2026-05-14

10. Deputy Paula Butterly asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration to outline the proposed changes to the legal aid scheme; how these proposals are consistent with the programme for Government commitment to restore legal fees; to clarify the extent to which relevant stakeholders were consulted prior to the publication of these proposals; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35591/26]

I thank Deputy Butterly for her question. I fully recognise the crucial role played by legal practitioners in the effective administration of justice and, equally, that the criminal legal aid scheme is fundamental to upholding the constitutional and human right to a legal defence. The whole purpose of the reform of the criminal legal aid fee structure in the District Court is aimed primarily at improving efficiencies, speeding up case resolution and reducing unnecessary adjournments, while also ensuring fair remuneration for legal practitioners. It is proposed to replace the current appearance-based sliding scale with a flat fee model. For cases in the District Court, regardless of the number of appearances, a generous set fee will be payable to solicitors. The proposed reform is intended to make the system work better for all concerned by making it more efficient, reducing unnecessary adjournments and speeding up case resolution. The new flat fee will be set at a rate that provides for full restoration of the so-called financial emergency measures in the public interest, FEMPI, cuts in line with the programme for Government commitment. I will, obviously, be reversing those cuts and restoring fees from 1 July as well. My Department carried out a review of more than 350,000 District Court cases that took place during 2022 and 2023. A number of issues were identified during that review that I simply had to address. I am engaging extensively with relevant stakeholders, including legal professionals. Officials from my Department met with the Bar Council and the Law Society in May, July and October 2025, and again in March 2026. I offered further meetings and I will continue to engage with them.

I welcome the Minister’s comments. I want to frame this as an opportunity to get reform right, to strengthen our justice system and to ensure, as the Minister said, that it works fairly for everybody. Nobody disagrees that change is needed and we all recognise that there are inefficiencies in the current system. Reform, though, must be done carefully and in a way that protects the core principles of justice. I know the Minister agrees with this point. The move towards a flat fee model in the District Court may appear at first glance to be a practical and streamlined solution. It does promise efficiency and simplicity. If we look at it a little closer, though, we begin to see the risks that come with oversimplifying something as complex as criminal justice. Not all cases are the same. Some are straightforward and can be resolved quickly, while others are complex, sensitive and require significant preparation, repeated engagements and time in court. Treating those different cases as though they are identical does not create efficiency but an imbalance.

I also have to take into account that the number of criminal cases in the District Court has decreased. Notwithstanding that, however, expenditure on criminal legal aid in the District Court has nearly doubled, from €19 million in 2015 to €37 million in 2024, despite the number of cases having decreased. The review I looked at identified a series of structural issues in the administration of justice in the criminal legal aid scheme. For example, payment per appearance incentivises additional adjournments. I think this is just clearly the case. If we compare cases in the District Court that are not funded by criminal legal aid to those that are, we can see that there are many more adjournments in the latter context. Additionally, multiple certificates granted for related cases increase costs and complexity, multiple solicitors are assigned in the same firm for related charges and a highly complex payment processing system creates a significant administrative burden. I would not introduce this scheme if I thought it was going to undermine the rights of individuals to a fair defence.

I repeat that all of us recognise the inefficiencies that do exist and that there is scope there for reform. However, let me guide the Minister toward a practical example. In County Louth, my constituency, we have the drug treatment court, which has proved to be a very effective and successful operation for those people appearing before the judges. It involves statutory and non-statutory stakeholders, and the model of flat fee-only appearances could have a detrimental effect on the drug treatment court because it is very complex. It is about reforming and giving a person another opportunity to live a very successful life, and the flat fee-only appearance rule would possibly jeopardise the situation. If we get the balance wrong, there will be consequences for the person before the courts and the hard-fought outcome hoped for may not materialise. We also risk discouraging solicitors from taking on legal aid work and creating gaps in access representation.

I thank the Deputy.

Will the Minister have further engagement with the key stakeholders and take on board their concerns before he brings forward these proposals?

I have had engagement with the representative associations. In fact, I wrote to them previously saying I was available to meet again if they wished to do so. I have no doubt that I will hear back from them. In terms of what the Deputy said about the provision of legal aid, it is a very competitive business among solicitors. I believe we are not going to lose that level of competition because of the reform I am proposing. The Deputy gave an example of what happens in the drug treatment court, but the report I considered from the Department identified that the weighted average of the number of appearances for cases with criminal legal aid is five, while the weighted average of the number of appearances for cases without criminal legal aid is just over three. Something is happening, therefore, when cases with criminal legal aid are having many more adjournments than is the case with those that do not. I think this proposal will make the system much more efficient and help the administration of justice.