FINANCIAL LIMIT (Hansard, 14 July 1986)

§ Mr. Wallace
I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 8, line 4, leave out `£50' and insert £100'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 6, in page 8, line 22, at end insert— `(4) In the event of an approval under subsection 1(b) above being refused, there should be a right of review within the Board.'.

§ Mr. Wallace
These two amendments relate to clause 10, which puts financial limits on the provision of legal advice and assistance, which is the substance of part II.
Amendment No. 5 seeks to raise the limit applicable under this clause from £50 to £100. I understand that at present the average cost of legal advice and assistance is below £50. This average is arrived at by including within that total cases where little or no expenditure has been incurred because the consultation disclosed that no work needed to be undertaken. However, there are many cases where effective advice and assistance are required. In such cases, almost invariably the average cost will be greater.
The requirement to seek approval under subsection (1) must inevitably take a little time and cause delay. It causes administrative work and must involve some cost. To increase the limit to a more realistic sum while maintaining efficient scrutiny is the way to achieve effectiveness in the important service of providing legal advice and assistance.
Amendment No. 6 follows on from amendment No. 5. If the ceiling of £50 or, as I would wish, £100 is reached, a solicitor may not exceed it, except with the approval of 777 the board. The amendment seeks to provide for a review within the internal mechanisms of the board if approval is not forthcoming on first application.
As I understood the procedure when it was discussed in Committee and elsewhere, it is envisaged that for the purpose of legal advice and assistance those who will be approving and, in some cases, not approving applications to exceed the limit will in many cases be locally based. The amendment is designed to achieve at least some constitency in cases where there has been a refusal. There is now a right of appeal. The Minister announced a concession in Committee. This was a very welcome move by the Government, and later amendments will give effect to that announcement. Therefore, as the Government are now prepared to accept that there should be a right of appeal after applications have been made for either civil or criminal legal aid, it would be unfortunate, to put it mildly, if the right of review that already exists for certain forms of legal advice and assistance were to be taken away.
For that reason, I have proposed this amendment which, within the internal mechanisms of the board, would allow a review to take place if an extension of the limit of £50 or, as I should prefer it to be £100, were refused.

§ Mr. Dewar
I congratulate the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), who has been ingenious and productive in the tabling of amendments. I sympathise with the aim of these offerings. The uprating of LAA3 from £50 to £100, the point at which an extension has to be sought, is an attractive, perhaps seductive, proposition to anyone who has sat, as I have, in a small room in a small Scottish burgh waiting for the thud of feet upon the stairs bringing business.
An increase to that level would not be unreasonable. However, I am not sure, seductive though the argument is, that this is the appropriate time for such a change. We sometimes have upratings and the matter is considered in other ways, and I should be surprised if the Minister agreed with the proposition in this form. Pink Bombers, as they are known colloquially, are certainly important to the trade, and I know that the Patronage Secretary will be familiar with this form of work.
We are talking about an important safeguard for the individual. The right to obtain initial advice and help with a legal problem is fundamental. There is a case for arguing that £50 is too low a cut-off point beyond which any work has to be authorised by, presumably, the legal aid board. I am sure that it will not be grateful for the additional flood of applications. Thus, although I have my doubts, I certainly understand and sympathise with the aims, but the Minister should look at the issue of the appeal sympathetically. I take the point about the need to be consistent, and in a few minutes we shall all welcome the Minister's decision to introduce a right of appeal in civil and criminal legal aid.
As I have said, the LAA3 procedure, which is largely self-assessment and self-administration, is important. Clearly there will be many applications for extension, but most of them will be self-evidently valid, and will presumably be agreed, but if there is controversy and a refusal, it is not unreasonable that some form of appeal should be allowed, presumably an internal appeal, analogous to the one instituted in other areas. I hope that the Minister will give some thought to the proposition, and 778 will go along with the principle. The present drafting may be unsatisfactory, but I should like to think that he is favourably disposed towards the concept.

§ Mr. John MacKay
In Committee I explained on a number of occasions that it is the practice in legislation to include the current figure, which now stands at £50 both north and south of the border. It was increased from £40 in November 1983. We keep the situation under review, but no clear evidence of a need for a further increase has emerged. It is of interest that the average cost of an advice and assistance account paid in 1984–85, at £45 is precisley the same as that in 1982–83, the year before the increase was made. The number of requests for increases in 1984–85, at just under 40,000, was the same as in the previous year, despite the increase in certificates for legal advice and assistance to approaching 141,000. I assume that that means that there were 141,000 Pink Bombers. It seems right that there should be a fairly strict limit on the cost of the work a solicitor can do on his own initiative, dealt with under the present schemes. I accept that the administrative costs of authorising increases have to be weighed against the prospective increased costs in advice and assistance if the limit is raised. However, the fact authorisations of increases will rest with the board rather than with individual local committees should serve to reduce any inconsistencies.
These factors are also relevant to amendment No. 6, as this change in responsibility clearly reduces the need for a review procedure. At present there is an appeal from the local committee to the central committee. I understand that there is no appeal against refusal of an extension in England and Wales. I am not convinced of the need for a review procedure under the new arrangements, although this will be a matter for consideration with the board. If necessary, regulations relating to a review procedure could be introduced, but I am satisfied that there is no need for provision on the face of the Bill.
There is a further complication in relation to assistance by way of representation since the introduction of a review procedure could introduce undesirable delays or complications. As I said in Committee, it would be possible to prescribe a higher limit for assistance by way of representation than for ordinary advice and assistance, and I shall certainly be giving consideration to that possibility.
I hope that with that explanation the hon. Gentleman will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.

§ Mr. Wallace
I hear what the Minister says about the fixing of the limit and the practice of maintaining the present situation, but I am sure that he will note what has been said and take the debate as a marker. One can rapidly reach the limit, and the administrative costs of processing an application for approval of an extension is not a small sum.
The question of review is important. The Minister resisted the suggestion in Committee at a stage when he had not accepted that there should be any review at all with regard to civil and criminal legal aid. That has now changed, as can be seen in the amendments that we are about to debate. It seems rather odd that a present right of appeal will be removed at a time when the Government are willing to rights of appeal where they do not presently exist.
779 We can all look to the practice in England and Wales, as may happen on one or two occasions this evening, and try to borrow from that in saying that the same should apply in Scotland. At other times we take great pride in saying that it should be different. But this is one case where it matters not what happens in England and Wales. An existing right will be removed.
I was encouraged when the Minister said that he believes that the powers given to the Secretary of State under present legislation are sufficient to allow him to make regulations to introduce a review procedure if that should prove necessary. I hope that if the Government are still in power—God forbid that they will be—after at least one year of the new board coming into effect, they, or any incoming Government, will consult the board on that matter.
I cannot accept the Minister's point about unreasonable delays in a case of assistance by way of representation. As was pointed out in Committee, there will be no review if the person concerned does not institute it himself. Therefore, if he is concerned about there being a speedy disposal of his case and feels that a review would lead to delay, the answer is a simple one. That point does not stand up, but these are not amendments which I would wish to press to a Division.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.