§ Jane Griffiths (Reading, East)I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the important subject of publicly funded legal services in Reading. The title of the debate might give the impression that a parochial matter is being aired in the House today, but that is not so. I shall raise several important issues relating to the legal aid service in Reading that reflect a worrying national picture.
Parliament is considering a number of Government Bills relating to access to justice that will make important changes to the justice system. Consultations have been taking place and the public and interested bodies have been expressing their views. Therefore, it is all the more essential that existing bodies which provide access to legal services for those who need them, but who do not have the means to fund legal representation from their own income, operate in a manner that disburses public funds correctly, and that those bodies monitor rigorously the disbursement of those funds so that public money is not squandered, either on hopeless cases or on cases in which the full evidence is not in the possession of either of the parties concerned or their legal representatives.
I was pleased to learn from the Reading legal aid office that the targets for speedy processing of claims for legal aid assistance, which are set nationally, are being either met or exceeded by that office. Some months ago, I tabled parliamentary questions in an effort to establish where the Reading legal aid office fits into the national picture in terms of meeting those targets and processing my constituents' claims for legal aid assistance. From the answers provided by Ministers, it is clear that the Reading legal aid office is almost entirely typical of the country as a whole.
The figures show that Reading legal aid office had an average level of debt write-off of £637 in 1997–98, which is the last year for which figures are available. That is slightly less than the national average of £700 in 1997–98. The figures for the same year also show that, at £1.5 million per permanent employee, the cost of the legal aid service in Reading is less than the national average cost per permanent employee of £1.7 million. To attach a health warning to the latter figures, I should point out that the national figures include central support staff, whereas Reading's figures do not.
I am delighted that Reading's legal aid service appears to be performing well, but a darker picture has emerged after a meeting that I had with staff from that office. It is apparent that the need to meet or exceed national targets is putting pressure on staff at local legal aid offices to process claims without necessarily having the opportunity to put due checks and balances in place. The staff have targets for the number of claims that they have to process every day. They are checked constantly, and falling behind in achieving the targets results in a visit from a supervisor and possible disciplinary action.
I have no problem with the existence of targets to measure efficiency of processing—in fact, I believe that it is important to have targets to ensure that work is being carried out as efficiently as possible. However, that efficiency, those targets and the management systems must not apply solely to processing of claims, but should apply also to the accuracy of the claims that are entered.
1146 To illustrate my argument, I shall refer to a constituent, whom I shall call Mr. B. He is in the unusual, but by no means unique, position of being in the throes of a marriage break-up, but still living in the same house as his spouse. Representations have been made seeking legal aid for his spouse, to the effect that she is responsible for various financial outgoings of the household. Because of their joint occupation of the household, Mr. B is in a position to have seen the claim that his spouse has submitted and learn that she has claimed for household expenditure that he actually pays. He can demonstrate that her financial situation is not as it has been represented.
That evidence is not being properly considered by the Reading legal aid office, despite the fact that its authenticity is at least worthy of respect. That is apparently because, were it to be considered, the excellent record of the Reading legal aid office in meeting its targets might be compromised. Mr. B, whose income would not in any circumstances entitle him to legal aid assistance, is left in the unfortunate position of knowing that public funds are being issued to a person who is not entitled to benefit from them, and that he could lose his home as a result.
Another constituent, Mr. L, has been in dispute for 10 years or more with his neighbour over a piece of land adjoining both their properties. Despite the fact that Mr. L's case and others like it are unlikely to achieve a satisfactory settlement through the courts, public funds have been disbursed over the years to the extent that the piece of land in dispute could have been purchased at the market value, donated to my constituent and an equivalent sum paid in compensation to his neighbour with the legal aid funds that have already been disbursed—but, of course, those funds have gone into the pockets of solicitors. As it is, the action continues, with no hope of success and with distress and worry caused to my constituent, whose legal representatives have been happy to receive legal aid certificates for a hopeless case. The legal aid service's remit allows it to refuse assistance for such cases, but in Mr. L's and other cases it has not done so.
Those examples, which are replicated in other cases that constituents have brought to my attention, demonstrate that there is some substance to the concerns of the staff at the Reading legal aid office. I am worried to learn that the Reading office is now taking on work from Manchester, Brighton and elsewhere. I understand that legal aid offices do that, if they have spare capacity. I hope that the systems for dealing with that work will ensure that there is proper scrutiny of the claims. The staff at the office have further concerns: paperwork is thrown away, so there is no record of the development of a case and no paper record should there have to be court action for recovery, making that recovery much harder; and auditing of claims by solicitors firms for legal aid under the delegated scheme again fails to provide proper scrutiny, as a result of the same pressures to pass claims.
§ Mr. Martin Salter (Reading, West)My hon. Friend is making a good argument and the people of Reading will be grateful to her. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, does she agree that there is an urgent need for that Committee to examine the roots of the suspicion 1147 that the legal aid budget is being milked by unscrupulous solicitors, and that no proper checks or balances are in place?
§ Jane GriffithsI agree that there is cause for concern about the activities of unscrupulous solicitors in several areas. I hope that the sort of rigorous scrutiny that I shall recommend will be carried out.
I do not ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor' s Department, to comment upon individual cases, as that would not be appropriate. However, I do ask him to reflect upon the fact that the Reading legal aid office is under such pressure to meet its targets for speedy processing of claims that claims are being routinely approved, without sufficient checking or scrutiny. Under the current system, it is easier to approve all claims that pass across an officer's desk than to check the reasonableness of the claims.
The professional staff at the Reading legal aid office would like to check all the claims that pass before them, but they are not given the opportunity to exercise their professionalism. Thus, year after year, huge sums of public money are disbursed—sums that almost match the budget of Reading council for the provision of all services to the people of Reading. Targets are met, but my constituents in Reading, East have less-than-adequate access to justice and solicitors get fat on the proceeds.
Money is walking out of the door of the Reading legal aid office, because management systems are set up to issue money as efficiently as possible and equal attention is not given to ensuring that the money is effectively spent. Solicitors in Reading, East are well aware that legal aid claims are not rigorously monitored. Who can blame them for claiming what they can, or for encouraging their clients to pursue cases that are either hopeless or misrepresented?
Access to justice is a basic human right. I hope that the Minister will take into account the fact that, whatever the situation in the Reading legal aid office may be, according to the Government's figures, it is not untypical of the national picture. Therefore, it may be true that, all over the country, the speedy processing of legal aid claims is taking precedence over good monitoring and scrutiny. I hope that that is not the case.
I should like to take advantage of the privilege that I have been granted in raising this important subject in the House today by asking the Minister whether he will ensure that the legal aid service in Reading, and others elsewhere in the country, will be obliged in future to undertake strict monitoring of financial disbursement and rigorous scrutiny of the evidence presented when legal aid is sought. My constituent Mr. B should be permitted to present evidence that may affect his adversary's entitlement to legal aid under our current system.
I know that our legal aid system will change in the future. I seek an assurance from the Minister that serious and rigorous scrutiny will be put in place so that those who seek help from publicly funded legal services and those who may have adversaries who do so can be confident that all possible evidence is taken into account and that public funds will be used to provide access to justice for those who need it.
§ The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Keith Vaz)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) on her good fortune in securing a debate on this very important subject which, aside from the legislative proceedings, has not been debated in the House since the introduction of the Access to Justice Bill in the other place in December last year.
My hon. Friend has, typically, put her case articulately, cogently and effectively on behalf of her constituents. She is a first-class constituency member. I am also delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) in the Chamber. I believe that my hon. Friends are the best parliamentary team from Reading in more than a generation. Before I deal with the points that my hon. Friend has made, I shall describe briefly the work that the Government are taking forward to improve publicly funded legal services in England and Wales.
The Government's proposals to reform the legal aid scheme and improve the justice system were set out in the White Paper "Modernising Justice" and in the Access to Justice Bill, which will come before the House this afternoon. Our intention is to help ordinary people use the justice system to enforce their rights and solve their problems and to create a system that offers people the best-quality services at a price that the taxpayer can afford.
Our new community legal service, which will be established under the Access to Justice Bill, will approach problems in a radical new way. It will provide access to information, assistance and advice. It will aim to ensure that a range of legal services is available when and where people need it, and that those services meet the actual needs of people. It will work in partnership with other funders and providers of legal services and use local expertise so that we can build up a pattern of legal services that meets local need. It will create opportunities for innovative legal services delivered in new ways and taking advantage of new technology. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has said, it is the cornerstone of our legal services strategy.
The greater use of conditional fees to fund litigation will open up the courts to those who cannot afford to litigate. However, some individuals will still need public support to pursue a case. The community legal service will encompass what is currently civil and family legal aid. It will ensure that the right priorities are set for the use of the funds that are available, and that those who provide services provide good quality at a good price. The use of contracts with suppliers will introduce competition to the market and ensure that quality services are provided at a value-for-money price. Contracting will improve our control over the amount of public funds spent on legal services. Funds will be targeted at priority cases, and cases will not go to court if the problem can be resolved in some other way.
A great deal of work is already being done to prepare for the community legal service. Pioneer community legal service partnerships with local authorities have been set up in a number of areas to identify and test best practice in co-ordinating local funding and planning to match the delivery of services with local needs and to build local referral networks.
1149 Not every local authority could become a pioneer partner, and Reading was not among those chosen. The nearest partnership area to Reading is Slough, but Reading will be able to benefit from the work that is being done to develop a blueprint for local authorities to follow when establishing their own community legal service frameworks.
Reading falls within the area of the Legal Aid Board's southern legal services committee, which covers Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Hampshire, Dorset and the Isle of Wight—an area with a total population in excess of 4.25 million. In April 1999, the committee published its assessment of the need for legal services and its strategic plan for letting contracts for publicly funded legal services from next year.
The assessment of need was consulted on widely through a series of county-based conferences. As a result of representations made at those conferences, a "Greater Reading" contract zone was created to incorporate residential areas in particular parts of neighbouring authorities since it was felt that those residents would be most likely to seek legal services within Reading.
Greater Reading has been assessed as having a high priority of need for legal services in the matrimonial and family, debt, housing, welfare benefits, employment, consumer, general contract and immigration areas of law. Contracts for the provision of publicly funded legal services in those high-priority areas will be issued to those providers who bid for contracts, provided they meet the board's franchise quality standard.
I understand that the southern legal services committee has put the establishment of the community legal service in Reading high on its agenda and is building on its relationship with local government to prepare to participate in the development of the community legal service. Meetings with the advice sector and other providers in Reading are planned to take place in September to take this work forward.
The new community legal service, together with the criminal defence service which will replace criminal legal aid, will be set up and administered by a new non-departmental public body, the Legal Services Commission. The commission will replace the Legal Aid Board, to which Parliament delegated the day-to-day administration of the legal aid scheme. This delegation is essential to ensure that decisions on the granting of legal aid in individual cases can be seen to be free from political and governmental influence.
My hon. Friend referred to several cases upon which she said, correctly, that I was unable to comment. That is the philosophy behind establishing a body that is separate from Government. However, I know that the area manager of the Reading legal aid area office will be pleased to meet my hon. Friend to discuss any particular concerns that she may have. However, as I am sure that my hon. Friend understands, the Legal Aid Board may not disclose specific information about a legally aided person or his or her opponent without that person's consent.
§ Mr. SalterAt the risk of embarrassing my hon. Friend, may I ask whether he is aware that the manager of the Reading legal aid service is not well known for responding to correspondence from Members of Parliament?
§ Mr. VazI am sure that my hon. Friend would never want to embarrass me in any way. If the manager of the local area office is not well known, I will ensure that my hon. Friends receive a letter from him on their desks in the House of Commons tomorrow morning—although I do not know whether I can ask him to include a colour photograph.
Disclosure is prevented by section 38 of the Legal Aid Act 1988, which is designed to preserve confidentiality and ensure that information is not disclosed if it might prejudice legal proceedings. That provision often prevents the board from disclosing the factual basis for its decisions in individual cases, and that is quite right.
My hon. Friend may wish to advise any constituent who has a complaint about the way in which the Reading legal aid area office has handled a particular case that all the board's area offices have a customer services manager who is responsible for the management of the complaints process. A customer services team in the board's head office is responsible for providing an independent review of any complaints already handled by an area office.
All representations and complaints received by the board are investigated fully in accordance with central guidance. However, it should be remembered that the confidentiality provision may mean that the board is unable to explain the reasons for its decision in a particular case. This is particularly relevant when a person has made representations to the board that an opponent's legal aid certificate should be withdrawn or revoked.
In such cases, feelings can run high and it is often difficult for the person making the representations to accept the board's decision without being provided with the reasons for it. However, it should be remembered that, in many cases, the board will have access to further, confidential information, which has a bearing on its decision. For example, the board may have information about a legally aided person's financial circumstances, his or her solicitor's opinion on the strength of the case, evidence and pleadings and, sometimes, counsel's opinion. As I am sure my hon. Friend will agree, the disclosure of such information to a third party could unfairly affect the way in which the case progresses.
In April 1997, the board established a special investigations unit to address identified deficiencies in the assessment of the means of legal aid applicants with complex financial affairs. In 82 per cent. of the investigations carried out in 1998–99, applicants were found to be financially ineligible for legal aid, or they did not co-operate with the board in the assessment of their means, leading to the failure of their application or the discharge or revocation of their legal aid certificate. My hon. Friend asked for an assurance, and I can assure her that those matters are taken very seriously, and there is the most rigorous scrutiny of those cases.
1151 Later this year, the Legal Aid Board will begin a pilot scheme to obtain independent opinions on the merits of cases funded through legal aid. Cases that appear to be weaker than was originally stated will be referred to a member of a specialist panel of barristers. The board may refer cases not only on its own initiative, but after representations made by assisted persons' opponents and by the courts. The independent specialist will act in an inquisitorial role, and will not only reassess the merits on the basis of the case put forward by the legally aided person, but reconsider the merits as a whole.
The new funding code, which will replace the civil legal aid merits test under the reformed scheme, will ensure that public money is targeted on the highest priority and most deserving cases by requiring a set of rigorous criteria to be taken into account in the assessment of applications for funding. That code will be flexible, in that different criteria may be applied to different types of case, according to priorities and the availability of resources. High priorities will include social welfare cases, those involving the interests of children and those with a wider public interest.
Subject to those priorities, there will be an assumption that public funding will be available only if a prudent individual, who could afford to do so, would be prepared to risk his or her own money in litigation. Underpinning that approach will be the application of stringent cost-benefit ratios that reflect the prospects of a successful outcome. Cases that are judged to have a 60 to 80 per cent. chance of success would generally have to secure damages of at least three times the likely costs. Cases with a less than even chance of success would be very unlikely to receive funding, unless they were of the highest priority.
Decisions on funding will also take into account the availability of alternative sources of funding, including conditional fee agreements, and alternative means of resolving the dispute.
The Reading legal aid area office, like all the board's area offices, operates under the Legal Aid Act 1988 and the regulations made under it. The board is taking forward a programme of improvements to the guidance that it issues to caseworkers to promote justifiable and, where cases are similar, consistent decision making. For example, in 1998–99 the board introduced further guidance on when and how to investigate representations against the grant or continuation of legal aid and introduced better controls to ensure the management of the process.
1152 A computerised system has been introduced for monitoring progress and analysing the outcomes of representations received, and a new leaflet explaining to the public how representations are dealt with has been produced.
A quality index is being developed as a way of measuring the quality of operational performance at local and national level to give a balanced measure of performance in terms of efficiency, speed and the quality of service that the board provides.
The Reading office exceeds the board's operational performance targets in all areas except speed of replying to general correspondence, where performance, at 95 per cent., is slightly below the target of dealing with all correspondence within 20 working days of receipt in 100 per cent. of cases. A number of the board's area offices are currently performing slightly below target in that area. The board is concentrating on improving its performance in its handling of correspondence. Furthermore, the board has set new, more challenging targets in many areas of its work for 1999–2000.
Having heard from my hon. Friend, I have decided to visit the Reading legal aid area office during the summer recess to meet the staff and see the work that they are doing. That visit is in addition to ensuring that letters are sent by the legal aid manager, with or without his or her photograph. I should like to extend an invitation to my hon. Friends the Members for Reading, East and for Reading, West and other hon. Members whose constituencies fall within the Reading legal aid area to join me on that visit.
The Legal Aid Board is committed progressively to improving the quality and efficiency of its services and to ensuring that its decisions and actions are justifiable to all those affected by them. The board is playing a major role in implementing the Government's reforms to publicly funded legal services and managing its transition to the legal services commission.
The pace of change that the board's staff are facing is, as my hon. Friend has said, challenging, and I am grateful to them for the commitment that they continue to demonstrate to maintaining performance standards and implementing the changes. I have every confidence that the board will continue to work hard to make the reforms a success. I look forward to seeing my hon. Friends the Members for Reading, East and for Reading, West when I visit Reading to meet the staff at the area office.