§ 33. Mr. Nick St. Aubyn (Guildford)If he will make a statement on the effects of his Department's plans to withdraw legal aid in personal injury cases. [70854]
§ The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon)The Government are determined to ensure that the best use is made of taxpayers' money used to fund legal services. We see no reason to use taxpayers' money where other suitable forms of funding exist. The vast majority of personal injury cases are suitable for funding through a conditional fee agreement and at least 50,000 such agreements have already been made. However, cases with exceptionally high investigative or overall costs, or that raise issues of public interest, may continue to receive help from public funds. Moreover, there are no present plans to remove from that scope cases of personal injury caused by clinical negligence.
§ Mr. St. AubynDoes that answer not demonstrate mean-mindedness, because the costs of claims are often recovered through successful prosecutions and are therefore extremely small? Does it not also show shortsightedness, because in personal injury cases, where individuals' life chances have been destroyed, those without the money to pursue their case will no longer be supported by the state and, as a result, will become a burden on the state, costing the Exchequer many more pounds in the future?
§ Mr. HoonUnfortunately, the statistical evidence does not bear the hon. Gentleman out. If the House will forgive 178 me, I shall set out some figures that will instruct him and perhaps assist him in formulating his arguments in the future. In 1996–97, some 83,000 personal injury cases were funded by legal aid. Of those, nearly 12,000 were clinical negligence cases, which will remain within the scope, but, of the remaining cases, more than 81 per cent. cost £4,000 or less. That was the total cost for the case, including counsel's fees. Those disbursement costs are not beyond the means of a typical solicitor, who could fund those up-front costs to the benefit of his or her clients.
§ Ms Beverley Hughes (Stretford and Urmston)Does my hon. Friend agree that lawyers in personal injury practice constantly come across people who cannot afford to pursue personal injury cases precisely because they are not eligible for legal aid? Would not moving to a conditional fee arrangement open up the courts to those with genuine claims who cannot pursue them now because they are of modest means but just above the limit for legal aid?
§ Mr. HoonMy hon. Friend is right. At present, many people cannot afford to fund legal cases themselves, but are not so poor that they qualify for legal aid. The success of the arrangement demonstrates that the large number of people in the middle can gain access to justice as a result of the conditional fee agreements.