Report of the Joint Committee on Justice, Home Affairs and Migration: Motion

I move: That Dáil Éireann shall take note of the Report of the Joint Committee on Justice, Home Affairs and Migration entitled "Report on Civil Legal Aid", copies of which were laid before Dáil Éireann on 2nd July, 2026. Cuirim fáilte roimh an deis labhairt faoin gcúnamh dlí sibhialta agus faoi thuarascáil an choiste inniu. Ní mór don Aire dul i ngleic leis an gceist seo go práinneach. I am delighted to have the opportunity to discuss before Dáil Éireann the report of the Joint Committee on Justice, Home Affairs and Migration on the topic of civil legal aid, which was published in June of this year. The committee, when drafting its work programme, identified this topic as one of vital interest and importance because access to justice is a fundamental principle in any democratic society and civil legal aid plays an essential role in ensuring that people are not denied access to legal representation simply because of their financial circumstances. The committee’s examination of this issue followed the publication of the majority and minority reports of the independent review group on civil legal aid, chaired by former Chief Justice Frank Clarke SC. The publication of those reports provided an important opportunity to consider whether the current civil legal aid scheme remains capable of meeting the needs of those who depend on it. Throughout its examination, the committee heard a consistent message from stakeholders that the civil legal aid scheme is under significant pressure and that urgent action is required if it is to remain sustainable. In relation to stakeholder engagement, in conducting its analysis of this topic, our committee sought the views of a number of key stakeholders and held a public engagement on 17 February 2026. At that meeting, we were delighted to welcome representatives from Women's Aid, the Law Society of Ireland, the Legal Aid Board, the Free Legal Advice Centres and the Bar of Ireland. They each presented evidence to the committee and outlined the areas of reform they believe required urgent attention. It was important that the committee had an opportunity to hear directly from those organisations that work on a daily basis with individuals seeking access to legal aid, including victims of domestic violence, families involved in family law proceedings and vulnerable people seeking to vindicate their legal rights. The committee recognises the valuable contribution from each of those who gave evidence and thanks them for ensuring the debate within our committee surrounding civil legal aid reform has been based on the fullest of information. On the key issues raised by stakeholders, the engagement allowed stakeholders to bring a number of important issues to the committee's attention. One of the most significant issues raised was the level of resourcing available to the Legal Aid Board. The committee was told the civil legal aid scheme is experiencing growing demand while, at the same time, facing difficulties in recruiting and retaining staff. Stakeholders pointed to lengthy waiting lists, legal aid deserts in certain parts of the country, increasing demand for services and growing pressures on existing staff. The committee was also informed that obligations arising from the EU migration and asylum pact were likely to place additional demands on the Legal Aid Board and may yet further stretch existing capacity. The second issue that was repeatedly highlighted by stakeholders concerned the financial eligibility requirements that have to be satisfied before a person can access civil legal aid. The committee was told that the income threshold has remained largely unchanged since 2006 and that it no longer reflects the realities of modern living costs. Stakeholders argued strongly that many individuals on low and modest incomes are effectively excluded from legal aid despite being unable to afford private legal representation. Concerns were also raised regarding the current contribution requirements and the limited range of allowable deductions available under the means test. Third, the committee heard about the experiences of victims and survivors of domestic, sexual and gender-based violence. This was evidence the committee took extremely seriously because stakeholders stressed that many survivors face significant difficulties in accessing legal support, particularly when they have limited access to family finances or are engaged in multiple legal proceedings arising from domestic abuse. The committee heard strong calls for a system that is more responsive to the needs of survivors and places their safety and circumstances at its centre. Stakeholders generally recognised the important role that family mediation can play in helping families resolve disputes at an early stage. At the same time, the committee was informed that mediation is not suitable in every circumstance. Particular concerns were raised regarding cases involving domestic abuse, coercive control or significant power imbalances between parties. Stakeholders stressed the importance of ensuring that safeguards, screening procedures and specialist supports are available wherever mediation is utilised. The committee also heard calls for the scope of the civil legal aid scheme to be expanded to additional areas of civil law and certain quasi-judicial forums. Stakeholders argued that many vulnerable people struggle to secure representation in important areas such as housing, social welfare, employment and equality matters. Finally, concerns were raised regarding the viability of the private practitioner scheme and the remuneration available to solicitors, barristers and expert witnesses working in the area of civil legal aid. This is particularly pertinent as we discuss, and are dealing with, a dispute arising from a new criminal legal aid scheme that in many respects simply took what has proved to be a broken model within the civil legal aid scheme and moved it across with disastrous consequences. In respect of civil legal aid, the committee was told that the inadequate fee structures are discouraging participation and creating recruitment and retention difficulties. There was a clear concern among stakeholders that, without reform, access to legal aid services may become increasingly difficult in some parts of the country. The key recommendations from our committee, which were taken and put together following the written submissions and oral evidence we received, form what I believe are a comprehensive and important set of recommendations. I will briefly outline a number of these for the information of the House. First, the committee recommends that urgent reform of the civil legal aid scheme take place and that the recommendations contained within both the majority and minority reports of the independent review group be considered and progressed as a matter of urgency. In particular, the committee strongly recommends the implementation of recommendation 22 of the majority report, which calls for an immediate review of the Legal Aid Board's capacity to administer the current scheme The committee also recommends that immediate and adequate funding be provided to the Legal Aid Board to ensure that it is sufficiently resourced to fulfil its current responsibilities and implement future reforms. It further recommends that an impact assessment of the EU migration and asylum pact take place and that resources be allocated accordingly to ensure the Legal Aid Board can respond to what will be increased demand arising from the implementation of that Act. On financial eligibility, the committee recommends a review of the means test, eligibility thresholds, deductible allowances and contribution requirements. The committee also recommends that thresholds and allowances be indexed and reviewed every three years, having regard to inflation, the cost of living and relativity to the minimum wage. The committee recommends that legal advice and representation be made available under the scheme to victims of domestic, sexual and gender-based violence, even where they exceed existing financial limits. It further recommends that this exemption extend beyond proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act 2018 to include separation, divorce, guardianship, custody, access and maintenance proceedings. The committee also recommends that survivors should not have to pay a financial contribution and that the merits test should be suspended in the short term where the user is a victim of domestic, sexual and gender-based violence. The committee also recommends strengthening family mediation through increased staffing, improved awareness and the establishment of the mediation council. The committee further recommends that robust safeguards and domestic violence screening procedures be built into the system to protect vulnerable parties. In addition, the committee recommends that the scope of the civil legal aid scheme be expanded to additional civil matters and selected quasi-judicial forums, supported by the necessary resources and staffing required to deliver those services effectively. The committee further emphasises the importance of preventative services and early intervention through improved legal information, advice and advocacy services that can assist individuals before legal difficulties escalate. The committee also recommends urgent action regarding remuneration and staffing issues across the sector, including improved pay and career progression opportunities for Legal Aid Board solicitors and a review of fees available under the private practitioner scheme. Having considered all of the evidence presented, the committee believes there are several areas which require particular attention. The committee wants to see urgent action taken to address the resourcing challenges facing the Legal Aid Board and stresses that reform cannot proceed without adequate funding and staffing being put in place. The committee also supports a phased and sustainable approach to reform. While there is broad support for expanding eligibility and extending the scope of legal aid, the committee agrees with stakeholders that these changes must be accompanied by the necessary resources to ensure the stability of existing services. The committee further wishes to see victims and survivors of domestic abuse placed at the centre of future reforms and believes that the civil legal aid system must become increasingly responsive to their specific needs and circumstances. The committee considers that preventative legal services, community-based supports and improved access to legal information should form an important part of the future direction of civil legal aid policy in Ireland. Civil legal aid is an essential public service and a vital component of access to justice. Our committee's examination of this issue has highlighted the strengths of the current system but also, more importantly, the significant pressures under which it now operates. While stakeholders expressed different views on some aspects of reform and there was no clear, single message in respect of the action that is required, the one thing on which there was unanimity was that the status quo cannot continue indefinitely. I consider this report to be a constructive and valuable contribution to the ongoing discussion regarding access to justice in Ireland and I hope that it will assist in progressing meaningful reforms that ensure civil legal aid remains accessible, sustainable and capable of meeting the needs of those who rely on it. It is noteworthy that when this committee first discussed dealing with this issue over a year ago, the Minister and the Department told us at that point that reforms and action were imminent. We had a hearing in February this year. We published a report in June this year. We are now having this debate in October 2026, a full 12 months after the committee first started having this conversation, and we do not have a civil legal aid scheme or the proposed mechanisms that will deal with what is a crisis for many. I understand the senior Minister is unavoidably absent for understandable reasons. We will be calling on the Minister of State and the senior Minister to take this matter incredibly seriously and to learn the lessons from the failures in the civil legal aid scheme, particularly as there is an unfolding and escalating dispute in the criminal legal aid scheme. That would suggest to many that the lessons from these failures have not yet been learned. We call on the Minister to look positively at our report, to see it as a constructive contribution to an important debate and to implement the recommendations of our committee as a matter of urgency.

I thank the Deputy. I welcome the opportunity to address the House on the Joint Committee on Justice, Home Affairs and Migration's report on civil legal aid. I acknowledge the significant work undertaken by the committee in examining this important issue and bringing forward its detailed report containing 30 recommendations. As the House is aware, in June 2022, a civil legal aid review group, under the chairmanship of former Chief Justice Frank Clarke SC, was established to review the current operation of the scheme. The review's report was published in July 2025 and contained a range of recommendations relating to eligibility for the scheme, including income thresholds and allowances, as well as recommendations aimed at improving access to justice and supporting the long-term sustainability of civil legal aid services. The joint committee's recent report also comprehensively details the need for reform of our civil legal aid system and calls for the implementation of appropriate recommendations arising from the civil legal aid review. In view of both these reports, I am pleased to say that under budget 2027, the Minister, Deputy Jim O'Callaghan, secured a historic investment of €14.5 million in funding to commence the implementation of key civil legal aid reforms, including increases to financial eligibility thresholds. A 67% increase in funding to the free legal advice centres and €74.6 million for the Legal Aid Board has also been secured in budget 2027. Overall, this represents an investment of over €90 million in access to justice initiatives, the highest investment in the history of the State in respect of civil legal aid. This will build on the growth in the provision of civil legal aid services over recent years. In 2025, the Legal Aid Board managed 25,869 applications for civil legal aid. In 2015, the equivalent figure was 16,793. Both the civil legal aid review and the joint committee's report recognised that meaningful reform must be underpinned by a Legal Aid Board that has the capacity to deliver services effectively. They recommended a coherent, phased and sustainable approach to reform which protects service stability. Considerable work is now required to prepare for implementation of key reforms to the civil legal aid scheme. One of the review's key recommendations to improve access to justice for people of modest means is to increase the disposable income threshold of the civil legal aid scheme that is operated by the Legal Aid Board from €18,000 to €23,500. Also proposed in the review is an increase to the associated allowances that are considered in assessing eligibility, namely, the spousal, dependant, accommodation and childcare allowances. I am pleased to now be able to provide the resources to enable those key recommendations to be progressed in 2027. I am very much aware that there is a long-standing need for reform of the financial eligibility criteria for civil legal aid, including for increases to the income thresholds and the allowances to assess an applicant's means. These thresholds and allowances have remained largely unchanged since 2006 and no longer reflect the financial realities faced by many individuals and families seeking access to legal services. The Minister, Deputy O’Callaghan, intends to increase the financial eligibility thresholds, together with increased allowances for spouses, dependants, childcare and accommodation costs. The changes will extend the availability of civil legal aid to many people who currently fall outside the financial eligibility criteria despite having limited means and being unable to afford private legal representation. As a result, more individuals and families will be able to access legal advice and representation at times of significant personal difficulty and legal need. This is an important step towards broadening access to justice for those of limited means. A change in the eligibility thresholds is, however, expected to result in an increase in demand for the services of the Legal Aid Board. Placing the Legal Aid Board in a position to deliver the reforms will therefore require preparation. The Legal Aid Board will now work closely with other stakeholders to assess the operational and resource implications of the reforms and to develop implementation plans that will support commencement during 2027. The timing and success of implementation will be informed by completion of the required preparatory measures. This includes workforce planning, recruitment, training, operational development, reviewing practitioner panel arrangements, corporate support, accommodation and technology considerations, and the continued expansion of service capacity across the organisation. Another aspect of reform that I am pleased to be in a position to now advance, with the support of the financial allocation under budget 2027, is that of the need to address certain underlying issues within the operation of the civil legal aid scheme, with a particular focus on private practitioner fees, counsel fees and the rates of fees paid to experts providing supports, particularly in child and family cases under that scheme. The overall objective of this is to ensure that the Legal Aid Board can deal effectively and efficiently with current demand and be ready to respond to future demand changes. The civil legal aid review group in its 2025 report noted the following to be the case. The structure for fees paid to counsel and fees paid in certain family law cases in the District Court under the District Court solicitor scheme has remained unchanged since 2012. Fee rates were reduced twice in the period between 2008, when they were initially established, and 2011. There are also challenges in ensuring that there is a sufficient number of reports available for cases that are legally aided. These professionals play a vital role in the delivery of legal aid services and in supporting the effective administration of justice. The Legal Aid Board would not be able to properly deliver upon its statutory mandate to provide legal aid and advice to persons of insufficient means in civil cases, and in the other areas to which its remit has been extended, without the services of these professionals. In recent years, there have been challenges in attracting and retaining sufficient numbers of practitioners and experts to meet the growing demand. The additional funding announced will provide an opportunity to review the fees paid to solicitors who provide services in family law matters in the District Court. There is a key objective to retain solicitors on the panel and attract others to participate as well as to further support greater participation by barristers and professional experts, strengthen service capacity and improve access to specialist expertise for legally aided clients. In particular, increasing the availability of professional assessments and reports, including those required in proceedings concerning the welfare and safety of children, should contribute to timelier progression of cases and support decision-making by the courts. Officials in the Department of justice will now engage with the Legal Aid Board and the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation to review the terms and conditions under which solicitors, barristers and professional experts are retained to provide services on behalf of the board, including the fees payable for those services. The terms and conditions are subject to the approval of both relevant Ministers, and the aim is to ensure that these new terms and conditions will be in place at the earliest practicable opportunity in 2027. The recommendations of both the civil legal aid review and the joint committee report also support the strengthening and expansion of mediation. One of the key areas where mediation has a crucial role to play is in relation to family justice. Goal 4 of the family justice strategy aims to promote more co-operative, less adversarial ways for individuals, children and families to try to resolve disputes. Mediation features heavily across the ten actions under goal 4, many of which are led by the Legal Aid Board. Through its free family mediation service, the Legal Aid Board helps separating couples and parents whose relationships have broken down to reach an agreement. Under the family justice strategy, a pilot panel of private family mediators was established in January 2023 to supplement the work of its in-house family mediators in the family mediation service across its 20 family mediation offices. This panel has now been made permanent, strengthening service capacity, and includes child-inclusive and child-centred mediation. The Legal Aid Board has also provided training to its staff and those of the Courts Service to inform members of the public about mediation and the services available. In 2024, the Legal Aid Board launched a call-back function to help the public to request details about mediation, further boosting awareness and access to information. The opening in recent years of dedicated mediation centres, such as in Ballymun, demonstrates the Legal Aid Board's ongoing commitment to making justice more accessible and less adversarial. I also welcome the committee's strong emphasis on supports for victims of domestic, sexual and gender-based violence. The report highlights the importance of ensuring that those who have experienced abuse can access legal supports in a timely and effective manner. It is important to note that domestic violence applications are prioritised by the Legal Aid Board. In addition, the civil legal aid regulations from 2017 provide that no contribution is payable for those who are applying solely for orders under the Domestic Violence Act 2018. The committee report also highlights the need for ongoing specialist training on domestic abuse including coercive control risk factors and the impacts on survivors, including children, for professionals working within the system. As a Government, we are unwavering in our commitment to zero tolerance of domestic, sexual and gender-based violence, DSGBV, in our society, in line with Zero Tolerance: Third National Strategy on Domestic Sexual & Gender-Based Violence 2022-2026. A core objective under the current zero tolerance implementation plan is to enable front-line professionals in both the justice and health systems to have the necessary capacity, skills and experience to identify potential DSGBV risks, to respond sensitively to victim-survivors and to make referrals to specialist services when necessary. Under action 1.4.3, the Legal Aid Board is responsible for ensuring that Legal Aid Board staff who may come in contact with people who have experienced domestic or sexual violence receive adequate training. In this regard, the Legal Aid Board domestic violence, abuse and coercive control awareness CPD training was introduced in 2025. This training aims to provide information, enhance awareness and build understanding among different professionals who are working within the family justice system on domestic violence, abuse and coercive control. The training itself was developed by the Legal Aid Board in conjunction with specialists from An Garda Síochána and Barnardos. I thank the joint committee for its comprehensive report and for the valuable contribution it has made to the ongoing reform of civil legal aid. The committee's recommendations, together with the findings of the civil legal aid review, provide a clear framework. While reform of the civil legal aid system cannot be achieved overnight, budget 2027 marks an important milestone. The historic investment of €14.5 million to fund the implementation of key civil legal aid reforms demonstrates the Government's continued commitment to ensuring meaningful access to justice for all.

I am glad to have an opportunity to comment on this report from the justice committee. In a week when we have spoken a great deal about criminal legal aid, it is important we do not lose sight of the fact there is reform needed in the civil legal aid system. Reading the report, it is obvious that reform of the civil legal aid system is more urgent than it is for the criminal legal aid system. I say that in circumstances where I am a legal aid practitioner as a lawyer. I do not practice in civil legal aid and I have not before. It is not something of which I have direct experience, other than having the conversation with colleagues about how difficult it is. I first want to recognise the urgency of this matter, something that is clear from the recommendations in the report. Action in this area is urgent and needs to happen sooner rather than later, which is why I am sorry we have expended so much effort trying to reform a criminal legal aid system that, save for a minority of issues with it, is functional in a way that the civil legal aid system is not. The provisions in the Civil Legal Aid Act 1995 are there, but the reality for lawyers, solicitors and barristers who practice in this area is that access to the scheme can be cumbersome and slow. It can be slow to get paid and slow to be assigned, and it is something that frustrates access to justice for people who really need it in sometimes very vulnerable situations. We are talking about cases that qualify for civil legal aid like family law cases, particularly domestic violence cases and domestic, sexual and gender-based violence. These are cases where people are often at the lowest ebb in their lives in the context of what they might have suffered and might be dealing with in court. It is important we acknowledge that this is urgent, and that the provision of legal services, whether advice or representation, is as urgent for matters like this as it is for criminal law. It should be recognised as such by the scheme. However, the reality is that it does not operate that way. It can take a great deal of time for lawyers to be approved and get on board, and for all the hoops that need to be jumped through to be jumped through so people can get access to that important advice and representation. There are a number of recommendations I propose to address. Recommendation 9 on financial eligibility is important. I absolutely support the increase in that. The Minister of State has referenced that rates have not changed since 2006. They have not changed for the lawyers, but neither have they changed in terms of the point at which somebody can access the scheme. I absolutely support an increase in that in a way that supports people who do not have means. You can have money but still not be able to afford the provision of professional advice in whatever area, whether medicine or the legal area. The provision of professional services is expensive. You have to have a relatively high threshold for people to access the scheme in the first place, and I support recommendation 9 to increase that eligibility criterion. There is also something recommended there that I would question, which is the removal of any financial contribution by the person availing of the scheme. I do not have a problem with the notion that somebody who is at a particular level might make a contribution to the scheme. If they are in a position to do so, I do not have a problem with it. There is a suggestion later in the report that there will be a differentiation between general recipients of civil legal aid and those in domestic violence situations. I do not have a problem with that and I will come back to it. I am not sure I would go for totally abolishing any contribution from persons availing of the scheme, if it is within their capacity to do so. I do not think this is inappropriate, as long as it is not in any way a bar to them accessing the scheme. Recommendation No. 12 talks about covering legal advice as well as representation, which is important. The provision of legal advice in advance of proceedings starting is very important from the point of view of informing people what their rights are, what the process is, how they should go about it and whether or not they want to go through it, because sometimes these cases may not ultimately happen. They can be resolved before they ever get into proceedings before a court. This is a good way of saving money and perhaps, more importantly, saving grief for the people involved. It is a stressful experience to go to court no matter the circumstances. It would be good if we could give people a way of understanding the process at the outset before proceedings begin. In real terms, this is not something that currently happens. We have a situation where laypeople find themselves in fraught legal proceedings that are incredibly stressful and which they are not used to. They do not understand how it works and the provision of legal advice and counsel in advance of that happening, particularly when we are talking about domestic violence, could be very helpful for their navigating the process and achieving the best result for them. I support that aspect of recommendation No. 12 in the report and particularly No. 14, which talks about a user-centred test for needs. That is very important, because this whole scheme should be about serving the person who needs the advice, representation and assistance. Instead of just setting down red lines that cannot be crossed and boxing people into particular criteria, let us have a scheme that looks at what each individual person needs and, to the greatest extent possible, is able to differentiate between different users to facilitate what they need. Recommendation No. 15 deals with differentiating domestic violence victims or people involved in those proceedings from others. I think this is appropriate. Where civil legal aid is provided, the people who are perhaps in the most dire circumstances are very often those who are the victims of domestic violence disputes. It is appropriate to mark them out as being separate from other people who need civil legal aid. However, by the same token, and this again emerges in recommendation No. 23 on those preventative services for legal advice or information before anything starts, that is a good way of heading things off at the pass, if possible. Reference was made in the Minister of State's speech to the importance of adequate provision and having lawyers who want to do this work. There is a real danger, and this is a parallel with the criminal legal aid system, that if you set the bar low then lawyers will not choose to do this type of work. They all have to make a living and if it is not worth their while to do it, they will go into other areas of law that are more profitable or viable for them. There is often a perception out there that solicitors and barristers all make lots of money, but this is not true.

It is.

The reality is there are certainly lawyers and barristers who make a lot of money, but they are not doing this work. They are not doing civil legal aid or family and domestic violence work; these are not the people who make lots of money. If you want to look at other areas of the law that is fine, but the people who engage in this work, which is so much more than legal advice, are dealing with extremely vulnerable people at very low points in their lives. We need to make it worthwhile for lawyers to do that, instead of Ryanair-ising the situation where there is a fixed fee of how much they are getting and if they do not like it they can go elsewhere. That is not going to encourage the lawyers currently doing the work to stay in the scheme. More importantly, it is not going to encourage the young lawyers, junior lawyers and people who have just joined the profession, whether it is the Bar or the solicitor profession, to come into this kind of work if it is not worth their while. This is particularly true of the rejuvenation of those people doing this work. At the start of your career, things are wide open and there is an opportunity to choose different types of work. You are not going to choose the one not viable for you, and that is important. It is also important to remember that in both civil legal aid and criminal legal aid, the State gets very good value for money from this type of expenditure on legal services. The reason being, instead of hiring a cohort of people to do this job as legal professionals and paying their pensions, time off for holidays, sick leave, maternity and paternity leave, and all the other PRSI costs that come with being an employer, as well as providing places for them to work and all the rest, through the civil legal aid and criminal legal aid schemes, the State avails of a bank of highly skilled, dedicated, professional people who provide their own offices, training, skills and whatever it is they need to do the job. They come ready to go and are available to the State without the cost of employing them. Let us not forget how much good value the State gets from these schemes. I absolutely agree with the statement in the report that the Legal Aid Board needs to be properly resourced to do the job, which comes back to the points I made earlier. There is an efficiency issue with the Legal Aid Board in terms of the time it takes to get the recommendation and the time it takes to actually get paid. When I was vice-chair of the justice committee in the last session, there was a proposal that criminal legal aid would be paid through the Legal Aid Board instead of financial shared services in the Department of Justice. That was universally opposed because it was not going to achieve any kind of efficiency. In fact, it would have been quite the opposite. From speaking to my colleagues in the Law Library and solicitors doing this work, I know those lawyers doing civil legal aid are waiting to get paid. That should not be the case, nor should the people who need to avail of their services be waiting to know whether they are going to be approved for civil legal aid, which is currently approved in far too few cases as it is. I totally agree with the report and I congratulate Deputy Carthy and his committee on this. There is much in this that the Minister of State could use as food for thought.

This is a very important piece of work carried out by the committee. I thank the members of the committee and the committee Cathaoirleach, Deputy Carthy, for the work on this report. I also thank the staff and clerks for their tireless work, which does not go unnoticed. Sometimes, from the outside looking in it does, but from within this House it definitely does not go unnoticed. I also thank all the stakeholders for coming to the hearing and giving us valuable insights and input that enabled us to get this report ready. Civil legal aid is fundamental to access to justice for people on low incomes. It is clear from the work of the committee, through engagement with stakeholders in the area, that the current system is not working. As a result, people have been denied their right to timely justice. This urgently needs to be addressed. The report has 30 recommendations, such is the scale of the reform needed. Adequate and immediate funding for the Legal Aid Board is the first step in ensuring it can fulfil its statutory functions, as set out in legislation. Funding is an issue, and the committee has recommended an annual increase to funding and civil legal aid. System capacity needs to be expanded, eligibility and allowances need to be modernised and we need to expand the scope and functions of the system. People are being locked out of the civil legal aid scheme due to income thresholds that have not increased since 2006. The impact of the current cost-of-living crisis compounds this, and I welcome the Minister of State's comments relating to that. Hopefully, they will be addressed and I look forward to seeing the details because, as we know, the devil is in the detail. We warned of the impact the EU migration and asylum pact would have on the civil legal aid scheme. Due to an increased workload, the scheme will be stretched and the committee has recommended an impact assessment of the migration and asylum pact on the scheme. Another major issue is the low rates of pay legal professionals receive for participating in this scheme. This has led to a retention crisis, much like what might happen if the current criminal legal aid scheme continues as is. Given the withdrawal of services in the criminal legal aid system this week, it is important to speak on this and how fitting that this report is discussed today. Sinn Féin warned we would see legal professionals withdraw from the criminal legal aid scheme because we saw it happen in the civil legal aid scheme. The current situation has rightly been described as a crisis, with one judge this morning reporting that the system is at imminent risk of collapse. We can only hope the Minister for justice and the Government engage in good faith to resolve this. As I said, these decisions ultimately impact the people who cannot afford legal representation. They are being denied the right to access timely justice and this is impacting victims' rights to timely justice. We heard, rightly, of the horrific situation where a victim of domestic violence was cross-examined by their alleged abuser because the person did not have access to criminal defence. This is wrong and is a failure we could see coming. It should never have been allowed to happen. One important recommendation in the report is that legal advice and representation should be provided to victims of domestic, sexual and gender-based violence, even when the user exceeds the financial limits. This should be extended to all relevant proceedings that involve survivors, including separation, divorce, guardianship, custody, access and maintenance. There are a number of other important recommendations to support survivors in this report. If these are implemented, it will go a long way towards improving the justice system experience of survivors, who should not have to face the obstacles that so many face today. This is a good report, and it must not be another that we come in here to talk about and that gathers dust. The recommendations were agreed on a cross-party basis and I would like to see them implemented.

As a member of the justice committee, I was delighted to play a part in producing this report. I thank everyone who contributed, in particular the Chair of the committee, Deputy Carthy. What is particularly frustrating about this issue is that we all know the system is in crisis. We know people are being locked out of access to justice because they simply cannot afford it. We know that those being failed most profoundly are often people already experiencing enormous disadvantage, which is compounded by engagement with a system that is supposed to provide justice but where that justice seems skewed against them when they need it most. We have had the civil legal aid review group, the majority and minority reports, and now a report from the justice committee; yet, for people trying to access legal aid today, very little, if anything, has changed. The financial eligibility threshold is probably the clearest example of just how outdated the system has become. It is still set at €18,000 and has not changed since 2006, 20 years ago. We should think about how much the cost of living has changed in that time, including the costs of housing, childcare, transport and practically every aspect of people's lives. People's eligibility is still being assessed against a threshold set two decades ago. I have made the point previously that civil legal aid reform has to be properly implemented. There are enormous numbers of people in this country who earn too much to qualify for legal aid but nowhere near enough to afford a solicitor. There are people working, paying rent and raising families, and when they encounter a legal problem they are effectively told they are on their own. That is not access to justice; that is a denial of justice. The majority report recommended increasing the threshold to €23,500, but even that would exclude some people earning the minimum wage. The minority report recommended €32,000, which I believe is a much more appropriate starting point for a conversation. The allocation of €14.5 million in budget 2027 is, of course, welcome, but the estimated cost of increasing the threshold to just €23,500, alongside the associated allowances, was €18.5 million. Therefore, we have allocated less than the estimated cost of implementing even that limited reform, and that is before we address the enormous existing pressures on the Legal Aid Board. We have waiting times of 70 weeks in Navan, 61 weeks in Castlebar and 38 weeks in Ballymun. Imagine being told that one could be waiting over a year just to have an initial appointment with a solicitor. Those affected are people facing family law disputes, people trying to protect themselves and their children, and people whose lives could be fundamentally changed by the outcome of legal proceedings. We cannot continue to treat the delays as normal or inevitable, and we cannot expand eligibility without giving the Legal Aid Board the resources to represent the additional people who become eligible. I want to know what the €14.5 million will deliver, what reforms are being implemented, what the timeline is and when we will see a proper implementation plan. We need to fundamentally rethink what civil legal aid provides. Housing, homelessness, employment discrimination and social welfare are all areas where people experiencing disadvantage desperately need legal assistance. We desperately need to support the expansion of community law centres, particularly in areas experiencing high levels of deprivation. We should not be waiting until somebody is already in crisis before offering legal advice. Early intervention can prevent an eviction, protect somebody's entitlements or stop a dispute becoming an enormous legal battle. I want to briefly raise the difficulties faced by victims of domestic and gender-based violence. The committee has recommended that survivors should have access to legal aid regardless of their financial circumstances, including for wider family law proceedings. That is essential. Somebody escaping an abusive relationship should not have to consider whether they can afford a solicitor to protect themselves or their children. Speaking of family law, I acknowledge the fantastic work of the Right to Transparency group. I am not sure if the Minister of State is aware of this group but, if not, I suggest that she examine some of the work it is undertaking. I met members of the group recently. I have enormous admiration for their courage in highlighting the experiences of mothers navigating our family courts. They have raised incredibly important questions about accountability and transparency, particularly regarding the in camera rule. I look forward to working with them on removing that rule while ensuring the privacy of children is protected and supporting their efforts well into the future because, ultimately, this is all about the same fundamental principle. People deserve access to justice and confidence in the systems that are supposed to deliver it. We have had all the reviews; we do not need any more evidence. I had a meeting with the Right to Transparency group last week in my office. There were about six women and they sat around the table and shared their experiences of going through the family law courts. The very opposite of justice is the retraumatising of victims. Some of the stories I heard in the room, and they will come to light because I intend to bring them to light over the time I have left in politics, genuinely left me cold. We have failed women in this country since the foundation of the State and we replicate that failure in new and different ways every time. The experiences of the women who sat in front of me, the questioning of their very trauma, the replication of a cover-up affecting their children, who have experienced horrific abuse, and the continual expectation that the women suffer in silence because of the very nature of the court system are going to be at the heart of a scandal. It is going to be the next great scandal of the State. Before that comes up, I ask the Minister of State to look at the work of the Right to Transparency group and attempt to meet some of its members. She should listen to their stories and hear them out. I am not going to tell the stories today because I do not have permission to do so, but anybody in a position of power who hears the testimony and learns of the reality of the retraumatisation that comes about through the means by which, and at the very moment at which, justice is sought cannot but be affected. It genuinely left my blood cold. I walked into that meeting and it has taken me a long time even to process what I heard. I heard recordings of some of the most vile statements and insinuations in engagements with people whom the women were supposed to trust in that moment. All I ask is that the Minister of State become aware of the campaign of the Right to Transparency group because it is going to be something that we will be talking about over the next 18 months.

We had the civil legal aid review group, under former Chief Justice Frank Clarke, which operated from June 2022 to July 2025. In fairness, a considerable amount of work has been carried out by the justice committee. I congratulate all those who were involved in what has been a sizeable piece of work by that committee, particularly the Chair, Deputy Matt Carthy, much as it might pain me to say so. In fairness, the work is necessary. We have heard this across the board, coming in from all sides of the aisle, for want of a better term. The fact is that we have huge issues in the civil legal aid system and that the matter is urgent, but we have not seen a huge level of urgency. I hope, therefore, that the Minister of State and Minister will follow through on their promises to address this very particular problem. It has been put far more eloquently than I could put it that we are talking about people, in some cases at their most vulnerable. We are talking about those who have suffered domestic abuse and who need to have their issues dealt with through the family court. The family court, on its best day, must be incredibly difficult for all who have to avail of its service. We really need to make sure we have a fit-for-purpose system. That needs to be a system whereby those who need legal support can get it. In fairness to Deputy Barry Ward, he spoke about the difficulties faced by those who try to avail of the services in the system and by those who are providing services. The latter difficulties relate to payment. Everybody has stated explicitly, and it is in the report, that the Legal Aid Board needs to be properly funded and resourced. We are aware that there is a need for mediation services and any means available to deal with disputes, even those beyond the family sphere. We are talking about housing, medical issues and other matters. If we can at all avoid having to put people through the court system, it is a win across the board and would also save money and resources and spare people the pure trauma associated with some of these very particular cases. Again, we are talking about some very vulnerable people, like the victims of domestic violence. It is not good when we hear about the abject difficulties they have in securing legal representation and the absolute need they have for it. It is truly a system that does not work and is kaput. We really need to put in place a civil legal aid system that works for people. The obvious thing needed is modernisation, ensuring we look at the eligibility, allowances and services to be provided and their scope. It has been a failing to date that these questions have not been addressed. Deputy Carthy has often given out when I come in here and say it has all been said and then I continue to actually repeat what has been said, but it definitely has been said and we have seen agreement across the House in this regard. Everyone is in agreement. There was also a huge level of agreement in relation to the review group and then the report of the justice committee. We just need to see action in relation to it. It is very hard to talk about the civil legal aid system and not mention that we are looking at a criminal legal aid system that we also really need to address. I mentioned previously that I was in the District Court in Dundalk when condolences were being expressed in relation to James MacGuill SC, an absolute legend and a giant in the legal sphere. He will be sadly missed by his family and friends, but also by those who were able to avail of his services over many years, including many who had found themselves on the wrong end of interactions with the State. I would once again commend his life and his work. What was also visible very quickly after those condolences were expressed was that we had a court system not operating in any way, shape or form. The only business happening were adjournments. This situation is not good for those in front of the court and it is not good for victims. We will have issues, circumstances and situations where people will not be dealt with as timely as is necessary. There will be cases of people being released who should not be released. The Minister has stated that he really wants to follow through on reform. I believe there was a better and more sensible way to deal with this. In fairness, the justice committee also did a serious piece of work in airing these issues. The fact of the matter is that we now have a court system that is not working in any way, shape or form and that is failing people. I ask that the Minister actually address this issue rather than looking for capitulation from those solicitors who, in fairness, have shown a huge level of solidarity. Many solicitors have said it was a shock to them that this had happened. Unfortunately, we have seen many tragedies in the criminal justice system. We want a criminal justice system that works across the board and delivers for people. Many of us have spoken in the last while about the wipe-out of a family in Waterford. Our thoughts are with Philip, Kim, Callum and Jayden English. Our thoughts are also definitely with Elliot and Nadia, and we hope they pull through. We are thinking of other people too, like Mary Holt and Tadhg Farrell. We have seen people slain by criminal gangs that have felt free to operate within our society. I have spoken many times before, particularly to the Minister, about the fact that we have not been serious in addressing these issues. I believe the issues span multiple Departments, and not just the criminal justice system. We all know the failings there have been in addressing the issues and the addiction out there. We all know we need harm reduction and health-led, trauma-led interventions. We know we have to deal with the issues of poverty. We know we have to ensure that families in need of supports at an early stage get them. Even from the State’s point of view, it would save a huge amount of money by doing that. It is more important, however, that we save people. Rather than people being caught up in lives spent in the criminal justice system and in jail, we could free them up to engage properly in society through education and employment. It would just be a win-win outcome for us across the board. We do, though, have a failing. There is a criminal justice aspect to it. We need to ensure that the Garda is sufficiently resourced. We know we also need to make sure conversations happen and ensure resources are provided to the councils and Tusla, and all those other bodies and agencies, including the mental health services and every other organisation, that have had to deal with the chaos caused by these gangs who operate selling crack cocaine and every other rotten drug. I accept we are not going to police our way out of this, but we need to make sure we have a holistic approach. I do not know how many communities have been impacted in the last while. Whether people are dealing with the local authority or the Garda, no organisation has sufficient powers and resources to deal with these issues. The one outcome provided to us by this absolute tragedy is the opportunity for us to have a real conversation on what supports are needed to address this situation. It is far too serious. We cannot continue to fail communities out there because we all know drugs are in every community, including many that would have been protected from them before. We can also be clear that the real pain suffered to a high level is in working class communities and areas that have suffered far too much through poverty and deprivation for far too long. I ask that the Minister of State and the Minister look at having, as I said, a holistic conversation across every Department, but one that would also involve the Opposition from the perspective of this issue being far too important even for politics. It is about delivering. We have seen too many of these gangs that have been able to operate for too many years. We can walk through any estate and point out who the people involved are, and so can every kid who lives in that estate. Many of them do not even have to actually follow through on threats because they have a network and muscle. We have failed to deal with this situation. We have those people who will involve themselves in sexual exploitation. We have those who will utilise many cutouts, including kids, and kids in primary school at a very, very young age, and those from very vulnerable families. It really pains me to have this conversation, but we have to follow through on the focus now on this issue following what has been a brutal tragedy.

I, too, acknowledge James MacGuill’s contribution to the courts in Louth, Dublin and across the country. As Deputy Ó Murchú said, he was a giant in more ways than one. When he took on a case, there is no doubt that it was very much the client at the centre of everything. He was always a defender when it came to constitutional matters and to the client’s rights and access to justice. In that context, talking about the report from the justice committee is rather timely. I could imagine Mr. MacGuill actually going through it with a fine-tooth comb and no doubt finding plenty of criticisms within it. This was another report from the justice committee that was done thoroughly and with utter heart by every member of the committee. As Vice-Chair, I am delighted to have played some part in that. I have to acknowledge that the Chair managed to guide and steer us and produce the report in a very efficient manner. Not one of the 30 recommendations does not merit serious consideration and thought. I hope the Minister examines each one individually, takes it on board and then brings those recommendations forward. The criminal legal aid system was actually working. It needed tweaks, as the Minister himself said. It most certainly needs reform. The civil legal aid system, however, is broken. It is not collapsing. It is not under strain. It is absolutely and utterly broken. Over the next couple of minutes, I will explain why I believe it is broken. It is widely known that I am a barrister, but I do not do civil legal aid or family law. In my role as a TD, though, I very much listen to constituents who come into my clinics weekly and talk about how hard it is to access justice in County Louth. County Louth functions very well but there are challenges and barriers that people, primarily women, have to go through in order to get access to justice that allows them in so many cases to free themselves, as is the case when we are talking about civil matters. They have to free themselves from situations that in many circumstances are dire and often violent. To me, that is absolutely unacceptable. I welcome that we have this historic funding of €14.5 million plus the additional €70-odd million, and I acknowledge that the Minister is going in the right direction with regard to financing and funding the services, but is it enough? The answer to that is clearly "No", which we all acknowledge. Will that €14.5 million be sufficient to bring about significant reform over the next one to two years? We have to start implementing this as soon as possible. I acknowledge that the Minister also said that he would implement many of these reforms through the course of 2027, which, if we think about it, is probably 2028. I am quite confident that the money will not be sufficient to bring about sufficient reform. I am going to look at the issue of disposable income. In 2006, we believed that a sufficient disposable income threshold was €18,000. Twenty years later, we believe that an increase to €23,500 is sufficient. The cost of living, demands on family life and bills we all have to pay have changed astronomically in 20 years. How will €5,000 give more access to more people, including women? I have my doubts about that. I have my doubts that people on low incomes, even on the minimum wage, will be in a position to access justice, including civil legal aid, never mind the women who are slightly above the minimum wage and who have all those hidden costs that are associated with family life and with living that we do not take account of. Will there truly be access for justice in the short term or even in the medium term? This is unacceptable because, as Deputy Gannon said, for far too long women have not even taken a back seat when it comes to the country, their rights and what they can get access to, be it health or legal services. We have been left out of the car completely. When we make a move, it has to be not just significant, but very significant, and it has to go more or less all the way to the solution of the problem. I am not sure we are there yet. I am actually convinced that we are nowhere near it yet. The second problem that we have addressed is the means test as regards victims of domestic violence. The words tell us the story, "domestic" and "violence". It is criminal. It should not even be something coming in under civil legal aid, such is the gravity of the situation. We should remove all barriers that we have in place for these people. Once again, I will say that it is primarily women. We know that coercive control also plays a huge part in domestic violence. We should remove all barriers, and one such barrier is the means test. I ask for consideration to be given from the beginning to the end. We do not put barriers in the way if we are looking for barring, protection or safety orders, but that has to go further. That is just a temporary stop to try to put the person, primarily a woman, into a safe space. We have to go further. At that stage, what does the woman do, especially if there has been coercive control? The woman has very often been financially abused, which in large part could actually get her access to civil legal aid. However, if we have a desert where we do not have the family lawyers, how will she access that justice? I am thankful that, in County Louth, we have very good solicitors and barristers who are still doing family law. However, cross the Shannon to the west and it is a desert. It is virtually impossible to access a family law solicitor or a barrister there. Recently, I dealt with a woman in my constituency whose case, in two respects, speaks to my previous point and to this point. She had had a separation, and her separated husband, who was still her husband, was living over in the west. She was on the east coast. The circumstances were quite horrific, and I am not going to go into the detail, but he got the jump on her and is now bringing proceedings in the west. She cannot afford it. She has not a hope in hell. She is in a situation now where, naturally, she is not going to secure a solicitor in County Louth because they will have to travel and incur expenses. Even though she qualifies for civil legal aid, she cannot find one in the west and she cannot secure one on the east coast simply because it would not pay for the petrol in the car. That is unacceptable. That is giving a person more control of a situation and not giving that woman access to justice. We really have to revise that situation. If we are to have true access to justice, we have to eliminate the delays. As Deputy Gannon, Deputy Ward and others pointed out, the wait for a simple appointment to see whether a person qualifies is varied, but the minimum is at least three to six months, if they are lucky. In some cases, however, it is well beyond a year. The Minister of State should put herself in the shoes of a woman or man who is in that situation. They have the stress of trying to get out of a situation that, very often, is a difficult one, given that none of these situations is easy. Even if it is a simple family matter, it is always stressful. People are waiting anywhere between six months and over a year. That is not acceptable. There is a tsunami of requests going into the Legal Aid Board. If we are raising the threshold, we have to ensure beforehand that it is already resourced and that waiting times are reduced and under control. Otherwise, we are just promising something we cannot deliver.

I thank the Deputies for their contributions, and I also thank the members of the committee as well as our Chairman, Deputy Carthy. The Government and I, as Minister for State, are committed to ensuring meaningful access to justice and the significant investment of €14.5 million in budget 2027 for civil legal aid reform is a testament to that. These reforms represent one of the most significant developments in the civil legal aid system in many years. By expanding eligibility and strengthening the capacity of the legal aid system, we can ensure that more people who face genuine financial barriers to accessing legal services receive the assistance they need. I recognise that considerable work is now required to prepare for implementation and my Department will work closely with the Legal Aid Board and other stakeholders to ensure that these important reforms are delivered effectively, sustainably and at the very earliest opportunity. As mediation continues to play an increasingly important role across our justice system, I want to take a moment to update the House on the formation of the Mediation Council of Ireland, a key component of the Mediation Act 2017, and the overall development of mediation throughout Ireland. The Act reflects our recognition of mediation as a vital service and vocation and our commitment to promoting its use. The mediation council will play an important role in promoting public awareness of mediation, maintaining and developing mediation standards, including continuous professional development, and establishing a national register of mediators. In 2024, the Legal Aid Board convened a mediation council shadow group with the support of my Department, comprising representatives of mediation interests. The agreed terms of reference provided that the group would principally work to establish a body as envisaged by section 12 of the Mediation Act and submit proposals to me on various elements as part of that process. The report of the mediation council shadow group was submitted to my Department on 21 July. As well as dealing with the terms of reference set out for it, it includes certain views and revised legislative provisions to facilitate the establishment and, in due course, the formal establishment and recognition of the mediation council of Ireland. Officials in my Department are considering the report, along with options for the next steps, and I hope to be in a position to take it into consideration in the coming weeks with a view to making a decision on the best course of action. Regarding the committee's recommendation to extend the scope of the scheme to more civil matters and to quasi-judicial forums, the scheme covers a wide range of civil legal issues subject to exclusions such as defamation and most property disputes. The civil legal aid review group, under the chairmanship of former Chief Justice Frank Clarke SC, similarly made recommendations to extend the scheme to legal issues which are currently heard before tribunals. Any changes must be considered in the round, including the potential implications of such changes for the operation of the scheme as well as legal support available through other forums, such as administrative tribunals. A change in the eligibility thresholds is expected to result in increased demand for the services of the Legal Aid Board. It is therefore important to ensure a coherent, phased and sustainable approach to reform which protects service stability. It is also important to improve our understanding of the extent of unmet legal need in Ireland. Ireland's first nationally representative legal needs survey was conducted in 2025 as part of the OECD-led enhancing access to justice through people-centred justice project. The evidence of this survey is crucial to identifying unmet needs, informing future reforms and monitoring progress towards a more people-centred justice system. While preliminary results of the survey have been released on gov.ie, further analysis is under way with officials in my Department working closely with the OECD on final outputs. I look forward to exploring how the learning from this project can inform and enhance reforms under way, including those civil legal aid reforms. I thank the Deputies for tabling this motion and highlighting this important area. I sincerely thank the Legal Aid Board for its dedicated work in administering the scheme. The board has been operating in an increasingly challenging and complex environment in recent years. I fully recognise and support the need for civil legal aid reform and am confident the additional funding announced in budget 2027 will pave the way for implementing such reform.

I thank all who contributed to the debate: the Minister of State; my fellow committee members Deputies Mark Ward, Butterly, Ó Murchú and Gannon; and Deputy Barry Ward, who at this stage is nearly an honorary member of our committee. The truth is civil legal aid has been in crisis for a long time and there has been far too little urgency in dealing with it. It has not got the attention it deserves from successive Ministers or from the Department. It is four years since the civil legal aid review was commenced in June 2022 and it is well over a year since the Minister received that report, yet virtually nothing has been done outside of a budget allocation that has been trumpeted several times this week. People have continued to be locked out of access to civil legal aid through those years. The lack of urgency in dealing with the civil legal aid crisis is why our committee undertook this work and brought forward this report. At the core of all its recommendations is a plea to the Minister to act. The purpose of the report is to highlight the growing crisis in our civil legal aid system and to urge the Minister to urgently intervene and ensure access to justice is available to all, regardless of income or circumstance. The evidence presented to the committee by FLAC, the Legal Aid Board, the Law Society, the Bar of Ireland, Women's Aid and others was compelling. The conclusions of the report are clear. The committee heard of lengthy waiting times, serious staffing shortages, difficulties recruiting and retaining practitioners and the emergence of legal aid deserts, as they are known, where people struggle to access representation, as the Minister of State has heard from a number of Members. The committee heard the thresholds are so outdated that many people on low incomes, including some earning just above the minimum wage, are excluded entirely. It is important to remind ourselves civil legal aid is meant to support people at times of crisis when they cannot afford to secure legal representation for civil matters. A system that expects people facing family breakdown, domestic violence or other serious civil legal problems to fund legal representation from already stretched household budgets during a cost-of-living crisis is a broken system. The committee was particularly struck by the reality that the civil legal aid crisis has been impacting on victims of domestic violence seeking barring orders or who, when granted a certificate, cannot secure a solicitor when they urgently need one. We also heard warnings that the growing demand is placing a system that is already under pressure at risk of collapse, including from additional requirements of the International Protection Act. While there was an allocation in the recent budget of €14.5 million to begin implementing civil legal aid reform, and that probably represents an acknowledgement by Government that change is required, many stakeholders have questioned whether it comes close to what is needed. The funding is intended to commence reforms to the civil legal aid means test and the financial eligibility criteria, but FLAC and others have rightly warned it is not sufficient to deliver the broader reforms needed to address staffing shortages, recruitment and retention difficulties, lengthy waiting lists, legal aid deserts and growing demand on an already overstretched system. Our committee's report made clear that far more comprehensive action is required if civil legal aid is to become the fit-for-purpose public service citizens deserve and need. For years, concerns were raised regarding inadequate remuneration for those who do this critical work, recruitment difficulties and the growing number of practitioners leaving civil legal aid work. The most remarkable aspect of the current criminal legal aid dispute is the Minister was aware, or at least should have been aware, of the impact of the flat fee model on the availability of practitioners for civil legal aid and its contribution to the development of civil legal aid deserts. Yet, knowing all of this, the Minister imposed the same failed model on a criminal legal aid scheme. Having ignored the lessons he should have learned from what was happening in respect of civil legal aid, the Minister is now presiding over a crisis in criminal legal aid that was entirely foreseeable and avoidable. His handling of that dispute has created chaos in the justice system. Victims face serious delays in getting justice and there are increasing numbers of adjournments. I want to put on the record of the House that concerns have been raised about Garda interviews proceeding in circumstances where legal representation may not be available. There are obvious questions arising from that about the implications for future prosecutions. I note the Minister has now indicated he will engage with the Law Society. From the beginning, meaningful engagement was required, not the type of commentary we heard this week from the Minister, which was deeply provocative in many respects. Attempting the give the public the impression that particular categories of cases were being targeted did nothing to solve the underlying problems facing this dispute or the wider justice system. Lessons need to be learned about the flat fee model. Such models by their nature disincentivise people from dealing with complex cases. A very good example is if you gave hospital consultants flat fees per patient, the more complex cases would clearly be avoided by anybody who had alternatives. As Chairperson of the Oireachtas justice committee, it is my hope our report on civil legal aid will be a catalyst, finally, for action. The Minister has to bring forward a clear implementation plan for its recommendations, he must particularly address the issues of eligibility, capacity, recruitment and retention, and he must ensure people seeking protection through civil legal aid are not locked out because of financial barriers, lack of legal practitioners or excessive delays. I first took an interest in this because of my work with victims of domestic and gender-based violence. One of the areas of huge concern to them was the availability of civil legal aid for people suffering domestic abuse. It is 18 months since I first raised this matter with the Minister. I ask the Minister of State to take an interest in this. The reality is that today there are people - the vast majority are women - in very vulnerable positions. To get out of those circumstances, they need to access civil legal aid. Currently, that is being denied to far too many of them. I hope the Minister of State will take that on board and address it, as I hope the Minister will also. I thank the staff in the Joint Committee on Justice, Home Affairs and Migration for their diligent work and for always ensuring the committee is well-prepared for everything we need to do. I thank the Minister of State and her officials for their engagement this evening.