§ 34. Mr. John MarshallTo ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received about the 1997–98 legal aid budget. [12251]
§ Mr. StreeterNo representation has been made to me specifically about the 1997–98 budget, although I have on 674 a number of occasions received correspondence concerning the level of legal aid expenditure generally. The Government are introducing a major reform of the legal aid system to bring the budget under control.
§ Mr. MarshallI thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he accept that most people welcome some control over the legal aid budget, which they think has got out of control? Most people are appalled that the shadow Lord Chancellor wants to extend legal aid to industrial tribunals, which will cost the taxpayer dear and benefit his chambers.
§ Mr. StreeterMy hon. Friend makes an important point. Our White Paper reforms are intended to bear down on and seize control of the legal aid budget to improve the service that we deliver. In contrast, the Labour party is talking openly and widely about expanding legal aid further by installing a law centre in every town and extending legal aid to industrial tribunals. Those proposals will cost the taxpayers many millions of pounds. There is an apparent conflict of interest when people call for an extension to the industrial tribunal system knowing that it would benefit themselves.
§ Mrs. DunwoodyInstead of talking about the amount that legal aid costs, why does not the Minister astonish the House by looking at the way in which legal fees are raised by solicitors who spend well over a year deciding on whether or not to pursue a case—all the time seeking legal aid fees—and who then tell some of my poorest constituents that there is no case to pursue? If he were doing his job properly, there would be more than enough money to extend representation to industrial tribunals.
§ Mr. StreeterThe hon. Lady makes an interesting point, and I accept that there are times when the service delivered by solicitors falls short. If she is aware of a specific case, I hope that she will raise it with me, the Law Society and other appropriate channels.
§ 35. Dr. SpinkTo ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement about the level of the legal aid budget over the past three years. [12252]
§ Mr. StreeterIn 1993–94, net expenditure on legal aid was £1.2 billion. In 1995–96, expenditure had risen to £1.39 billion, an increase of just under 15 per cent.
§ Dr. SpinkWill my hon. Friend take time in the near future to set out how the Government intend to control legal aid expenditure more rigorously, and whether they will set caps on it? Is it not shameful that the legal profession and Opposition Members seek to extend the legal aid budget, particularly to industrial tribunals?
§ Mr. StreeterOnce again, my hon. Friend is on to a good point. The White Paper reforms announced last July are right and have acquired an unstoppable momentum. They will resolve the current shortfalls in the system. Colleagues will be pleased to learn that I am examining a number of proposals to deal with some of the more obvious abuses in the short term, including perverse decisions by area committees and soft opinions by some barristers to enable their clients to get legal aid. I will have more to say on that shortly.