Legal Aid: Costs (Hansard, 10 February 1993)

§ The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)
My Lords, it is anticipated that net expenditure on legal aid will reach £1,100 million during the current financial year. That compares with £426 million five years ago. I have announced a number of proposals designed to bring the rate of growth under better control. Regulations to implement those proposals will be laid shortly. Even after my proposed changes have been implemented it is estimated that spending on legal aid will continue to rise by 10 per cent. per year. It will reach more than £1,500 million by 1995–96.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that extremely interesting Answer. Does he share the view that although legal aid is a valuable service it is odd that in this day and age it should increase in cost as a percentage more rapidly than almost any other form of social activity? Is my noble and learned friend aware that many of us strongly support him in curbing legal aid, even if some fairly severe restrictions are involved?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend. Obviously, like every other type of public expenditure legal aid must be kept under proper control. One of the important objectives of what I have in mind is the achievement of that control in as fair as manner as possible.

§ Lord Irvine of Lairg
My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that his proposed savage cuts in legal aid have been condemned by the consumer bodies; condemned by the CABs and advice centres; condemned by the Law Society and the Bar Council; condemned by the judiciary; condemned by his own statutory body which has advised him on legal aid; and have met with approval only from the Treasury, from whence they came, and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, the number of names does not necessarily give strength to the argument. It is extremely important to consider the position. Surely a degree of control is required in 635 respect of public expenditure. I have carefully considered proposals put forward for other ways of limiting the expenditure on legal aid. So far none has been adequate to the task. I am willing to consider any proposals which will have the effect of providing a better and more efficient service for those entitled to legal aid while giving proper value to the taxpayer.

§ Lord Wigoder
My Lords, fresh as I am from serving on a Select Committee which had the pleasure of listening to 42 petitioners in person, will the noble and learned Lord bear in mind the vastly increased cost to the legal system of a substantial increase in the number of unrepresented litigants in both the criminal and the civil courts?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I should perhaps say that I expect very little effect at all on criminal legal aid. As regards civil legal aid, I am not at all certain that there will be a substantial increase in the number of unrepresented litigants. It is true that there are unrepresented litigants at present. I do not have the precise figures but I should be very surprised if many are unrepresented because they are not eligible for legal aid. Many have views about the strength of their cases which prompt them to represent themselves.

§ Lord Boardman
My Lords, as in civil cases the litigant assisted by legal aid who is successful is normally able to recover the bulk of his costs from his non-legally aided opponent, will my noble and learned friend say what proportion of legally-aided civil litigants are successful against those who do not have the benefit of legal aid?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, the proportion varies according to the subject matter. The one which is often singled out for most attention is personal injury actions. About 85 per cent. of those are successful and 15 per cent are unsuccessful. When the action is not successful the costs are considerable so that there is a cost to the legal aid fund in respect of all types of actions where legal aid is available.

§ Lord Stallard
My Lords, in his reply to my noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that, by themselves, numbers do not count. Will the noble and learned Lord accept that among those numbers are many learned people who are involved at street level with the problems? People are entitled to have their problems properly dealt with and their cases heard. Has the noble and learned Lord considered what effect his proposals for cuts may have on the various charters produced by the Prime Minister; for example, the Citizen's Charter and the Patient's Charter? It is not much good giving people rights in charters if they find that they cannot afford the legal assistance to obtain those rights because of cuts imposed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, the principal purpose of the charters is to confer rights which will not be required to be dealt with by a great series of legal action; for example, the way in which people are treated at public service counters and the disclosure of 636 the name of the person who is attending to them. My proposals are to curb the growth of legal aid. I want to make it clear that there is no question of reducing the legal aid budget. Those who speak of savage cuts imply that we are seeking to cut the legal aid budget. In fact, it has increased by 10 per cent. per year during the survey years. I do not envisage that my proposed changes to control the budget will have anything other than a marginal effect on charters.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, as my noble and learned friend has made clear, to describe the control of expenditure which is rising more rapidly than that in almost any other area as "savage cuts" discredits the noble Lord who puts forward that argument.

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, as my noble friend says, the matter must be taken in context. I wish to emphasise—because it seems to have escaped the notice of some—that it is expected that the legal aid budget will rise substantially during the survey years.

§ Lord Dormand of Easington
My Lords, as legal aid, by definition, is given largely to the poorer sections of society, is not the major cause of such an increase the fact that there are now many more poor people because of the policies implemented by this Government?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I believe that the principal reason for the increase in the numbers seeking legal aid is because of the rise in the number of remedies available. Of course, it is also true that the range of cases in which legal aid is available is considerable. The demand for legal aid has risen on that account.

§ Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish
My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that the legal profession could do much to reduce the increasing cost of legal aid and prevent the waste of police time and that of witnesses if it were to enter into discussions to reduce the number of cases which go right up to the door of the courts before the accused changes his not guilty plea to one of guilty?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, my noble friend has made an extremely important point. The implications of the matter he has referred to go far beyond legal aid. It has implications as regards the convenience of witnesses, jurors and many others. Any suggestions that noble Lords can make that would have the effect of limiting this difficulty for the general public would be most welcome.

Lord Bruce of Donington
My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware of a case that was mentioned in The Times two or three days ago where the costs of a legal action were discussed in the court? In the case that was mentioned a figure of £35 per hour per solicitor employed was considered reasonable. Does the noble and learned Lord feel that that kind of figure, as distinct from the somewhat astronomical figures that have been mentioned for legal services, is probably nearer the mark?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, as I represent the taxpayer and as I purchase legal services, the noble 637 Lord will not be surprised to hear that I much prefer the £35 figure to some other figures that have been mentioned.

§ Lord Cockfield
My Lords, to what extent are the problems that my noble and learned friend faces in this field a reflection of policies followed by the Home Office? If so, will the searching study that we were told the Secretary of State is now going to carry out into the affairs of that department have a bearing on the problems that my noble and learned friend faces?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, obviously my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has responsibility for policies relating to the criminal law. Those policies have an effect on costs and other matters. In formulating his policies my right honourable friend takes account of the effects they may have on the courts and on my department. However, he has a wider brief than that and he must take other matters into account.

§ Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone
My Lords, I believe that this is both a difficult and a contentious subject. Will my noble and learned friend explore the possibility of treating it in terms of a debate rather than simply through questions and answers?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I am always open to consider debates. We have had two debates on this subject since I intimated my proposals in November. One debate occurred at the instance of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the other occurred recently at the instance of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg.