Legal Aid (Hansard, 1 February 1993)

§ 33. Mr. Mullin
To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what consideration he has given to the effect of increases in lawyers' fees on the legal aid budget; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor)
All matters relating to total legal aid expenditure are taken into consideration when setting provision for legal aid.

§ Mr. Mullin
What thought has the Parliamentary Secretary's Department given to reducing the legal aid budget by making the courts more efficient, even if it is at the expense of inconveniencing the odd judge or two?

Mr. Taylor
Very tempting. Considerable efforts on a very broad front are being made urgently in the Lord Chancellor's Department to try to reduce delay. The hon. 15 Gentleman and the House will probably agree that we must all be the enemies of delay because it is expensive and demoralising. We are introducing a White Paper and a Magistrates Courts Bill to try to get best practice among magistrates and the inspectorate and better block listing. Likewise, in the county courts, cases below £1,000 will be dealt with far less formally and more cases will be dealt with in the county courts in lieu of the High Court. These are only a few examples of a broad front endeavour to achieve what the hon. Gentleman wishes.

§ Mr. Dickens
When the new proposals for legal aid are laid before Parliament they are not debatable, so does my hon. Friend think that the Lord Chancellor would accept amendments?

Mr. Taylor
No, I do not think that the Lord Chancellor, having satisfied himself at the appropriate moment that he has it exactly right, would be such a man —he will stick to his own proposals, explain them and, if necessary, defend them.

§ 34. Mr. Barry Jones
To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what measures he will adopt to publicise the availability of legal aid; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John M. Taylor
The Legal Aid Board produces leaflets and posters on the legal aid scheme and distributes them widely.

§ Mr. Jones
Does the Minister agree that, whatever amount of money is spent on advertising, about 7 million people in Britain will lose access to legal aid? Does he accept that in Wales, tens of thousands of people on low wages, but just above benefit level, will be excluded from access to legal aid? Even at this late stage, why does he not tell the Lord Chancellor's Department that it should think again about its reprehensible decision?

Mr. Taylor
No. I think that the hon. Gentleman may find that the position in the Principality is more reassuring than he suspects. Since 1979, the number of acts of assistance given under legal aid has increased from 900,000 to 3.1 million and, during the immediate forecast period of the next three years, it is expected to rise to 4 million. So far from our having cut legal aid, it has doubled over the past four years and is due, under the autumn statement, to increase in the next three years by 10 per cent., 10 per cent. and 10 per cent. It is available to almost half of society and more than one fifth of society will receive it free. It is arguably one of the most generous systems of legal aid in the world.

§ Mr. Stephen
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the figures that he has just given, but does he accept that the key question to be answered is what proportion of our national resources can we afford to spend on the dispute settlement system?

Mr. Taylor
I agree with the thrust of my hon. Friend's question. We may need better ways of resolving disputes and, in considering the application of resources, we must certainly consider the interests of one party who is a party to every legal aid case—the taxpayer. All too often, the taxpayer seems to get left out of such considerations.

§ Mr. Boateng
Bearing in mind the concern that exists among hon. Members on both sides of the House about the Lord Chancellor's legal aid proposals, will the Minister 16 tell the House by what authority and at how much expense the highly contentious document going under the misnomer "Legal Aid—The Facts" was produced? Will he answer that question bearing in mind the widespread concern about the Lord Chancellor's proposals in the profession and among consumer associations—of which he is well aware—and the fact that the real fact of the matter, which the document does not reveal, is that up to 12 million people will lose all eligibility to free legal aid?

Mr. Taylor
I just cannot see how 12 million people can drop out of a system that is being used by 3.1 million people; it does not make sense. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know who is prepared to accept responsibility for the document in this House, the answer is—I am.

§ Mr. Garnier
Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the best ways of achieving the best use of the Lord Chancellor's budget for legal aid is to improve the efficiency of the courts? Does he accept that a higher quality of court manager and therefore a better use of the listing system—through, for example, computers—is something to aim for, and will he endeavour to ensure that his Department trains court listing officers to the highest possible degree?

Mr. Taylor
I am entirely sympathetic to the drift of my hon. Friend's question. It seems to me to be a proper ambition—and it is perhaps becoming an urgent ambition —that the various courts should be linked by computer. In that, I include the magistrates courts. Often, as one Opposition Member found to his cost not long ago, a defendant may be summoned to appear in two magistrates courts simultaneously, may choose the one of his own liking—or least disliking—and may simply not tell the other court that he does not intend to turn up, causing great inconvenience and cost to that other court. I am sympathetic to the aim of linking the courts, their records, their information and their planning by means of modern information technology.