HC Deb 06 March 1989 vol 148 cc597-9
46. Mr. John Marshall

To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has received about the Lord Chancellor's recent Green Paper.

The Attorney-General

As of 28 February 1989, 200 representations had been received in response to the Lord Chancellor's recent Green Papers. Of those, 44 per cent. were from members of the public, and the rest were from lawyers, including judges.

Mr. Marshall

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Green Paper proposals should lead to cheaper legal services for all, and would benefit everyone in the community? Does he agree also that legal Jeremiahs who forecast an end to the independent Bar and to the family solicitor may be distinguished lawyers, but are jolly bad forecasters who do their profession a disservice?

The Attorney-General

The purpose of the Government's provisional proposals is to ensure that the public are provided with the most efficient and effective network of legal services at the most economical price. Opinions of every kind about the efficacy of the proposals, expressed in response to the Green Papers, will of course be assessed very carefully.

Mr. Maclennan

Bearing in mind that no Select Committee shadows the work of the Lord Chancellor's Department, and that it will be this House which is faced with legislation, and bearing in mind the blood-curdling imprecations of the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Hailsham, Lord Ackner and a number of other luminaries, does the Attorney-General agree that it might be appropriate to consider supporting any moves to set up a pre-legislative Committee of the House to take evidence on the proposals before they are brought before the House—especially in the light of widespread speculation that the Green Paper will be followed speedily by legislation rather than by a White Paper?

The Attorney-General

I rather lost track of the number of hypothetical questions incorporated in the hon. Gentleman's overall question. Those matters, however, are not for me but for the usual channels—and there I must leave the answer to that interesting question.

Mr. Aitken

Would it not be a logical extension of the bracing free-market philosophy of the Green Paper for the office of Lord Chancellor and, indeed, that of Attorney-General to be taken by non-lawyers in future? Does my right hon. and learned Friend not agree that the Peter Wright saga demonstrates that millions of pounds could have been saved if the Government had taken the cheapest available common-sense advice, namely that of non-lawyers?

The Attorney-General

My hon. Friend seems to have overlooked the fact that the Lord Chancellor does not have to be a lawyer. The Attorney-General does, but his salary is so low that I suspect that it represents the lowest cost available through competition.

Mr. Fraser

First, when the Attorney-General and the Lord Chancellor examine the Green Paper, will they learn some of the lessons of the Financial Services Act and ensure that they get these radical reforms right first time? Does the Attorney-General recognise that the effect of some other reforms has been to deny proper advice to those most in need of it—perhaps the poorest in the community? Secondly, what opportunity will there be for the House to be consulted? Parliamentary questions do not provide a sufficient forum for consultation about the terms of the Green Paper.

Finally, why does the Green Paper not say much about one branch of the profession—judges—and their selection, training and suitability? Would it not be better if a legal commission were responsible for the appointment of the judiciary?

The Attorney-General

As for whether the Financial Services Act and the way in which it has been implemented represent an analogy, those matters can be, and no doubt will be, properly addressed to the Lord Chancellor in response to the Green Papers. As for consultation with the House, there is of course absolutely no reason why right hon. and hon. Members should not make their representations to the Lord Chancellor, and he hopes very much that they will do so.

The appointment of judges falls outside the scope of the Green Papers, and I think that the hon. Gentleman will understand why that is so.

Sir Anthony Grant

Much of the Green Paper is extremely sensible, and valuable to the public and the legal profession. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware, however, that any proposal to move to the American system of contingency fees would be unacceptable? Does he not agree that it would be very undesirable for us to return to the days when certain lawyers were regarded with utter contempt and called ambulance chasers?

The Attorney-General

The proposals regarding contingency fees, and the argument underlying them, are set out with great clarity in the Green Paper. I do not wish to add to what is written there, except to say that the American system—or, at any rate, what is commonly regarded as the American system—is not advocated in the Green Paper.