§ 'The Lord Chancellor shall annually lay before each House of Parliament a report setting out the number of legal aid contribution orders made, the total sum ordered to be paid, an analysis of the contributions determined during the year compared with previous years, the total sums respectively collected and in arrears, the number of repayments made to legally aided persons in respect of their contributions, the total sum repaid and the administrative costs respectively of assessing, collecting and repaying contributions, respectively in the magistrates' court and the Crown Court, the number of orders revoked for non-payment, with details of the Courts ordering such revocation; and the number of defendants refusing an offer of legal aid either because they do not wish to pay the contributions or for some other reason'.—[Mr. Arthur Davidson.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. Arthur DavidsonI beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I shall move the new clause briefly, because we dealt with the principle in Committee. The Solicitor-General 834 made certain observations about its shortcomings, which I hope I have covered by adding certain matters to the new clause that I moved in Committee.
The purpose is to ensure that the new contributions proposal is properly monitored by Parliament, not only because of the fears that have been expressed about the likely effects that it will have on accused persons, but because of the likely expensive administrative costs. No one knows how much the existing system for assessing and running the legal aid scheme costs, because the cost gets lost in the general budget of running the magistrates' courts. The danger is that unless there is a proper method of monitoring all the matters that are involved in the new complicated procedure for assessment, Parliament and the people who are affected by the proposals again will not know the exact costs. That is surely wrong when public money is involved.
The Solicitor-General, in answer to my proposals in Committee, said that one of his objections to the new clause was that it did not cover everything that we need to know. He said:
We shall need all of that information, and more still.He added that it would be necessaryto keep a close watch on the use by the courts of their powers to revoke legal aid orders for non-payment. The Government will want to know about that, and we shall be very ready to make such information available".—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 5 July 1982; c. 102.]I have taken up the offer and added to my new clause the requirement that the information that is given includesthe number of orders revoked for non-payment, with details of the Courts ordering such revocation",so that we know which courts have a bad record in that respect and which courts operate more generously and liberally.We have also included the requirement to make available information of
the number of defendents refusing an offer of legal aid either because they do not wish to pay the contributions or for some other reason".I agree that we should have information about whether there is a consistent pattern of revocation in certain areas, or whether certain defendants, certain offences, certain categories or certain age groups consistently refuse legal aid, so that we may know whether the scheme is working properly, or whether it is subject to the pitfalls and dangers which many of us have predicted.I need not elaborate further on the reason for the new clause. It is essential that Parliament should have the maximum information possible to see how this controversial scheme is working. I trust that the Solicitor-General will be as helpful as he possibly can—I put it as neutrally and kindly as that—in reply.
§ The Solicitor-GeneralI agree that the maximum information that will be useful must be obtained by my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and made available to all who are interested. I am gratified to find that the proposals in the new clause have, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, adopted some of my suggestions in Committee.
§ It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
§
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Legal Aid Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour—[Mr. Brooke.]
§ Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.
835§ The Solicitor-GeneralAs I was saying, I am gratified that the proposals in the new clause have adopted some of the suggestions that I made in Committee about information that could usefully be obtained, but which was not included previously.
There can be no doubt about the Government's attitude to the collection of useful information, but I must advise the House that it would be premature to permit the Lord Chancellor to make such a report until we are satisfied that our information requirements have been properly defined.
Further consultation is necessary with interested parties, especially the Justices Clerks Society, which will be responsible for collecting the information. It will be necessary to consider carefully whether it is possible to disentangle administrative costs connected with the collection of contributions from other administrative costs, bearing in mind that the one thing that we do not want to do is to waste any of the money saved on unnecessary administrative procedures. That should go towards providing better legal aid for other people.
The likelihood is that much of the information listed in the new clause will be published in the criminal statistics. The Lord Chancellor's advisory committee on legal aid may also wish to publish some information in its annual report.
I assure the House, as I assured the Committee, that it is intended that the new arrangements should be carefully monitored and that the information obtained should be freely available. It would not be sensible to bind the Lord Chancellor to publish a detailed report when the cost of collecting some of the information might far outweigh its usefulness. Therefore, I ask the House to reject the new clause.
§ Question put and negatived.