benson-----

Sure.

I thank Ms Barry. Whom does the €18,000 threshold exclude from justice, of those who contact Ms Benson's service? I am conscious she has talked about the significant increase in calls to her service. What does the €18,000 threshold in terms of the-----

It has not shifted in many years so it excludes a huge proportion. The working poor, in particular, do not make it, but I would also include those in the middle class. I mentioned economic abuse and control of assets and cases where people will fail the means test for other reasons. In fact, they may not even have access to the family's resources. A huge proportion of people will either almost impoverish themselves by trying to pay for a private practitioner or end up having to represent themselves.

So this facilitates almost another form of abuse and a change in the dynamic. That is shocking.

Listening to everybody, the whole role of civil legal aid in granting access to the courts is really important in any functioning democracy. Going on the point Deputy Gannon made about the €18,000, to qualify for social housing you need to be earning less than €40,000. To qualify for a medical card on your own you need to be earning no more than €21,736, and if you have a child it is €31,564. We just seem to have this kind of dichotomous, schizophrenic idea of what is affordable or what is not affordable. Given, in particular, the clients Ms Benson serves and the victims of domestic violence, we need a much better way of drilling down into people's circumstances before we get into denying civil legal aid to them. Simply, a monetary test on its own certainly is not good enough.

In relation to the private practitioners, somebody mentioned the difficulty in employing additional practitioners to the Legal Aid Board. That seems to be a problem across the board. There seems to be a particular dearth of solicitors in the market. How do the witnesses think that can be changed in the current employment market for solicitors or how could we attract them into that more? It seems solicitors are all going into the big firms and private practitioners. The monetary reward there is much greater than it would be, for example, in the Legal Aid Board, certainly currently.

There are two issues there. The first is solicitors employed by the board, of whom we have 134 at the moment plus ten vacancies. Then there are the private practitioner panels, which are private solicitors working on their own behalf. The fees for private practitioners are, frankly, not good enough. We have put a number of submissions in over the years to have those fees increased because, over the past five or six years, we have lost about 60% of our private practitioners off panels because it is not economically viable for them. It is imperative, therefore, that the private practitioner fees are increased to encourage not only more people to stay on our panel but also new people to come onto the panel. If we are to increase the service in any respect, we absolutely rely on our private practitioners.

Our employed solicitors, on the other hand, are on a scale similar to those in the Chief State Solicitor's office and the DPP's office. However, we can only start our experienced solicitors on the third point of the scale. The DPP and the CSSO, we understand, can start them on the seventh point, and their scale goes much higher, to about €102,000. Ours goes up to about €80,000, so, unfortunately, not only are we not attracting solicitors but we are losing our solicitors. Every year we lose a number of solicitors who go to work for the CSSO or the DPP, which is understandable, particularly for those in Dublin, where living expenses are very high. It is a two-pronged problem. First, we definitely need an increase in the private practitioner fees before we look at thresholds or anything else because, otherwise, we will put a service that is already in crisis into far greater crisis.

Second, our own solicitors deserve to be paid at the same rate as any other State solicitor and we would really welcome a change in that because it is very difficult for us to not only attract but retain our solicitors. At the same time, as the Deputy quite rightly said, the State is employing people in other services at a higher salary but private practitioners are offering a far greater amount of money than we could ever hope to offer to be able to attract solicitors. There is a two-pronged approach to that particular resourcing issue.

In relation to family law cases where one party to the dispute has hired a private practitioner and is paying them themselves, and the other one has not got the resources to do so, oftentimes, in my experience, you will see significant delays in the progress of family law cases as a result. I think somebody said there is 64 weeks of a delay in Sligo between the initial application and getting your first appointment. In Dublin, the experience would certainly be around six months at least. People are going to court and cases are constantly being adjourned. It is eating away at court resources as well. Does Ms Crawford think, other than the employment of additional solicitors, that there is any way of speeding up the process?

I can certainly tell the Deputy that the situation where our longest waiting list is at the moment, which is in Sligo, is directly related to all the private practitioners, PPs, in that area not taking any work from the Legal Aid Board because of the cost and what we are paying, or are allowed pay. That is a direct problem. Our three solicitors there are taking priority matters all the time, such as domestic violence and other priority matters, of which there is a long list. They are not getting to the waiting list as a result. If we had a fee that was payable and acceptable to private practitioners, we would have people coming back on the panel and that would alleviate the pressure on the three solicitors there, who are travelling to many different counties outside of Sligo to cover urgent work, particularly domestic violence work. It would free them up to take more cases off the waiting list. However, we are dealing with that problem. We are redeploying some of the work there. We are looking at putting in another resource there temporarily to help. When we have these issues, we look at what we can do to try to solve them and we are putting in measures at the moment to do that.

There is no doubt, to answer the Deputy's question, that we do need the availability of private practitioners to keep our service where we would like it to be. We would never stand over a situation, or like to see a situation continue, where there is such a long waiting list everywhere. That is really denying people access to justice and it is not covering our statutory mandate.

I might let Mr. Walsh in on that particular issue because it is pertinent to the wider conversation.

It is frustrating, as somebody who has worked in family law for 30 years, to stand by and watch the way the Legal Aid Board has been underfunded since it was put on a statutory basis in 1995 and up to now. The Law Society of Ireland, FLAC and other groups here also think that, first, the resources have to be put in place to restore private practitioners' fees and also barristers' fees. We should also maybe look at restructuring the private practitioner panel to make it attractive and to make it a specialist expert panel. The example is there from the Mental Health Act 2001 panel, which is run by the Mental Health Commission. It is a specialist panel that delivers a greater service, if you like, to vulnerable adults who are generally in psychiatric care, so there can be more quality assurance around people who are on the panel and more training. There is a huge number of additional benefits where you have a much smaller and restricted panel but you have to allow people to develop professionally within that. It needs to be an attractive route for people who are in private practice to say, "Okay, part of my practice will be dedicated to being a Legal Aid Board solicitor. I will be on this specialist panel, I will get training and I will have to have high standards".

The resources are really important. Currently, we are so far behind in resources that it does not really matter what is done unless the resources are brought up. Assuming the resources were there, the restructuring of a panel to encourage a greater delivery of service to the client is really important. Quality assurance is also really important to ensure there is a quality service there. Most private practitioners deliver a quality service but even in a place like Dublin, there is really only one firm doing most of the work. For Dublin, you would need ten, 15 or 20 firms doing it and there would be sufficient work there. Without that, you are not going to have people. If you do not get that one solicitor who does it in Dublin, you are going struggle to find someone else because it is a city of 1 million people. That tells the Deputy how the system is but resources should be first and restructuring second.

I thank everyone for their contributions so far. First, I thank the people who did the minority report. I wish that is what we are teasing out more today, to be honest. I know it is the majority report that is going to get the most look-in. I am quite surprised, in that there are lots of great people among that membership. I would have probably hoped some people among that membership would have been a lot more aspirational in terms of what was recommended to the State in regard to how it supports those who are often furthest from the justice system being able to access justice.

If we look at what is considered within the threshold, the number is currently €18,000, as was mentioned, with €23,500 proposed by the majority report and €30,000 proposed by the minority report, in terms of the increase in the threshold. To bring it down to reality, I obviously agree with the resourcing of the Legal Aid Board in regard to fees, etc. I agree with the addressing and restructuring of all of that, especially because it is the communities I work with the most that most rely on legal aid. It is crucially important that people have access to good quality representation. Morale and people's conditions obviously affect that.

In regard to what is considered around the threshold, can I get a flavour from Ms Barry as to whether there is currently only an accommodation allowance, or are we looking at all childcare, transport, disability or people's school fees? What is considered when looking at legal aid in respect of the threshold?

The thresholds and the allowances have been there from 2006 and they have not been increased. It is €6,000 for childcare and €8,000 for accommodation, which bear no reality to the actual cost, particularly with regard to accommodation. Childcare is becoming more subsidised than it used to be but it still does not bear a reasonable cost. You do not have allowances for things like insurance, even though it is a criminal offence if you do not pay for insurance for your car. You do not have an allowance for transport to and from work. There is not an allowance for the cost of disability, even though it is Government policy and the cost of disability has now been estimated at around €12,000. There is an adult dependant allowance and a child dependant allowance but if you look at those figures, it is hard to work out what they are even supposed to represent because they do not correspond with social welfare figures for adult and child dependants. They are much lower, so you ask what they actually represent or what the allowances mean. There is no measurement of actual capacity to pay or the potential costs of the proceedings. It is a rigid system that does not look at whether it is going to be two hours in the District Court or two weeks in the High Court where the cost would be hugely increased. It is a kind of crude measure and while the minority report mentioned raising it to €30,000, that was with proper-----

Provisions for the allowances.

-----allowances, and then a kind of tapering system where people could actually make a contribution if they were above that. You would not have these cliff faces where you would fall off.

There is not currently an automatic one. The Deputy beside me mentioned other provisions that are made elsewhere, when looking at whether somebody is eligible for something, which do not apply to this being so rigid. I refer to being on social welfare or even the housing assistance payment, HAP. About a year and a half ago, in regard to legal aid, one woman was petrified to say that she was topping up her HAP rent by something like €700 on top of what was available for HAP.

There is a complete distortion of people's realities because the other systems are saying we are not going to give you HAP unless you find somewhere that takes this amount of rent because we do not see you as having the affordability to be able to pay the rest. People are having to lie to the system. She was not able to access legal aid because she was so petrified of being given inadequate accommodation. The poverty proofing piece seems to be completely absent from the legal aid system. I am concerned that the majority report does not go far enough to capture what poverty proofing looks like. What does poverty proofing look like?

At a minimum, there has to be a passporting of people-----

Yes.

-----on certain social welfare payments, although not all. Everyone gets child benefit. People do not have to be passported for that but for people in receipt of social welfare payments. If people are looking for emergency accommodation, are homeless or are whatever, there must be passporting for those issues. There must also be some measure of actual expenses. If a person has a serious disability or a disability and it costs because of having to spend a greater amount of money on heating or other facilities, then that must be factored in. There are also other costs. If a person lives in rural Ireland, maintains a car and travels to and from work, then that must also be factored in.

Is child maintenance considered as part of the means test for, say, a woman who is on social welfare and receives child maintenance?

We are looking for an increase in the threshold to €27,500. The reason is that we equate it to the 2026 national wage. The difference at the moment is €18,000. We seek €27,500, or a 53% increase. We are increasing a lot of the allowances. We would like to see a lot of the allowances increased, as a result. We would like to double the amount that is allowed for accommodation from €8,000 to €16,000 and childcare from six to 12 years because it is not realistic, particularly in the Dublin area where childcare is far greater than that.

Currently, the average rent for people in Dublin is €1,895. That is probably an underestimation for most people.

Yes.

That is €22,740 a year. It just does not-----

What we feel is appropriate at the moment, we would like to see it indexed, or some system where it is properly indexed. The thresholds have not been increased since 2006 and things have changed dramatically. Last year and the year before, many people found it difficult to pay their energy bills and that is not taken into consideration. There is a huge disparity at the moment. We know that there are people who should be eligible for legal aid who we are turning away. Sometimes people are only slightly above the threshold and that should not happen. There are people who do need our service but are not getting it because of the thresholds so we would very welcome the thresholds being increased. However, before they are increased, we need to first look at the capacity issue. There is no point in increasing the thresholds where a lot of other people would become eligible for our services without a corresponding resource element because the system would simply collapse. We would very much welcome increased thresholds.

I thank Ms Crawford. We will bring Senator Ruane back in in the second round.

One of the things that strikes me when talking about thresholds and fees that have not changed in 20 years, previously I was a member of the Committee of Public Accounts, and other committees, and I have seen how the State has increased its legal expenditure over the same timeframe. It verges on the ludicrous. I call Deputy Ward and then we will have a second round.

I will take back the 20 seconds the Cathaoirleach took out of my time, if that is okay.

Having listened to everyone, and it is no criticism of anybody here, it seems that access to justice is being denied to a whole cohort of people who really need it. If a person meets that really low threshold of €18,000, in some cases they must wait up to 64 weeks - a year and three months - for a first consultation. That is damaging to families and individuals, especially in cases of domestic violence, because that would make up a big cohort of people seeking advice, or in cases of relationship breakdown where people are looking for advice on family law. I could not put it into words the damage that can be done in 64 months. I have seen people deteriorating in front of me while they wait for this process to begin and that is only the start of it.

Income thresholds have been mentioned. A threshold of €18,000 is approximately €350 per week. I do not know how people can survive on €350 a week, or even a little bit more than that. The cost of living has increased. The increase in energy costs was mentioned. The cost of food and everything has increased yet these people at this moment in time are excluded from the free legal aid system.

I agree with Ms Crawford's last point that increasing thresholds without increasing the necessary resources will make things worse. It is not going to help. It will mean that there is a whole lot of people who should have been able to access legal aid being able to access it now yet the Legal Aid Board will not have the necessary resources to provide people with what they need. That aspect needs to also be addressed.

I have a few questions. The first is for Ms Barry of the Free Legal Advice Centres. The FLAC submission mentioned health justice partnerships and the colocation of health, welfare and legal aid services. Can she explain how these models operate in practice and what are the benefits?

When doing research for the minority report, we looked at systems in other jurisdictions. One thing that happens in the UK is health justice partnerships, which also happens in Australia. If a person comes into their healthcare area, there will be someone employed there whose job it is to conduct a legal health check-up. Before a person leaves after having their medical check-up, they will check to see if the person is getting all their social welfare entitlements, housing entitlements and other entitlements. The argument is that we must bring services to where people are and one service that everyone uses is healthcare services. That is what we are talking about. We are also talking about bringing it to where people are in domestic violence refuges or if there are lay litigants coming into the Courts Service that there should be centres there where people can get information and advice.

Ms Barry mentioned what happens in the UK jurisdiction. Are people in the North of Ireland able to access that service?

The service is only being done on a trial basis in some areas in the UK. It also happens in Australia, where, if aboriginal people visit a local health centre, they will also have a legal check-up.

The witnesses probably saw me nodding when getting support in relation to the Workplace Relations Commission was mentioned. A couple of weeks ago, a person came into my office. They were in a low paid non-unionised job but they were put in a very difficult situation in relation to their workplace which meant that they had to leave. They were trying to take a case but they just were not getting the advice they needed and not getting support. They were basically turning up at the WRC without any advice. As witnesses will know, these companies have their own counsel and people attending the commission to advise them. How do we fill the existing gaps?

In terms of the WRC, and I am slightly nervous when people say do not extend the scope of the scheme until there are resources, we are in breach of EU law, I think, by having a blanket ban on bodies like the WRC and representation before social welfare appeals. It is absolutely vital the Legal Aid Board is resourced to provide representation before bodies like the WRC and in social welfare appeals but also that we build up the capacity of the system's information board, which has offices all around the country and has some officers who already, in a tiny number of cases, will provide representation. It would be great if their capacity could be built up to provide representation before the WRC, at least in non-complex cases, and leave the Legal Aid Board to deal with the complex cases. That is one issue. It is vital that there is a network of community law centres around the country in areas of very high deprivation whose job it will be to provide education and information, and take on cases that deal with those.

Community law centres were mentioned. They do not exist at the moment.

No, they do not exist. We have the Ballymun Community Law Centre and Community Law and Mediation are the two community-based law centres but they are based in the community. Research shows that the greater the disadvantage, the greater the poverty and the greater is the legal need. Middle-class people may use a lawyer once or twice in their lifetime but people who live in poverty will run into the hard face of the law in housing, social welfare, debt and employment.

Having law centres based in their communities where they can go to try to resolve the issues at an early stage is an important part of the solution. There are many barriers, so the different types of services have to be available, not just traditional law centres, but centres based in communities which are accessible to people and where multiple needs can be dealt with. Rather than them presenting with one area of family law that needs to be resolved, they can get advice on social welfare, housing and discrimination.

Has that worked in other jurisdictions? Are there any other models we can look at?

In Australia, there are more models of targeted and specialised services as well as in Canada.

They have them in some provinces in Canada. I will give an example from Australia. We met a representative of a Canberra law centre a number of years ago whose service was integrated into outreach homeless services. The people providing those services to people, including people sleeping rough, were also providing legal health checks to identify their legal needs to break the cycle of the issues leading people into their situations. The homelessness services and the legal aid law centre, which was working on a law centre specialised and community model rather than the service based model used in Ireland at the moment, were working hand in hand.

Deputy Ward got more than his 20 seconds. I will ask a few questions.

What percentage of the people who secure civil and legal aid did Ms Crawford say are family law cases?

It is a substantial percentage. It would be-----

Is it more than half?

Yes, it is more than half. I can give the Deputy the figure. I should say that international protection has probably taken over to a certain extent. It is about 33%. I can give the figure to the Deputy in a moment.

I want to clarify a point on a Senator's question. Maintenance is taken into consideration. The other thing I will clarify for Deputy Ward is that domestic violence is given priority. People do not wait 63 weeks for that.

To follow from that, a domestic violence case usually involves people seeking a barring order or taking such actions.

Yes, it is protection orders, safety orders and barring orders.

How do they present for civil legal aid? Do they make direct contact with Ms Crawford's office or does it happen through An Garda Síochána or organisations like Women's Aid?

There are a number of ways. Women's Aid refers people, as do An Garda Síochána and Free Legal Advice Centres, FLAC, and people might come into their local law centre through word of mouth. Particularly in the Courts Service in Dolphin House, we have a system where we have an office and there are others there, including Men's Aid and Women's Aid and the court staff refer people to our private practitioners office so they can be given a private practitioner to act for them.

Of the portion of domestic violence cases that come before FLAC, how many are allocated a private practitioner and how many get a Legal Aid Board solicitor?

In Dublin, all the domestic violence cases are allocated a private practitioner, except during the Covid-19 pandemic when we brought it back in-house because we could not get private practitioners. However, in Dublin it is fair to say the majority of domestic violence matters have to go out..

I presume if that is the case in Dublin, it must be the case in the regions. Is that so?

Not necessarily, because we have deserts in certain areas where we cannot get private practitioners, so our own solicitors deal with domestic violence in those areas.

Where are those deserts?

Sligo, Waterford, Kilkenny and it is growing. We have difficulties in Longford as well. If applicants cannot get a private practitioner to take their case in Dublin or elsewhere, one of our solicitors has to step in and do it. That is in place.

For protection orders, barring orders and other orders that are sought, what is the longest period before people are allocated a solicitor and have taken the actions they need to take?

There should be no delay in that at all. They should have advice before their court dates. Protection orders get dates very quickly. Interim barring orders sometimes get dates quickly depending on the circumstances and then go back to a further date for a full barring order hearing. Applicants will and should have a solicitor available to them for any of those applications.

Criminal legal aid fees have been restored. It is clear why they have and civil legal aid fees have not. The crisis that would emerge in the criminal legal system, were legal aid not provided, would be visible, whereas the crisis happening in civil legal aid with delays and backlogs is invisible. Is it a case that the representative organisations have not been shouting loud enough about this issue?

I have been involved with the Law Society for more than 25 years and we have been shouting about legal aid for a long time. We certainly have not been silent and neither has the Bar. One of the Deputy's predecessors was a Deputy called Eileen Lemass in the 1970s and she said that without legal aid there is no bill of rights. The problem is that it is a silent problem. It does not emerge hugely on legislators' desks or it certainly does not seem to be an issue that it appeals to governments to give funding to. Every one of the Legal Aid Board's reports for the past 20 or so years-----

When were the majority and minority reports completed?

They were sent to the Government last April.

They were published in July.

How did we get to a point where a Minister has a report that was three years in the making and which points out what I consider to be blatantly obvious - that if fees and thresholds have been in place for 20 years, there will be a problem - and is able to sit on their hands for another seven or eight months?

The representative bodies have been in quite a lot of contact with the Government about this matter. There have been a number of articles in all our publications and we have all spoken out. FLAC held a conference. We have to keep doing that and attending meetings like today. The Bar Council also had a meeting, which I think the Cathaoirleach attended.

I will go back to the domestic violence point. It was a well made point about how domestic violence is prioritised when it is purely domestic violence. One of the concerns I have, as do the Law Society and other groups, is that domestic violence often does not emerge on its own. It might emerge as part of a judicial separation. Some people do not specifically put their hands up and say they want a domestic violence order. They suffer in silence and are getting separated because of a domestic violence issue. Unless they call out the domestic violence issue, which it might not suit them to do because it may frankly not be safe to do so, they are not prioritised. That is not just a problem of civil legal aid. It is a problem of the entire system. We may need to look at that and certainly at domestic violence and how we deal with in civil legal aid.

It also spills over into mediation. Mediation suits everything except cases where there may be domestic violence, financial coercion or coercive control. Domestic violence does not mean people have gone to court and said there is domestic violence and they want a specific order. It can also happen quite silently in the home and not come out. I have a number of clients who only told me at the end. They said they did not want to tell me when I asked about domestic violence, that they did not want to get into that issue and they tell me afterwards. Realistically, there is quite a lot of hidden domestic violence still and we need to find a way to prioritise that as well.

I will allow Ms Benson to elaborate in a few minutes when I open a second round. We will have time for five minutes each if no other members come in. I call Senator Ruane.

I will pick up on the mediation point and then I might get comments on the environmental aspect mentioned in the minority report, though not necessarily in the majority report.

I finished on mediation. I have a real concern when I hear about mediation and that is from someone who looks to use mediation at community level, especially in violence intervention when it is like for like. Domestic violence is the obvious situation to point to in terms of coercion. I am considering the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, and other places where power exists and where it does not when it comes to mediation. Are there any comments on guidelines on mediation that expands beyond domestic violence and employee-employer relationships, for example, women and housing. For reasons of poverty, they may end up in the Dóchas Centre and come out to no house.

They cannot even challenge it. There are so many things where the power imbalance is so off that mediation between people is already skewed in and of itself. Could the witnesses comment on what that should look like and how this could be assessed?

We have a significant concern with mediation being presented as an alternative to legal aid. Significant rights can be engaged when people are taking part in a mediation process. In a family case, you might have maintenance or rights to the family home concerned. People would still need legal assistance or legal advice at the outset on what their core rights are going into it in the area of law concerned, but also their rights in the process, including their right for it to be a consensual, where they can step away and seek to go through the court process instead, if the process is not suitable for resolving their issue. They would also then need legal advice on any potential agreement as a result of that mediation process.

We are very much concerned about this idea of mediation being an alternative to legal aid. In some instances, it can be an alternative to an adversarial process to resolve the issue but it is not an alternative to people being made aware of their rights and being properly represented in asserting them.

The Senator also mentioned the issue of employment law and the WRC. Research is cited in the minority report around the benefits of having legal representation when an issue is before a WRC tribunal. That examination, which looked at employment equality issues, showed that where there is legal representation, the chances of success improve dramatically. Again, the WRC is an area where there is now a heavy emphasis on mediating issues before they get to the adjudication process.

There is a role for mediation where the parties want to resolve their issues in that way and can avoid the adversarial process. There is a particular benefit to that in family law issues, where there is this ongoing relationship. In employment law issues, there may also be an ongoing relationship, but there is still that space for legal assistance needed. That needs to be factored into the reform of the system as well.

"hen we were working on the NDA Bill, an exception was carved out for the WRC to be able to still impose confidentiality clauses, which is problematic in that people may think they are entering into some sort of dispute, but there is a power dynamic of harassment or risk.

Some mediation that has happened at a more local level within organisations or the community sector, or whatever it may be, proposes mediation between people. However, there is often a message given that you do not want to be seen to be the one raising issues all the time, that you will need a reference to move on and all these things. I have massive concerns around what mediation looks like and who it benefits.

As regards a mediation council, which is one of the proposals for the Law Society, this would regulate mediators and provide much more safeguards. Almost everybody else involved in family law or employment law has some type of regulatory body, and mediators need to be regulated.

The second point is how the legal aid system is built, and we need to rebuild the system. If mediation is incentivised in every case, that means people who do not go into mediation, maybe because there is not an equality of arms or they cannot do it because of a coercive or financial element, which may be unspoken within the system, are penalised. If mediation is incentivised, those who do not go into it are penalised. We have to be very careful of how we deal with mediation and not say it is going to cure everything. We can use it as much as we can, but we have to be mindful there are inequalities and huge issues that might arise.

May I ask in the last second-----

Ms Crawford wanted to come in briefly

-----an ideological question that goes back to the Cathaoirleach's question about why fees have gone down. Is there an ideological issue? I am probably making connections where I do not need to make them, but I am wondering how civil cases can often challenge the State where criminal cases often do not challenging power to some degree. If we look at the environmental factors, employers and State bodies, is there ideological suppression?

I have many hands up to answer that question. I will call Ms Barry first and then the rest.

There is an ideological element. We have been told by senior civil servants at international human rights committees that legal aid is just money for lawyers and it is not going to happen. That is a very strong ideological element because there is a constitutional element to criminal legal aid. There are strong EU requirements in legal aid on the civil side. It is perceived as money for lawyers and you do not get beyond that, even though the Government and State-----

I am just going to let others come in very briefly, with Ms Crawford first and then Mr. Guerin.

To answer the Cathaoirleach's question, 51% of our work is family law.

We currently offer family mediation and prioritise that if someone is in mediation, they have to get a priority appointment for legal advice. Legal advice goes hand in hand with it. Court-based mediation is the most successful mediation we do in Dolphin House and three other locations because people are on-site and we can resolve their issue and have the order made that day.

We would welcome an increase in the type of matters we deal with in mediation. We think it is something that should be looked at, particularly with regard to matters my colleagues have mentioned with the WRC. We have highly trained mediators. I agree with Mr. Walsh that the mediator council needs to be in place as soon as possible to regulate the people who work in that area and to have standards that are set.

Our mediators are probably the most experienced mediators in the country. It is a free service, and we screen people for issues like domestic violence and coercive control, and they are very experienced in doing that. Only people who are cleared from that will go on to mediation, if they wish; it is not mandatory. The only thing we would suggest in the family law area is that people should have to partake in an information session on what mediation is before they issue access and maintenance applications in the District Court because it is very easy to walk in an issue of summons. Much of the work we do in Dolphin House resolves these issues and the acrimony is taken out. In a lot of matters, acrimony is taken out of the issue, rather than going into court on an adversarial basis. We recommend in those particular areas of access and maintenance, particularly where families are going in year after year, with 31 applications for communions and confirmations, etc., that we can deal with that in mediation. It is free and if they only had an information session, they might get to understand how it can help them.

We would see many benefits to that.

First, criminal legal aid fees have not yet been fully restored, but hopefully that will happen by 1 July this year.

Second, regarding campaigning, it obviously made sense to wait until the civil legal aid review process had concluded, and we have accelerated our campaigning on that issue since then but, like the Law Society, it has been an issue for a long time.

Regarding Senator Ruane's question, there is a disturbing trend in public policy outcomes going back over several decades, starting with personal injury reform in 2003 and 2004; the reform in the structures of the employment rights institutions; the whole area of family law and everything that is funded by the civil legal aid system; and most recently, the proposed attack on right of access to the courts in environmental cases. That trend is to disempower ordinary citizens by depriving them of access to the best legal advice. For people who are in a situation where they are weaker on economic, financial or other grounds and whose rights are in jeopardy, the best form of protection for those individuals and the best way of equalising the playing field, so to speak, is to give them access to fearless, independent legal advice and advocacy. That is what the Bar does with our colleagues in the Law Society.

This is the important point, and I will go back to what Ms Barry said. Attacks on civil legal aid are not attacks on lawyers; they are attacks on the people who need the services of lawyers.

This question is probably going to give the witnesses the chance to elaborate on some of the comments I made on prioritising domestic violence cases. As Mr. Walsh said, sometimes it is not known that domestic violence was a factor until the very end, when it is often too late for that person.

In her opening statement, Ms Benson mentioned domestic abuse should be screened for in all cases of family law. Could she expand on that, what that would look like and the reasons behind it?

It goes beyond the purview of just looking at civil legal aid reform. It is the entire family law system, and obviously civil legal aid has a role within that.

We commissioned and published research last year that was undertaken by Trinity College Dublin school of social work and social policy in conjunction with UCC School of law. That looked specifically at the experiences of adults, and for the very first time, child victims and survivors of domestic abuse, not in the context of domestic violence proceedings, but in the context of guardianship, custody and access proceedings.

On the point raised earlier by the Chair, proceedings go swiftly for access to protective orders, which of course have to remain urgent and prioritised. There are so many concurrent proceedings, especially where there are children in common. What we also know from the research is that the system does not respond to the fact that domestic violence is endemic. It is more likely than not to be a factor. That makes sense on a logical level. Most families, even when they break up, which can be painful, do not necessarily need recourse to the courts for all matters. Therefore, those who do will be disproportionately more likely to have domestic abuse as a factor.

Screening is required but every aspect of the system needs to be domestic violence informed. We have made submissions on the Family Courts Act and numerous submissions on expert reports, in camera arrangements and so on. At every point in the system, we must consider whether there is domestic abuse or coercive control. It cannot be on a once-off basis; it has to be on an ongoing basis because, as per Mr. Walsh’s point, there is lack of trust very often. Survivors are also very often actively discouraged from disclosing the fact that they are living with abuse. They may not seek to have recourse through the Domestic Violence Act because the act of separation is the means by which they are trying to get away and become safe. Post-separation abuse is not recognised widely in the system, yet it is an incredibly high-risk and pervasive form of abuse. We have seen serious weaponisation of the courts themselves, including in the recent case where, after a two-year relationship and with a child in common, a woman was dragged for 15 years through the courts, with fees amounting to €350,000. Ultimately, the Supreme Court made an unusual ruling, under what is known as an Isaac Wunder arrangement, to state the former partner could no longer vexatiously use the courts through family law proceedings. The whole system has to be informed on a continuous basis to encourage disclosure and risk management.

Let us say there is a standard family law dispute over access to children after a relationship breakdown. Is screening needed at that stage? Who does that screening? Is it someone from the Legal Aid Board or is the matter referred to an organisation such as Ms Benson’s? How should it look?

We are talking about, and there is much talk about, the concept of having a trauma-informed system. I am cynical about what that means in meaningful practice. Domestic violence-informed means that if something is more likely than not to be a feature, everybody has to be vigilant regarding it. The points of disclosure can be multifaceted. The research I mentioned did a 360° analysis. Over 400 survivors were engaged with and children, judges, legal professionals and staff from specialist services for both men and women were interviewed. What emerged, unfortunately, was that even where many of the survivors disclosed that they had engaged with a professional from one of the various professions, including judges, Courts Service staff and legal professionals, who did understand and believe them and responded accordingly, accounting for risk, including risk for children, the overwhelming experience of the vast majority of those survivors was that the system did not get it. They felt they were more likely to be silenced or that the issue was siloed. There may even have been criminal cases concluded, but these issues were not introduced as relevant in matters of child custody and access.

The research also concluded, with respect to constitutional rights, that the child’s constitutional right to having their voice and welfare attended to in the system is not necessarily being vindicated. It is not just about one special individual understanding domestic abuse; the whole system has to understand it. Of course, if it is ruled out, that is fantastic. There are really important mechanisms. Mediation and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms should absolutely be used but we also need to recognise that contact with both parents is not necessarily automatically in children’s best interests. Coercive control is not just a tactic; it has impact. People make decisions that are not necessarily in their best interest in respect of agreements and settlements, and that is why having legal representation, whether through a private practitioner, privately commissioned, or a legal aid solicitor, is vital at all stages.

I thank Ms Benson for that. I call Deputy Brabazon.

I have just a couple of questions. The first is for the Bar Council and the Law Society of Ireland. Does professional withholding tax discourage private practitioners from getting involved in the legal aid scheme? It entails a deduction of around 20% from the fee. I realise people would get it back or get a tax credit later, but if that is pitted against-----

I do not think it does.

I agree.

The witnesses agree. That is fine.

It is open to everybody to answer my next question. How will artificial intelligence, AI, affect legal aid?

I will take that. We are considering how AI can assist but we are very cautious in respect of how it is used. It has its place and we have people who are being trained in it. For information giving, it could be very helpful. It certainly would not replace what is required in giving legal advice or legal aid, but for information giving it may be of use. There may be a digital platform whose purpose is literally to do that.

We have talked already about triaging people in greater numbers, particularly in the area of international protection, and considering legal counselling, which has not been defined yet as such. AI can play a part where there are many numbers and legal advice is not required. Legal advice should not be given by anybody except somebody qualified to give it. It certainly will not happen in this sphere of international protection that we understand under the new system, but AI does have a place in information giving. However, it will have to be very closely monitored. That is perhaps where we might consider it for the future.

It is important to say that the Legal Aid Board, under its establishing legislation, does not have an information function. We need amendments to the legislation to provide that it can do things like provide legal information, promote community awareness and training and engage on the advocacy aspect. That is where the development needs to be at the moment. I refer to humans providing these services in the first instance before we take the next step of considering how we can use technology.

On using technology, there is no legal information function. There is no State legal information telephone line that could provide a properly resourced service. That is the kind of service FLAC is trying to provide as a charity at the moment. We need a properly resourced website. There is a very valuable Citizens Information website and that service could be developed into one that deals with legal rights as opposed to just information on public services, as per the Citizens Information Board’s current statutory remit. There is significant scope for the development of these early legal services but maybe we need to take the first step of having them delivered by humans first before considering the role that technology can play later down the line.

On international protection, we are extremely concerned that, with regard to legal counselling as defined under the migration pact, the box could be checked by an AI system or through the provision of information videos to applicants for international protection. There is a genuine concern about a potential levelling down of services to applicants for international protection as a result of the migration pact. Our view is that the available legal advice and information needs to be expanded, along with the addition of the counselling through proper information, advice and advocacy services. Again, our priority in the first instance involves providing legal information through technology such as websites and telephone lines before taking the next step into AI.

One of the things we see happening in courts at the moment is that lay litigants who are deprived of proper legal advice are turning to AI to generate documents for use in court. Very often, these are misguided, at best, and more usually misleading and plain wrong. The first really concerning feature is the tragedy of people going to court in situations where they need to defend and vindicate their personal rights but without the legal advice to help them to do that.

Second, it actually slows down the work of the courts. It interferes with their ordinary functioning because all the material, once presented on someone’s behalf, has to be waded through. AI is potentially very useful for people who know how to use it. The Bar Council has already put in place ethical guidance for members on how to use it. We are commissioning an AI service, available to our members, but one that respects the fundamental principles of confidentiality, competence, expertise and independence in the way we do our work. AI is capable of being useful but it has to be operated within very strict and ethical guidelines.

Another angle coming up in other services and internationally, which is of particular interest to us, is chatbots being used to triage in information systems. Drawing on what has been said, a number of pilots have been initiated. When cross-referencing communication looking at assessing and picking up risk around mental health, vulnerability and abuse. there are not currently great outcomes in what has been found. That includes some that are designed specifically for domestic, sexual and gender-based violence. There are some really poor responses, such that in one research pilot they had to recommend their bot should not be used at all and not modelled. There needs to be great care especially engaging with something as complex as the legal system, where there is real vulnerability among who will be the core users. They might be trying to look at bots and things like that, but it needs to be carefully considered before they are rolled out.

I conclude with a broad question. Of course, I was being flippant earlier when I suggested the representative organisations had not been vociferous enough in raising this issue. I probably know better than anybody that they have been, and this issue has been boiling up for many years. Organisations like Women's Aid and, more importantly, those who have approached organisations like that have done a huge and important service by telling stories about their experiences and what the failures to address issues raised mean in real terms. They have brought us, and me personally, to a point I never thought I would be at, which is arguing the need for more money for lawyers. In this case, the truth of the matter is that civil legal aid is not being considered the vital public service that it is. It is essential to a functional society and at the moment we have a dysfunctional system. The testimonies we have heard today, and the evidence provided tells me that in many ways the incremental approach is not going to work. If we move on the slowly, slowly and wait until everything is fixed before we start addressing the core dysfunctions, I a future committee will be here in five, ten or 15 years having the same conversation. My question is for all the witnesses to address as briefly as they can. Is it not time that we address all of the issues? That means addressing the thresholds immediately and substantially, addressing the fee structure substantially and doing that now, and then addressing the range of services being provided across civil legal aid and doing it right. We have had the reports and the conversations. Is it time to take this as seriously as warranted?

The short answer is "Yes". We did not mention it in our statement but the reform needs to be to the Legal Aid Board. Creating new structures is not necessarily the way to go with yet another mechanism. Urgency is the most significant thing at this stage, and what will do it efficiently by working in a transformative way with those who already engaged on the work, which is all of my colleagues present.

We are asking that recommendation No. 22 be implemented, which says that fees need to be looked at immediately. That is what we are asking for. I just make a point on something the Cathaoirleach raised earlier, which was why the civil legal aid system did not get the same attention as the criminal justice system. Most of the cases we are talking about are in camera. They are private. They are not written about by the media. Karen Coulter has her own reporting system for childcare where the parties are anonymised. All family law proceedings are obviously in private. In the criminal justice system, the public at large generally understands crime and are interested in it. Victims of crime come out on the steps of the court and they can deliver a statement having delivered a victim impact statement in court. There is broad understanding of the criminal justice system, which is not there for the civil legal aid system. By and large, all of these cases are heard in private and victims of domestic violence deal with their difficulties through organisations like Women's Aid but not by going to the media. The civil legal aid ecosystem is an entirely different world we are operating in. On the subject of there not having been a campaign, there has been consistent engagement between the Bar Council and the Department of justice. In 2018, the Department represented to the Bar Council that the fees would be reviewed and revised. It specifically said that in quarter 4 of 2018 and nothing happened. We are at a critical stage as far as our members are concerned.

Insofar as the Minister has said anything, it is that it will be done on an incremental basis, but it is ten months since he received the report. We wholly support comprehensive and radical reform. I emphasise that it is something practical and worth doing. It is cost-effective and relatively easy to do with the infrastructure we already have.

The Legal Aid Board's position would be that there is not a requirement for an oversight body. We see that as eating into resources that should go to front-line services. While we would very much welcome any improvement in the matters we have raised, we would welcome a more phased introduction in respect of the capacity we have. That means barrister's fees, private practitioner's fees or all solicitor's salaries and the other issues with expert reports. All of those issues have to be dealt with first as a priority before we expand the system and the eligibility thresholds. We would welcome the eligibility thresholds being expanded. It is through the dedication of the staff in the Legal Aid Board who go over and above every day of the week that we are still able to operate and, with the support of our chairperson and statutory board, that we are in a position to continue doing what we are doing. I am concerned about overstretching an already stretched system without it being phased, proper supports put in and structural change.

Without resources, we are just wasting our time. Unless proper resources are dedicated to this civil legal aid system, we are going to run into the sand. The comparisons from FLAC are stark in terms of the kind of money spent on the greyhound and bloodstock industries or the Ryder Cup. This is a vital public service. It is a vital service for individuals. The difficulty is when people lose out on this service nobody shouts and no voice is heard. Yes, it maybe needs to be a bit more radical than it has been. Hopefully there will be change, and the Government will listen to this committee and to all of the people who have contributed to it.

I thank all of the witnesses again on the committee's behalf. That was a useful engagement. I propose we publish all of the opening statements on the committee website. I also propose that we go into private session to deal with some housekeeping matters. Is that agreed? Agreed.