§ 78. Mr. HindTo ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the Government's proposals for one lawyer to represent clients in criminal cases on legal aid.
§ The Attorney-GeneralOn 19 June Standing Committee D, with Government support, added a new clause to the Courts and Legal Services Bill under which the Lord Chancellor would be unable to say that a defendant in criminal proceedings should have only one lawyer to represent him. The Government hope to be able to extend this provision to include cases in the High Court and the Court of Appeal when the House considers the Bill on Report.
§ Mr. HindMy right hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the concern that has been expressed by the Bar Council, the Law Society and the Consumers Association about this provision. I hope that he will influence the Committee to ensure that the public have a proper choice and that enough lawyers are available to represent defendants in court cases.
§ The Attorney-GeneralThe Government have made it clear that there is no intention to use the power to fix fees under the legal aid scheme to require that any litigant shall be represented by only one legal representative. That will become clear when we reach Report stage.
§ Mr. SkinnerWhy is not the Attorney-General saying that this is a case of restrictive practices and overmanning and that the Government will weed out those elements? Instead, he says exactly the opposite. If it had been a trade union, the boot would have been on the other foot.
§ The Attorney-GeneralI shall not discuss with the hon. Gentleman where he puts his boot—[ Interruption.] It is generally in his mouth. The hon. Gentleman would be the first to his feet if one of his trade union members had not been permitted the legal representative of his choice because the Lord Chancellor of the day had decided—[Interruption.] Just for once, will the hon. Gentleman listen to an answer so that others can hear it? Let us suppose that one of his trade union members had been denied the representative of his choice because the Lord Chancellor of the time—perhaps even a Conservative one—had decreed that he should have only one. I wonder what he would say then.
§ Mr. LawrenceDoes my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is nearly always necessary for there to be someone arranging for witnesses and trying to organise the times when they can come, and someone taking a note of the evidence? The Opposition would be the first to complain if they were involved in any sort of criminal trial that had to be delayed day after day merely because there was no one there to help the barrister on his feet.
§ The Attorney-GeneralI thought that I had expressed the same thought, perhaps rather less amply.
§ 79. Mr. Simon HughesTo ask the Attorney-General when the application for legal aid by Mr. McCready, of 5 Botsham house, Newcomen street, London SE1 will be dealt with.
§ The Attorney-GeneralA number of regrettable errors in the handling of Mr. McCready's application for legal 15 aid delayed considerably the issue of a certificate. But I am pleased to say that an unlimited legal aid certificate was issued on 28 June.
§ Mr. HughesDoes the Attorney-General agree that justice delayed is justice denied? Is the delay in this case—a delay, as he well knows, of more than a year—typical of the legal aid administration? Is he aware that solicitors are fed up with the delay and that many people just cannot get an answer? It is only because I have written to the Lord Chancellor about this case that there appears to be any movement at all.
§ The Attorney-GeneralNo, it is regrettable but it is certainly not typical. The Legal Aid Board has already increased from 50 to 63 per cent. the number of legal aid applications that are processed within six weeks of receipt, and it has set itself tough targets for the immediate future.