§ 28. Mrs. Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest)How many responses his Department has received to the consultation paper on conditional fee arrangements which were (i) in favour of the Government's proposals and (ii) against them. [41282]
§ The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon)Consultation closed on 30 April 1998, by which time we had received 233 responses. That includes the response from the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), but not the bundle that he submitted of private correspondence between Opposition Members and various law firms, some of which was written before the consultation paper was published, and some of which was clearly aimed at soliciting unfavourable comments. Analysis of all the responses to our paper is being undertaken and we will consider the results in due course.
§ Mrs. LaingCan the Minister assure the House that, despite the clearly party political inference that he put into his answer, when the analysis takes place he will note the significant body of opinion, of which the Opposition are aware from our postbags, that opposes the Government's policy? Having done so, will he change the policy accordingly—or is the consultation exercise just a public relations exercise?
§ Mr. HoonIt has been made clear—indeed, I have made it clear myself in a letter to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough—that we shall take into account all the representations that we receive. There has been a prolonged consultation period. The Lord Chancellor first suggested the changes that we are considering as long ago as October, and there has been a further consultation paper, a statement in the House and extensive discussion involving Opposition Members on how to take the proposals forward. Only when we have considered all the representations will we reach any decisions.
§ Mr. John Burnett (Torridge and West Devon)Mention is made in the consultation paper of the continuation of legal aid for defendants and its withdrawal in business cases. Will the Minister assure the House that legal aid will always be available to defendants such as Mr. Gerald James, formerly chairman of Astra Holdings plc, who had to defend proceedings that were subsequently found to be unsound and collapsed, although he had had to face the might of the state in those circumstances?
§ Mr. HoonLegal aid will continue to cover a range of cases, including family cases, housing cases, judicial review and actions arising from the misdeeds of public authorities, as well as to enable people to defend proceedings. I hope that that list is sufficiently wide to encompass the hon. Gentleman's concerns.
§ Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough)I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for giving publicity to the work that I have done as Opposition spokesman. From my perusal of the press, it seems that I get a rather better press than either the hon. Gentleman or the Lord Chancellor—which I agree is not difficult. Does the Minister realise that it is now widely accepted that the Lord Chancellor's plans for conditional fees, although long on misdirected ambition, are woefully incoherent? Will he undertake not only personally to read every response to the consultation paper—including the letters from solicitors that I forwarded under the consultation process—but to pay attention to, and act upon, the criticisms contained in those responses?
§ Mr. HoonI am delighted to discover that the hon. and learned Gentleman is so pleased with his own publicity.
730 I understand that a reshuffle is in the offing and I hope that his comments are in no way an advertisement of his skills for the attention of his leader, who no doubt reads Hansard as regularly as the rest of us. I shall certainly read all the various comments that have been made before reaching a decision on the consultation paper. It is vital that we have a reformed modernised legal aid scheme; indeed, the hon. and learned Gentleman knows that he supported a Government who regarded the costs of legal aid as utterly out of control, and the legal aid system as in urgent need of reform. It is astonishing that in such a short time he has become so used to the ways of opposition.
§ 29. Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport)What action he has recently undertaken to make transparent levels of charges for legal aid work. [41283]
§ The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon)The level of charges is published annually in regulations and in the legal aid handbook.
§ Mr. ViggersWas it not misleading and totally unrealistic for the Lord Chancellor to say in an article in The Independent on 18 February that legal aid assistance should be focused on cases either involving novel and significant points of law or with wider implications? As the Lord Chancellor is cutting legal aid across the board, would that not mean that individuals involved in normal cases would pay even more and receive even less?
§ Mr. HoonThe reference was to ensuring that legal aid was available in cases in which there were novel or significant points of law. Central to the proposed reforms is the belief that everyone should have access to a lawyer and that scarce taxpayers' money should be concentrated on cases in which it can do most good. It is right and proper that the availability of legal aid should be restricted in that wide range of money-related cases where, we believe, conditional fees are an adequate way in which to provide people with representation. Scarce taxpayers' funds should be concentrated on the cases in which they are justified, such as those involving novel and significant points of law.
§ Mr. Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Hall Green)Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a world of difference between the vast majority of solicitors engaged in legal aid work, who make a valuable and often unrecognised contribution and receive modest incomes, and the tiny proportion of people engaged in such work who can claim fees of up to £750,000 a year at taxpayers' expense? Will he join me in commending the contribution of that vast majority, and will he assure the House that, under the reforms, individuals will no longer be able to extract such exorbitant funds from the public purse?
§ Mr. HoonI am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations. I entirely agree that the great majority of lawyers working through the legal aid system provide a valuable and consistent source of advice and representation—I am the first to pay tribute to that. My hon. Friend is right to point out that the fact that as much as £750,000 of taxpayers' money can be paid into the 731 pocket of one lawyer in one year is a matter of concern. It is absolutely right that the Government should publish such figures, as, indeed, our predecessors did.