HC Deb 24 October 1983 vol 47 cc13-5
44. Mr. Dubs

asked the Attorney-General what is the current annual cost of legal aid in (a) criminal cases and (b) civil cases.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew)

The net cost of legal aid in the most recent financial year, 1982–83, was as follows:

(a) criminal cases £106.4 million.
(b) civil cases £68 million.
In addition, the net cost of the legal advice and assistance scheme in the same year was £30.4 million.

Mr. Dubs

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the recently published report on the survey into the grant of legal aid in magistrates' courts shows that there are still wide divergences in the rates of refusal from one court to another? What action does the hon. and learned Gentleman propose to take to give all applicants for legal aid an equal chance regardless of the area in which they happen to live?

The Solicitor-General

I agree that the survey to which the hon. Gentleman refers does give rise to anxiety about the discrepancies in rates of refusal of legal aid. Section 6 of the Legal Aid Act 1982 will soon be in force. It will give recourse to criminal legal aid committees in respect of refusals of legal aid from magistrates' courts. In addition, my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor will be giving thought to ways in which it may be possible to bring the criteria on which legal aid should be granted to the knowledge of courts concerned and to explain them more fully.

Rev. Ian Paisley

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman inform the House of the cost of the new type of legal aid now in operation in Northern Ireland, where murderers and those guilty of bombing have become "supergrasses" and have a large amount of money paid to them so that they can avoid drawing on legal aid?

The Solicitor-General

My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is answering a written question on the implications of the "supergrass" controversy later today, but the broad principles on which legal aid is granted or withheld remain the same in all cases.

Mr. Archer

Does not the survey confirm what has already been said on the subject by the Benson Commission, which was quoted with approval by the Attorney-General in another context a few moments ago? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that since that report was published in October 1979 it has never once been debated in the House and has never even been the subject of a statement? Is it not high time for a statement informing the House of the reaction of the Government to the various proposals in that report?

The Solicitor-General

My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has indicated recently the respects in which he has already given effect to certain recommendations of the Benson Commission and has set out other recommendations of the Benson Commission to which further consideration is being given. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct when he says that the Benson Commission did draw attention to discrepancies in the rates of refusal of legal aid. When my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor took charge of legal aid in 1980 he set in train the inquiry which has resulted in the report to which reference has been made today.

45. Ms. Harman

asked the Attorney-General if Her Majesty's Government will ensure that the new contribution regulations on criminal legal aid will not penalise the wife and children of a defendant.

The Solicitor-General

The regulations to be made under the Legal Aid Act 1982 will provide for the resources of married couples normally to be aggregated in assessing a defendent's liability to contribute towards the cost of his legal aid. This reflects the principle of the general law, which imposes a duty of mutual support on spouses.

Ms. Harman

Is not child benefit paid out of public funds to benefit the child? Therefore is it not wrong to regard it as something that can be taken into account when assessing a man's legal aid contribution? That w ill mean that, instead of being spent on children, child benefit will be spent on the legal defence of a man who is charged? Is that not wrong?

The Solicitor-General

The general principle by which the means of spouses are aggregated is of long standing. It is embraced in the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976, which was enacted by the previous Labour Government, and goes back further than that. It is right that there should be a discretionary power to relieve the operation of this principle in a proper case, but the broad principle is that the assets of the family as a whole should be taken into account. If we were to derogate from that it would be right to stop the system by which deductions are made from the assessable income of a husband to take account of his obligation to support his wife.

Mr. Archer

How will this work in practice? If contribution orders are to be enforced against the spouse who is charged, but are to be calculated additionally on the resources of the other spouse, what will happen if the husband applies for legal aid but the wife refuses to make her resources available to the husband? Will she be compelled to do so, and, if not, will he be expected to pay over money which has never been in his possession?

Mr. Skinner

That sounds like a barrister's question.

The Solicitor-General

Enforcement proceedings are taken against the spouse to be charged. It becomes a matter thereafter of considering what the reasons are for the failure to pay if there has been a failure to pay. If there is good reason, which does not carry with it culpability on the part of the spouse who is in arrears, the court will have a right within its discretion, to make an exceptional order. That is a sensible way of going about it.

Mr. Skinner

That sounds like a barrister's answer.

The Solicitor-General

That must come as a rare and beneficial surprise to the hon. Gentleman, for he does not hear many answers of that sort. This has to be looked at in a sensible way and the courts will wish to do equity and justice, using their common sense, as they generally do.