Legal Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1982 (Hansard, 23 March 1982)

§ Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
My Lords, being neither a lawyer nor a Scotsman, it is with some trepidation that I rise in the absence (owing to the speedy transaction of earlier business this afternoon) of my noble friend Lord Elystan-Morgan, to respond to the moving of these regulations by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. I thank him for introducing and explaining the somewhat complex regulations to your Lordships this afternoon.
I am comforted in my task this afternoon by the fact that the English and Welsh equivalent of these regulations was approved by your Lordships on 23rd February. In so far as the regulations ease the paths of deserving applicants for legal aid, they are of course clearly very welcome. However, in so far as they fail to reinstate the level of benefits otherwise eroded by inflation, they are clearly not so welcome.
I have with some care read the reply given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to the questions raised on 23rd February by my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones. But I am still not wholly clear as to the resulting position. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, would be so kind as to confirm that the levels of eligibility in relation to both capital and income fail to recover in real terms the position which existed in November 1979, that being the date on which the levels were last raised. If the level is now lower than at that time, by how much lower is it in percentage terms? Is there any valid reason why there should be any shortfall in the level now proposed as compared with the level agreed in 1979?
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, said in his introduction, and may well argue again, that the limits have been increased to ensure a similar level of coverage to that achieved in November 1979. However, the point of my question is to establish what the levels should be now if they were increased in accordance with the Retail Price Index and the percentage by which the new levels fall short of that index. Surely there can be no excuse for not increasing the levels in line with inflation. As it is, there will be some people who were eligible and now are no longer eligible, even though they may just have received increases in their incomes in line with inflation.

§ Lord Taylor of Gryfe
My Lords, I, too, on behalf of my colleagues here, would like to welcome the provisions contained in these regulations. I should also like to pursue the question raised on index-linking, which has become a very fashionable term these days. I should like to know whether, in view of the fact that the Government borrowing is now to be index-linked together with taxation allowances, we are passing regulations today which might be slightly out of date 12 months from now, and whether in fact index-linking was looked at in connection with the provisions in these regulations now before us.

§ Lord Lyell
My Lords, I am sure the House will be grateful, as I am myself, to the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for what they have said about these two orders today. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, raised the very valid question—raised also by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor—of index-linking of the 1979 limits and the rise in value of the limits I have introduced today over and above those of 1979. I am afraid I have not got a precise and detailed answer compounded over the full period but I will ascertain the precise statistics requested by both noble Lords in as succinct a form as possible, and I will write to them. I hope that will satisfy your Lordships.
However, I should like to suggest that the accepted criteria of legal aid in Scotland and in England and Wales have for many years been at this level of 70 per cent. of households with children who would be eligible for legal aid. The uprating of the limits is only one factor, though an important one. I would ask your Lordships to consider the other important elements in matching income to these limits. The elements which go into the calculations of relevant income are such things as supplementary benefit allowances, the thresholds of income tax, child benefits, national insurance contributions and so on. We think it could be misleading to have regard to only one factor: that is, the limits. The 70 per cent. coverage of households in Scotland and England and Wales remains in the Government's view the most effective measure for legal aid. That said, I will repeat my promise to ascertain the information requested by both noble Lords, and will write to them.
I would beg your Lordships' indulgence in making one minor correction. In introducing these orders I mentioned that legal aid would be available to persons with a disposable income of not more than £4,400. That is the figure in my prepared text, and I must apologise for not having matched up that figure with the figure which appears on the order before us. The figure that I should have mentioned is £4,440. With that humble apology to your Lordships, I commend the first order standing in my name.