The Legal Aid Act 1988 (c. 34) (Hansard, 23 October 1989)

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 239, Government new clause 17 and Government amendment No. 64.

§ The Solicitor-General
These are important amendments about legal aid, which I was overhasty in seeking to reach but which deserve the attention of the House. Government amendment No. 231 amends the Legal Aid Act to provide that civil legal aid is available for all civil proceedings under the Bill in a magistrates court. Proceedings at the High Court and the county court, including those under the Bill, automatically attract civil legal aid without the need for specific provision to be made.
Amendment No. 239 will repeal all the provisions under the Legal Aid Act that are no longer required as a consequence of the Bill.
New clause 17 provides that civil legal aid is to be available for proceedings under the Bill, and this clause, in conjunction with amendments Nos. 64, 231 and 239 and powers already available under the Legal Aid Act, will permit this.
A report of the Law Society's annual conference that appeared in The Times on Saturday highlighted my next point, when Sir Stephen Brown, president of the Family Division, said that there will be concern to ensure that the Legal Aid Board can grant legal aid swiftly, particularly in care cases. He emphasised that this was essential, and said that he hoped very much that it would come about, because otherwise all the hard work that had gone into the legislation would not be put into effect.
We are concerned to ensure that the Legal Aid Board can grant legal aid swiftly, particularly in care cases. Therefore, the Government intend to waive the merits test for those who are automatically parties in care proceedings to grant legal aid in advance of the means test and to waive the means test entirely for children who are the subject of a care application. The clause also makes a number of tidying up provisions consequent on this repeal. Where a child is to be put in secure accommodation, this clause ensures that he must be granted legal aid if he wishes it without any merits test, as now, and without a means test. Proceedings relating to the supervision orders under the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, which are criminal in character and are not being repealed by the Bill, will also attract criminal legal aid under the clause.
These are important amendments, and although I do not need to dwell on them I wish to draw them to the attention of the House. I take this opportunity to note that in the report of the Law Society annual conference proceedings, Sir Stephen Brown, the president of the Law Society—and this is a trailer for a debate that we shall reach shortly—interestingly said that the Bill would set up what would be, in essence, a family court. There is a great deal of truth in what he said, but we shall come to that matter later.
The legal aid provisions are important and I commend them to the House.

§ Mr. Doran
When I consider new legislation such as new clause 17, I am often struck by the thought that it is somewhat pedantically drawn. I assume that there must be a motive for including local authorities in subsection (2), which excludes them from applying for legal aid. Is the reason for that simply that the Solicitor-General is anticipating that most local authorities will fail the means test?

§ The Solicitor-General
The new clause naturally ensures only that legal aid is available to individuals for proceedings under the Bill. It would not be appropriate for it to be available to local authorities, as the amendment naturally makes clear.

§ Mr. Vaz
Although we welcome the amendments, especially those relating to the extension of representation, I am concerned about one matter. The Solicitor-General will recall that we both sat on the Legal Aid Bill Committee, when I was concerned about the same matter —that is, the amount of resources available for legal aid. It is all very well amending legislation to provide for representation, but if the legal aid system is starved of resources and if the eligibility limits remain unchanged, the numbers of people who can gain through the amendment will be limited. What assurances can the Solicitor-General give us about a new Government attitude towards the provision of greater resources to the legal aid system?

§ The Solicitor-General
I do not think that the problem is simply a matter of resources. We have debated the question of resources on a number of occasions and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the resources devoted to legal aid have been rising very quickly indeed. I do not think that the question of eligibility applies because those who need it are entitled to it under the amendment.