Law Centres

HL Deb 17 February 1986 vol 471 cc474-97

7.25 p.m.

Lord Elwyn-Jones rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps are being taken to safeguard the law centres which are now threatened with closure.

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I make no apology for raising again the question I asked in the House on 8th May last year; namely, what action is being taken by the Government to safeguard law centres from compulsory closure or from inability to carry on.

The value of law centres as an important part of our provision of legal services to our people has long been acknowledged, and indeed referred to in all authoritative reports upon their working and their operation. The Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Legal Aid, which is a most distinguished body—including two judges and several experts in the legal services field—reported last year that the law centres are making a vital contribution to legal services.

The Royal Commission on Legal Services reported in 1979: The impact of law centres has been out of all proportion to their size, to the number of lawyers who work in them and to the amount of work it is possible for them to undertake. The volume of work they have attracted has shown how deep is the need they are attempting to meet. That was the Royal Commission.

Now we have the benefit of two further important and recent reports. First, there is the 35th Report of the Law Society, which, at page 57, says this: The Society has continued to express concern to the Government about the severe effects on law centres and Citizens Advice Bureaux which may well result from the legislation abolishing the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county authorities. Law centres and advice agencies are also in an uncertain financial position as a result of other restrictions on local authority expenditure and changes in policy on the use of the Urban Programme. Urban Programme policy is now unhelpful to law centres and advice agencies. Bids for this form of funding have all been rejected by central government despite many being given high priority by their sponsoring local authorities. That is the Law Society.

Then the Lord Chancellor has just received the report of the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Legal Aid, to which I attach particular importance. That expert body—and, if I may say so, concerned body, from my long experience of their working and sense of responsibility—say this: At present there are three main sources from which advice, assistance and representation may be obtained: the legal profession: law centres and specialist advice agencies; and CABx and other generalist advice agencies. Each has its part to play and among those involved in the delivery of legal services there is now a general recognition of the interdependence of these three main categories of providers. The committee's report goes on to say: We therefore greatly regret that law centres and other specialist and generalist advice agencies are forced to operate under the continued threat of diminishing or disappearing funds. In our last Report we drew attention to the damaging effect on law centres of the uncertainty produced by the lack of a coherent Government strategy on funding. How lacking that still is! Over the past year it has become clear that central government will not extend its existing funding of law centres to those centres which are threatened either by the withdrawal of urban aid or by the withdrawal of grants following the abolition of the Metropolitan County Councils and the Greater London Council under the Local Government Act 1985. At a time when local authorities are being exhorted to curtail their expenditure, central government has insisted that the funding of law centres and other advice agencies should be met largely if not wholly from local resources.

Those are very important and significant reports. The fact is that the need for the services of law centres is now greater than ever before because there is a greater growth of the problems that they were created to deal with. Indeed, there has been a massive increase in the numbers of people seeking help from the law centres and other advice agencies. That arises because they render their greatest service in the poorest districts in the community. They provide access to justice for the most disadvantaged people in the community, especially—and I mark this because I think the House would be well advised to bear it in mind—in the troubled inner city areas.

As the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said when we last debated this matter, they are not like normal solicitors' offices. Indeed as he pointed out they often have a shop window to their premises. They are readily accessible, most of them at all times, for emergency advice. They provide legal advice on a wide range of problems, many of which solicitors in ordinary private practice would not deal with, such as housing problems. Local authority housing expenditure has been slashed and the experience of law centres such as Hillingdon is of more and more requests for advice in that sphere. As a result, partly of Government policy, there are more homeless people and more problems for the homeless. In employment matters, centres such as that of Hillingdon now under threat, give advice at industrial tribunals and county courts on employment protection legislation and other relevant matters. The law centres give advice and representation on welfare benefits to various Government and local departments. On immigration, they help in the complex questions of law that arises in immigration and in delicate negotiations with Government departments and immigration officers. In the field of juvenile crime their availability for emergencies is very important.

The tragedy is, as I have indicated already, that law centres are placed to a great extent in the very areas which are subject to maximum pressure by the Government on local authorities not to increase expenditure. Yet it is those very authorities which the Government say should find the resources to support the law centres.

When legislation was passed in those long, long debates we had in that long summer to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan authorities the Government—and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, I remember so well—issued many assurances that important voluntary and advice services such as law centres would not disappear. But that is not happening. Those undertakings have not been and are not being carried out. The Government's position taken both by the Lord Chancellor—I regret the absence of the noble and learned Lord—and the Secretary of State for the Environment, is that the funding of law centres is a matter for local decision. I do not accept that. Equal access to justice, equality under the law and the provision of legal services are surely the responsibility of central Government. Where do we now stand?

The imminent prospects for the hundreds of thousands who depend on this country's 56 law centres are grave. Several law centres expect to close in April. Others may have to close or to cut their services. The Government's arrangements following abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan authorities are in chaos. Law and advice centres throughout the country, particularly in the metropolitan areas, do not now know—and we are now in mid-February—whether they will or will not be offering services to the public in April, in two months' time.

One third of our law centres are affected by this chaos and may have to close down or reduce services shortly. Three of them, Liverpool 8, Paddington and Hillingdon, will close unless there is help from central government and help quickly. Those three and Southall law centre have already issued redundancy notices to staff. Paddington has stopped taking on new cases. I opened Paddington law centre, in happier days perhaps, 12 years ago. It has 239 current cases of which, at most, only 10 per cent. are likely to be dealt with fully within the next six weeks. Of the remainder some will be transferred to private solicitors. Some will be transferred in other ways but all the group cases and many individual cases will be left undealt with and the people concerned will have to fend for themselves. The staff at Paddington I am told are particularly concerned about many women in the area who are victims of domestic violence and who trust the law centres as the place where they can come. Several have said in recent weeks that they do not know what they will do and that they will be unable to go elsewhere.

Paddington is a disadvantaged community and the contribution of the law centre there has been to bring knowledge of the law to people so that they are aware that the law can be on their side. This is one of the great values of law centres. That valuable service is in danger of being lost. The loss of Paddington law centre will also threaten the services provided at Bloomsbury and Marylebone county court on possession summonses day, as the other law centres in the area may be unable to provide the extra people for the service. Paddington provided much of the resource particularly for the private sector tenants in that service which may now be cut back or suspended.

Turning now to perhaps an even more harassed area, Liverpool: in the past 12 months Liverpool 8 law centre, which covers Toxteth, has started over 2,000 cases. The centre estimates that over 1,000 will be left high and dry. Much of its work is in tribunal matters, particularly those arising from the large number of DHSS problems that the centre deals with. Not only will these be left unconcluded, but the people in the area, particularly black people, are unlikely to seek or to get help elsewhere if the centre closes with all the problems that will arise in the future.

There is little prospect now of the law centres keeping going by replacing lost metropolitan council and GLC grants with grants under Section 48 of the Local Government Act 1985 upon which the Government placed so much reliance in our debates. That Act provides for district councils to jointly grant-aid voluntary sector organisation in their counties. Unfortunately, in Merseyside and the West Midlands there are no effective co-ordinating committees of the districts and hence no grants.

In London the joint grants committee decided on January 30th that advice services, including law centres, did not form part of (and I quote) "a pattern of provision" across London. That had been one of the criteria for grants. On that day they turned down the individual application by Paddington law centre. Other law centre applications (from Tower Hamlets, Hillingdon, central London and Hammersmith and Fulham) will be heard on 27th February; but on present form, unless there is a change of attitude both by them and the Government, many of those may well be rejected. The position of Hillingdon, the value of whose work I ventured to refer to, is that they are at the end of their tether. They are lobbying the Hillingdon council meeting on 27th February, seeking a change of that council's decision not to support the law centres.

It is in the other sector of the Government's post-abolition arrangements—namely, the transitional help for schemes within one district—where the most appalling under-financing and chaos now exists.

Within six weeks to go when those authorities are abolished, dozens of CABs, law centres, housing aid agencies and other voluntary organisations do not know whether they will be able to continue. They do not know whether they will receive a grant through these transitional arrangements. They do not know how much any grant would be worth. They do not know when they will know. I hope that we can have some reassurances about these matters.

Last week the Department of the Environment notified district councils of their final allocations of finance under the transitional arrangements. In many instances the amounts differed widely from the provisional allocations announced earlier. For example, Birmingham had £556,000 instead of the three-quarters of a million; Coventry had £53,000 instead of £100,000. The provisional allocations were themselves far less than was needed to replace metropolitan county council and GLC grants to voluntary organisations and less than the district councils' initial requests. Several advice and law centres depend on these grants to continue their services after April. Many now seem unlikely to receive them. Those that do receive them through the transitional scheme will probably get less than they need to maintain services. Southall and the three law centres in Wandsworth seem particularly vulnerable; but several others, including Salford, Dudley, Wythenshawe, Ealing, Brent Young Persons' Service and central London may well also be victims. This is just six weeks before abolition.

Several CABs, including Acocks Green, are in the same position. In Southall, for example, the hold on life is very tenuous. Ealing Borough Council made an initial request to the Department of the Environment, which proposed to meet £47,000 of the law centre's £100,000 per year cost. The provisional allocation by the Department of the Environment was 41 per cent. of the amount requested by Ealing Council. So the Southall law centre, again an area of much trouble, which is located where the need for law centre services is so great, does not know what is happening. Is it to be offered 41 per cent. or the £47,000, or more, or less, or nothing?

The other factor—which, because of time I must take shortly—that may cause advice and law centres to close down this year is the loss of urban aid grants. In recent years, the Department of the Environment has not favoured revenue grants for advisory services. Several law centres which have depended on the urban programme for years for their grants, are now being refused further help. Benwell, Hounslow, South Manchester and North Manchester have all been rejected, while Brent, Hyson Green, and Gateshead are all under consideration now and will be in very grave difficulties in surviving if they are turned down.

It is a dismal—indeed, a potentially grave—picture so far as order in our society is concerned. We are talking about the areas of the greatest need, the greatest despair, where there is the need for the most full and generous legal advice and assistance. The time is critical for several of the law centres and for many people living in these harassed communities. We must not walk on the other side.

7.46 p.m.

The Lord Bishop of Lincoln

My Lords, I should like to support the points that have been made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, in his very cogent speech which paints a grave picture with regard to the law centres. I should like to do it briefly from a particular angle. Your Lordships will know that two years ago the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury set up a Commission to look into conditions in the inner cities. At the turn of the year it produced its report. The commission's report received some rather foolish and hysterical criticism from certain quarters before it was even published. Nevertheless, the report itself comes out of a very deep and wide penetration, by a whole variety of expert people, into the facts and the feelings—that is important: the facts and the feelings—of the most deprived areas of our land, the inner cities and the housing estates which often surround them.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has quoted the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee's views on this whole subject. He said that they have said that the law centres are making a vital contribution to the whole area of legal services. I should like to add the sentence that comes before that, where they say: We think the law centres should be here to stay". That is what is endangered. There is no question about the kind of need that they are meeting. A vivid picture has already been painted by the noble and learned Lord.

In the inner cities there are very few solicitors. People are unaware of their rights, often very confused as to how they may receive help and often frightened to ask. I know one law centre which was making 40 referrals a week to bodies such as Citizens Advice Bureaux, with whom the law centres work in very close contact. I think the fact that there are already plans for other law centres hopefully to be set up shows how great is the need.

I need not say more. I should simply like to close by quoting again from the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee's 34th report (and we must remember that so far nothing is in view after April): The lack of clear Ministerial responsibility and direction for the legal services is a chronic problem. Actual and proposed changes in the urban programme policy and local government arrangements have made it an urgent problem". I hope the Government will deal with it with the urgency that it requires.

7.48 p.m.

Lord Hutchinson of Lullington

My Lords, it gives me particular pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln because I know from personal experience his deep interest in these kinds of social problems. I think we all welcome his presence here at this late hour on this topic.

In addressing the House on this very important subject, important to any lawyer let alone to anyone who believes that justice is at the bottom of our system of democracy, I make certain presumptions which I hope I have made with justification. I presume that the Government first of all believe that every individual has certain civil rights, be he rich or poor; that every citizen should if possible be made aware of those rights and that the state has a duty to facilitate that awareness; that when those rights are affected the citizen should know where to turn for advice and assistance; and that the deprived and disadvantaged should be able to obtain that assistance at public expense.

If the Government agree with those statements—and no doubt the Minister in his reply will tell us whether he does—then I ask this question of the Minister. How can the Government stand by and allow numerous law centres to die which have been set up in the most depressed areas of the country, simply because local authorities cannot or will not support them financially and no Government department will accept responsibility for them?

The total cost of the law centres is something between £5 million and £6 million a year. Fifty-six of them, 24 of which are now in real danger of closure, nearly all in rate-capped areas, dealt last year with 400,000 cases. They are set up in areas in which, as the noble and learned Lord has pointed out, there are few solicitors' offices; they are open all day, and indeed I think that no fewer than 20 of them have been providing 24-hour duty solicitor schemes for a considerable time. They give advice to people whose problems are not on the whole covered by legal aid schemes and where the green form scheme is simply inadequate or inappropriate, as has already been said, in housing law, welfare, immigration, child care, juvenile crime, particularly, debt problems, evictions and so on.

Few private practitioners have expertise in these particular areas and, in any event, cannot afford to take on this unrenumerative work. Again, cases are often much more effectively and efficiently undertaken through group work where families or whole streets or buildings are affected in planning or environmental matters, for instance at Coin Street recently, where the residents' interests were protected through the Lambeth local law centre by two individuals, whereas the other parties to the proceedings spent thousands of pounds on that long planning inquiry.

The law centre is an unfrightening and welcoming place and people in deprived areas simply do not go to solicitors' offices even if they can find them. If one takes the county court, the law centres provide services near the county courts or at the county courts which save literally thousands of pounds. Evictions lead to homelessness and to putting the families into bed and breakfast accommodation and so on. Tenants appear unrepresented and enter into hopeless obligations which they cannot fulfil and I understand that the turn-up rates at county courts where there is no legal centre are sometimes not as much as 50 per cent.

This is a very sensitive area and the law centres can do an enormous amount by seeing these people before they appear in court, by seeing that they only enter into obligations that they can undertake and so on. In any event, the demand for law centres is clearly and overwhelmingly proved by the attendance all day at these centres. The Law Society and the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee have inquired in depth into the question: can the provision of legal services now or in the future be safely left to the private profession? Their reply is an unequivocal and clear, no.

Law centres are doing a vital job, and there is a need indeed for an increase in law centres across the country forming a crucial part of the network of legal services, and for the Lord Chancellor to be responsible for the core funding of these law centres. They are incredibly cost-effective, they operate on a tiny underpaid professional staff backed up with very substantial voluntary work from solicitors and barristers working for nothing—members of the so-called grasping profession.

If the professional basis goes then the volunteers go, too. In certain fields this is a far more appropriate use of resources than paying lawyers under the legal aid scheme, as the advisory committee itself pointed out. And, as they reiterate in their latest report, the basis of provision of legal aid is that the individual should be able to get early advice. This he can do from solicitors, from CAB, but particularly and above all from law centres, and so save the costs of litigation, save the cost of court appearances, and save wasting hours of time.

It is now recognised by almost everybody who has looked into this matter, except the Government, that law centres form an essential part of the legal services of this country. The Lord Chancellor's advisory committee have told the noble and learned Lord that they deplore the fact that the Government have failed to respond to the Royal Commission on legal services by not developing a coherent strategy for legal services across the country. They deplore the fact that the Government have failed to fund the centres so that they have proper security to enable them to pursue recruitment and staffing policies; they deplore the fact that the Government have failed to integrate these centres into the legal services network of the country and, as I have already said, they have advised the Lord Chancellor to provide the core funding.

It is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor who is at the centre of this Government failure; yet it is really regrettable that he is not here tonight to deal with some of these questions which are so crucial. We are told that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has no authority to take on law centres, but he funds seven law centres and his own advisory committee continues to advise him to do so. How very odd that they should do that if they know that the Lord Chancellor has no authority to do it.

In a recent debate in this House, I was taken to task by the noble and learned Lord for not knowing my constitutional A.B.C. so that it is with some trepidation that I would point out that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is responsible, apparently, for legal advice and assistance—but not for the law centres where the poor get their legal advice and assistance. He is responsible for the courts, the magistrates and the judges who work in them, but not for the procedures followed in the courts. He is responsible for criminal legal aid, but not for the duty solicitors who tell the defendants how to get criminal legal aid.

All this would seem a most powerful argument for the setting up of a Ministry of Justice where all these vital matters could be dealt with responsibly and together. But, as it is, some law centres are funded by the Department of the Environment, some by the Lord Chancellor's department, and some by local authorities, although there is no statutory duty upon them to do so, and by voluntary bodies. All of them are in a state of complete uncertainty and half of them are liable to close. Every single one is doing a vital job where it is most needed in these deprived areas of the country.

May I refer very shortly to two examples which have been referred to already by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones: first, Liverpool 8. This was set up largely through the unstinted efforts of the combined churches there; 60 per cent. of the managing committee are black, 40 per cent. of it are women, there are seven staff and they have been funded by the Merseyside City Council. The centre serves the whole community. They have issued a guide in Hindu, Urdu and in English. There is such a need there that only by a system of rigid appointments can they cope with the cases which come in every day. And they will close down when that authority goes.

Paddington is another example to which the noble and learned Lord also referred. May I tell your Lordships, as an example, what is happening. Funded by the GLC, the London Borough Grants Committee decided that law centres should be funded by district councils. Westminster issued a grandiose proposal for funding the voluntary sector. They refused to take up transitional finance and their main purpose, they say, was to provide financial assistance to voluntary organisations with a first priority to help the underprivileged and the handicapped and those in need.

So far as Paddington Law Centre is concerned, no grant is forthcoming. The centre needs £75,000 by the 28th February, or it closes. Westminster says, "Oh, you can go in for our pound-for-pound scheme". The centre has spent hours over this and has approached 500 organisations and charities. At the moment it has raised £200. What is the use in any event of this sort of exercise on an annual basis to raise funds for a serious and vital social agency such as this?

The West London Law Centre says that if it closes there can be no question of private practice filling the vacuum. All the local solicitors have written in to the same effect. I quote only one firm, very well known to me, which says this: We have always been impressed with their humane approach, assistance and help for the less privileged members of this community. There is an abundant need for the services they provide. The area in which Paddington Law Centre is situated contains a substantial number of immigrants, unemployment, single-parent families, generally destitute and often homeless; and it is these under-privileged and needy people who will suffer most". I say to the Minister: are the Government simply content to let that law centre close down? Are they content to let the law centre in Liverpool close down? Are they content to sit back and say, "We are not responsible; the Lord Chancellor's Department is not responsible. The local authority is responsible. We know that they are ratecapped and they have not got the money. We have the evidence that they are not going to be supported by the local authority, but nevertheless we will sit back and let it happen". I shall be interested to hear from the Minister whether in fact that is the view that the Government take.

The plain fact is that these centres will be lost. They are a vital part of the provision of the legal services. They are doing a crucial and unique job of work for citizens who need legal services more than any other section of the population. It is a scandal that central Government are prepared to see them go under on the basis, as I say, that no department of state is prepared to take the responsibility and because, with wholly inadequate transitional help and rate capping, the local authorities cannot support them either.

In my submission, clearly it is the Lord Chancellor's own advisory committee which presumes that responsibility lies in his department. It is surely for him to tell the House what he intends to do about it; but, in his absence, it falls to the Minister. I am sure all your Lordships will be eager to hear whether he is prepared, on behalf of the Government, to accept this vital responsibility.

8.4 p.m.

Baroness Macleod of Borve

My Lords, at this late hour it is very difficult for me to follow three such very eloquent speeches, and I have been looking forward with trepidation to my own, rather humble, few words.

This is a particularly interesting Question because I think every Member of your Lordships' House whether here in person or outside, would agree with me that to help people in need, whatever their need may be, is one of the things which noble Lords throughout your Lordships' House would wish to do. Whether it is to help them to obey the law, whether it is concerned with housing or whatever their problems may be, it is very important that such people should be able to go to specific persons to ask for advice.

While I was listening to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, however, I wondered whether his Question tonight was not perhaps a little premature. My reason is this. The 1st April has not yet arrived, and we know from the press, the media and various other organisations that local authorities are still unable to make up their minds how much money they are going to allocate for all sorts of different projects, from the arts and voluntary organisations to, perhaps, in this context tonight, the law centres, with all the other pressures that they have on them. With respect, I would suggest that as the local authorities are themselves responsible, because of their flexibility and because of the differences in the way they manage their local boroughs, it is up to them to decide what they want to spend their money on.

As the noble Lord has said, the local law authorities will perhaps finance the law centres with the aid of grants, and in certain inner city areas we know that there are grants to be had. There are 59 law centres, and I know there is general agreement in your Lordships' House that they fulfil a useful and necessary service in certain areas. However, I do not think we need feel that they are needed nationwide. They are needed, as noble Lords have said, in certain areas. That is perhaps why at this time there are only 59 law centres in being.

I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for not having instanced two law centres this evening. He made a wide-ranging geographical comment on many law centres, but I am lucky enough to know two others to which I do not think the noble and learned Lord referred. They are Haringey and Tottenham. I spoke to the heads of the law centres this afternoon, and it was very interesting to note that although those two boroughs are coterminous they treat the problems of their citizens completely differently. For instance, Haringey have no citizens advice bureaux, but they have an enormous advice bureau which deals with over 15,000 inquiries. They assure me that if there is anything they cannot deal with in the field of law they ask for a qualified lawyer or solicitor to come in and give them advice.

Tottenham, on the other hand, has a law centre. They deal with welfare rights, and they deal with housing, immigration, legal aid and what is, of course, an interesting subject to me, the giving of advice on juvenile crime. On the latter point, if a child has got into a problem then the parents of the child can come to the law centre and ask for advice on what to do about that particular problem. They deal with just over 5,000 inquiries, which are augmented by a mass of telephone calls. But what was also interesting to me, knowing the area, was that Tottenham and Haringey go together and provide a 24-hour emergency service.

As I have said, it is interesting that these coterminous boroughs find that it is possible to help all the people within their boroughs on a completely different footing. As other noble Lords have said, the Citizens Advice Bureaux are the main voluntary service in this country to whom people can apply for help and guidance about a wide cross-section of problems that they have and there are over 1,000 Citizens Advice Bureaux in our country. But of course they cannot deal with everything and they transfer to other authorities those questions with which they are unable to deal: for instance, the very special services of the lawyers and the solicitors.

The Government are committed to ensuring that worthwhile organisations—and I am sure that those we are talking about tonight will come within that category—continue to be supported. But I should like the Minister to confirm, perhaps on behalf of the local authorities—which will be difficult because there are so many of them, they are autonomous and they can make up their own minds how they spend their money—that money will be forthcoming to help those organisations. I must finish by paying a very sincere tribute to all the voluntary organisations which help—sometimes slightly paid, sometimes entirely voluntarily—with their wisdom and expertise throughout the country. I should particularly like to pay my tribute to the solicitors who give of their time and expertise to those in need.

8.13 p.m.

Lord Pitt of Hampstead

My Lords, I find it difficult to follow the last speaker. We are dealing with a very serious issue, the issue of how we enable ordinary people in the poor areas to get legal aid which is not available other than through the law centres. The reason the law centres grew up in the areas where they are, is that in those areas there are not usually ordinary solicitors because the service is not lucrative. They have grown up because there are a lot of subjects which concern the poorer sections of the community and which do not carry legal aid. That is the point about the law centres.

Law centres have two particular values. First, they are in areas which are otherwise not well served by solicitors: and, secondly, they deal with subjects which other solicitors do not deal with, sometimes because they are not subjects to which they have become accustomed and sometimes because the service is not lucrative. I was very glad about the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, put the issue. But if we believe that people should get legal advice and should be advised as to how they can defend themselves, how they can benefit from the system in the society in which they live and how they can take care of their families in difficult circumstances, then we should be pleased that these law centres are in existence.

If we are pleased that these law centres are in existence, we should want them to continue; but if they are to continue they must be financed. We should like the Government to recognise these facts and provide co-finance for these services. I am not necessarily suggesting that the Government should meet all the costs of each legal advice centre but that the Government should provide core-finance. The centres can then get additional finance from the local authority, from charitable trusts and from other organisations in their areas. So far we have not succeeded in getting the Government to see this point.

The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor funds seven. It seems that he is funding them only because he saw them being funded and thinks that he has to carry on as they are there. He obviously does not think he has to do more than that. There is also the Government's urban aid which is helping some of these law centres. Of course some local councils provide finance for many of them.

The Government told us that they would remove the upper-tier of the metropolitan authorities, and that the lower-tier would continue. I remember that when we had our debate on voluntary services we were reassured that of course the lower-tier authorities would have finance and would take care of them. Even though we were assured that there would be no hardship because there would be a transitional government grant, we have now come to the reality.

The reason I said that I could not follow the last speaker was that we are now in the middle of February, which means that we are less than six weeks away from the date on which those upper-tier authorities will cease to exist and the lower-tier authorities must take on the job. I have been in local government for many years and one does not, in the middle of February, not know what one is going to do on 1st April. Therefore the idea that in the middle of February you still have to wait to see what happens on 1st April is nonsense.

We have an example of what we warned the Government would happen. We have Paddington, which is in Westminster. Westminster can afford to finance Paddington. Westminster benefits most from the fact that the GLC is being abolished, but Westminster has never been prepared to meet its real share of the cost of running London. That is why Westminster has been in the forefront of the agitation to abolish the GLC. That is why Westminster is going to court to stop the GLC from helping voluntary organisations. It does not want to finance Paddington. We are told that the cost will be £75,000, which is chickenfeed to Westminster, but it has no intention of helping the poor people in Paddington. There is also Liverpool 8. In that case, the situation is different. What has happened is that up until now the machinery has not been created to enable the grant which the Merseyside county council gave to Liverpool 8 to be continued. I hope the Minister will tell us that some machinery has been found for dealing with that.

Then we have Tower Hamlets which cannot afford the law centre. We always knew that would be the trouble when we abolished the GLC. The Government knew it. With the abolition of the GLC and with Westminster not prepared to help the other poorer boroughs, poor boroughs such as Tower Hamlets cannot afford to meet the cost of basic services. This is where we are. However, the Government can do something about it. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor ought to be prepared to deal with the matter because it is part of legal services and ought to be dealt with through the Lord Chancellor's department. But I am not too disturbed about that—I am waiting to gain the attention of the Minister who is at the moment chatting with his advisers—because the Government can commit themselves right now to meet the cost of law centres through the means of urban aid. They can do it. They have done it with some and they can undertake to do it with all. That would be a way of the Government financing it without having the battle as to whether or not the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor thinks he has the power.

I hope that when the Minister replies he will tell us that the Government have recognised the value of the law centres, that the Government have recognised the need that they should continue to be financed and that the Government recognise that they can meet the cost of the law centres and that they will do it through the urban aid programme. That is straightforward and can be done. I am hoping that that is what the Minister will tell us.

8.22 p.m.

Lord Elystan-Morgan

My Lords, this debate cuts completely through every party boundary. The value—the inestimable value—of law centres has been long acknowledged not only by the Labour Party but by the Alliance Parties; and, indeed, in a fairly recent publication by the Society of Conservative Lawyers it was firmly enunciated that the establishment of law centres and the part which they play in the life of the community at large is something which accords completely with the Conservative philosophy. Therefore there is no theological difference in terms of politics between anybody in relation to this matter.

My noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones has for the second time in nine months placed the House very deeply in his debt on account of having raised a matter of such very considerable public significance and importance. The picture that he has painted, the accurate and living case which he presented to the House, was complemented totally by the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson. Although I could add a number of factual instances myself, I do not think that it is necessary to do so. The case is an overwhelming one. Even if one, to use the words of St. Paul, had the tongue of men and angels, I am sure that it would not possibly advance what has so powerfully been put before the House already.

The situation of law centres in this country at the moment is bleak and miserable. It is bleak because there is every reason to believe that unless the Government intervene, the total amount of money at present invested is inevitably going to fall. It is miserable because, according to the 35th annual report on legal aid by the Law Society, 27 of the 54 law centres in existence at the present moment find themselves in the direst jeopardy, and unless there is some nova causa interveniens they will not survive over the next six to nine months. The situation is as simple, as clearcut and as brutal as that.

There can be no doubt whatsoever about the value of legal centres. Nobody in this House would seek to argue to the contrary. The Benson Royal Commission on Legal Services reporting in 1979, as the House will remember, spoke of legal centres as, having an impact out of all proportion to their size". The Commission went on to recommend that there should be a comprehensive network of such centres over the whole country. Indeed every authoritative report and every commentary upon this field has come to exactly the same conclusion; for it is clear, as has already been so cogently proven by others in this debate, that they provide a service that could not be provided in any other way.

For some reason or other millions of our fellow citizens would not go to a solicitor's office even if they were assured that it would not cost them a penny. They have the same disinclination to go there as if they were to submit themselves to the tender mercies of the Spanish Inquisition. It may be that they follow all too closely the words of Anthony Trollope who said: There is no more miserable place on earth than the waiting room of the common attorney". I know that to be a fact as one who in earlier days practised for many years on that side of the profession before coming to the Bar. It is against such a background that one should look at this problem.

Some localities in this country are practically not covered by legal services. There are areas of legal interest which in practice are not covered for millions of people. It is only by the work of legal centres that those people are able to have a chance of having their legal rights upheld. One refreshing feature is that the moment a legal centre is established in an under privileged area there is then the prospect of private firms moving in and indeed of private firms that are already in the locality extending their area of interest to cover those very subjects about which this House has already been talking.

In or about 1976 the Law Society commissioned a very important survey in certain London boroughs. It was a survey on the utilisation—or rather the underutilisation—of legal services. I am afraid that I cannot quote chapter and verse—I have come very lately into this debate to speak in the absence of my noble friend Lord Silkin of Dulwich—but the findings of that survey as I remember them showed that there was a massive under-utilisation of legal services by most ordinary persons. The survey showed that well over 60 per cent. of people who died leaving property of more than 10,000 in value died intestate; that well over 70 per cent. of substantial personal injury claims where there was to say the least a fightable case were never taken up; and that 40 per cent. of fatal accident cases, where there was a substantial run on liability, were not taken up. So the survey went from one heading to another. It was obvious that even with the full benefits of legal aid millions and millions of our fellow citizens will not use solicitors' services which are provided unless they are provided in attractive circumstances such as we have in legal centres.

The point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, in the debate on 8th May, that the centres were shop windows in shopping centres, providing a 24-hour service, day in and day out, throughout the whole year. The centres are staffed by people of warm humanity; dedicated people who, more often than not, are providing their services wholly voluntarily. Often they are young people who are forward-looking and who are able to gain the confidence—to wean, as it were, the confidence—of the people who go to see them.

I do not believe that any tribute is too high to be paid for the efficiency of the centres and for the invaluable role that they play in the lives of our communities. It is a role, as I have said, that cannot and will not be borne by any other agency. The Minister's task in replying tonight—and I fancy that it is an unenviable task—is to say whether the Government are to proclaim their position in terms of massive goodwill but doing nothing, or whether the Government, in the light of the debate on 8th May, have reconsidered the situation.

It is perfectly clear that the funding cannot come from local government. That is the trouble already. The law centres find themselves in jeopardy because of a trinity of factors; the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils, the temporary nature of the urban aid programme, and the general situation in which local government bodies fund themselves having to exercise agonising and utterly impossible decisions that would test the wisdom of a Solomon in relation to priorities, all of which are utterly worthy and meritorious.

It is not appropriate for local authorities to fund law centres even if they could do so, for the simple reason that a substantial number of cases the centres are dealing with matters in which the individual finds himself or herself in conflict with the local authority. It is therefore an altogether unhealthy principle to look to local government for funding.

The noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, in a thoughtful speech, as always, made the point that it may be too early and too premature to fire a shot across the bows of law centres, bearing in mind that there is still some time to go till 1st April. All I can say to that is that if we do not fire a shot across the bows now then the ship will be on the reef very, very soon.

It is not just a case of the new bodies having to confront all manner of frustrating and agonising issues. In many cases they are not bodies that have been affected by the legislation of 1984 and 1985. There is the instance of the Adamstown Law Centre in Cardiff—and I am indebted to my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies for this information. As to the productivity of that centre, in 1984 it dealt with 560 cases. In 1985 the number was 706. At the beginning of this year the centre had a 26 per cent. increase in general work as compared with January 1985. There was an 85 per cent. increase in landlord and tenant cases. But, so far as the grant is concerned, it is not a question of waiting till 1st April. For the next financial year the centre has only 75 per cent. of its running costs. I suspect that that situation is duplicated in many other cases up and down the land.

It is ironic, as other noble Lords have reminded us, that tonight we are talking about survival of the 54 centres already in existence rather than about the network of law centres that the Benson Committee demanded for the whole country. The noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, said that there is no such necessity in all areas. I accept that; certain underprivileged areas have needs that are far more acute. However, there should be a national network as Benson argues for it.

In my submission, the only department that can handle this matter is the Lord Chancellor's Department. I appreciate that an unfortunate conflict of jursidiction has arisen between the noble and learned Lord's department and the Department of the Environment, but, as I understand it, no legislation is necessary. I say that with trepidation even in the absence of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, for I have no doubt that he might well give me the same lesson in the ABC of constitutional principles.

However, my understanding is that under the Appropriation Act the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has been paying for seven legal centres for many years—as indeed did my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones. Nobody suggests that such is an unlawful payment. Woe betide those two noble and learned gentlemen if that be the case! If it is lawful to pay for seven legal centres, then it is lawful to pay for 70. If it is lawful to pay X thousands of pounds, then it is lawful to pay Y millions of pounds. It must therefore be that this is a situation where, although there is no specific obligation upon the Lord Chancellor—I grant that—nevertheless there are the general legal powers enabling him to meet such an obligation.

I have spoken at far greater length than I had intended. The value of law centres is not in issue. They perform a priceless task in the life of the community. If they do not perform that task then it will not be performed at all and millions of people will be denied the needs of justice in that connection. The only funding that is practicable is funding from the Lord Chancellor's Department. We shall await with great anticipation that which the noble Lord has to say on this particular issue, for all the goodwill in the world will not save one law centre unless the Government are prepared to act.

8.37 p.m.

Lord Hooson

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, raised the point in an otherwise eloquent speech that this was a premature Question raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. I could not disagree more. The shot across the bows to which the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, referred was surely on 8th May. The vessel has been proceeding in the same unacceptable direction ever since, with no lifebelts and no lifeboats offered by the Lord Chancellor's Department.

If I may say so, as I did in the last debate, I think it is highly regrettable that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is not replying to this debate. This matter is one of fundamental importance to the country. I do not mean to be in any way offensive to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, who will no doubt reply in his usual and charming way to this debate, but what we really wanted was to have the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor state exactly where the Government stand on this issue.

We in the Alliance parties believe that the case for effective law centres in our deprived inner city areas is beyond all doubt. The people need the services that the centres provide. I am sure that no Members of your Lordships' House—and least of all those who have served in another place and represented constituents—will be unaware of the fact that many people in our communities are ignorant of their legal and social rights. Even more so are they nervous and tentative about challenging the power, and sometimes the misuse of power, of those whom they regard as big brother, or of the local council, the rapacious landlord, the sharp salesman, and so on. Such people turn for advice. It was part of the duty—and often a very rewarding duty—of the conscientious Member of another place to give guidance, help and advice to such people.

It seems to me—and when I was in another place I only represented a rural area—that the problems that a constituency Member could appreciate were increased tenfold in the inner city areas, where one did not have the kind of coherent society that one so often has in the more established areas of this country. I think it can be said of all parties and all governments that we have over the past 30 years underestimated at all times the enormous social problems, the economic problems, the educational problems and the racial problems in our inner cities. We have so underestimated them that we now have very real problems facing us. It was to fill the gap in the legal services that law centres were invented. In the last debate on this subject I set out the attractions of the law centres to the people who dwelt in the inner city areas.

Therefore it is my view that the need for these centres is overwhelming. What I am concerned with, and what all your Lordships are concerned with this evening is: what is the Government's attitude? The Government give the impression that they would weep no tears if the law centres disappeared altogether. They are following a policy which, it seems to me, indicates a willingness to wound the law centres and a reluctance to kill: that is, they are prepared to follow a policy or to take up an attitude which almost inevitably means, in the longer run, that more and more of our law centres will disappear, and to do nothing about it. They pay lip service to the value of the law centres yet do nothing coherent about them.

What is the policy of the Government towards law centres? Do they intend to make sure that law centres continue? Or are they content to see the local authorities in some cases unwilling for perhaps political or social reasons to fund the law centres and in other cases having so many conflicting financial demands that they are unable to finance the law centres? I think we are entitled, following the debate of last year, to ask the Government to come out this evening with a coherent statement of their policies on these matters.

The lack of policy approach towards the law centres is. I think, also reflected in the lack of financial approach. We have some law centres financed by local government, some financed by the Department of the Environment and some financed by the Lord Chancellor's Department. Where is the coherence in that policy? In the 1984 report of the Lord Chancellor's Legal Aid Advisory Committee there were several recommendations and I shall simply quote two of them. The first is: That law centres should be treated as an essential part of the national network of legal services, that your Lordship"— that is, referring to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor— should take on responsibility for their core-funding and that the basis of that funding should be sufficiently assured to allow law centres to pursue viable recruitment and staffing policies and to promote long-term planning". The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, will undoubtedly remember that this was the recommendation in 1984, so the Government have had a long time to consider it. We are entitled to know this evening whether the Government accept that recommendation, and if they do not, what qualification they put on it. Do they accept part of the recommendation? If so, what part?

The second recommendation is: That the first priority should be to ensure the survival of existing law centres without waiting upon the aftermath of changes in local government and Urban Programme policy to see what support Borough and District Councils choose to provide". That is the priority which was recommended and the Government have shown no intention so far of accepting that for priority treatment. They have been content to say that they will leave it to the local authorities. That is simply not good enough. We are talking about an essential service for the inner city areas.

I am rather inclined to agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, that in many parts of the country law centres of this kind are probably not necessary and that the work is perhaps done by Members of Parliament, local solicitors, the Citizens Advice Bureau, and so on; but I think that the problems of the inner city areas are on a totally different scale and in a totally different environment. In those areas this service is, I believe, essential and we shall be very disappointed indeed if the Government do not this evening, at the second prodding—this time a much more powerful shot across the stern of the departing vessel—give some indication that they are sympathetic to this movement for law centres and that they appreciate the service they provide for many of the deprived people in our country.

8.46 p.m.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, it is with some feeling of déjà vu that I begin with what the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, called the unenviable task of replying to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, as it was in response to the noble and learned Lord some nine months ago that I last spoke on this issue. I think I am right in saying that this issue was first raised in your Lordships' House. Nevertheless, the House is again fortunate to have the opportunity to debate what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to safeguard law centres threatened with closure. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, that I do not feel that I am in any sense the Government's stern.

I should like to start by agreeing with every noble Lord who has spoken that law centres are a good thing. The question this debate has been about is: where do we go from here? Last year I made clear the Government's view on the funding of and responsibility for law centres. I am now able to take this opportunity to reaffirm our position on this issue and also to respond to the continuing concern of the noble and learned Lord who is an indefatigable champion of the law centres movement. I must remind noble Lords that law centres are voluntary organisations. They are not, and never have been, a statutory part of the framework of legal services.

Noble Lords spoke of needs. Who—or rather what—does and should identify that need? The answer must be local circumstances and people. The law centres are set up in response to perceived local needs. They do not enjoy an entitlement to public sector funding over and above their earnings under the legal aid scheme. They must seek support on a local basis from local authorities by convincing those authorities that, at a time of public expenditure restraint—and I shall come back to that point—their services are sufficiently valuable to merit local authority funding. As I have said before, these are decisions which local authorities must make.

Noble Lords have mentioned tonight decisions by individual local authorities, such as the case of Westminster referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, not to fund law centres. Who am I to say that if any council does not rate a particular law centre as of sufficient priority to get support, in the light of local needs and conditions, that it is wrong? What are local authorities for if it is not to take that kind of local decision?

I should now like to turn very briefly to the role of the urban programme in funding law centres. We should never lose sight of the fact that the overall objectives of the urban programme increasingly reflect the need to target resources on initiatives to regenerate depressed local economies and improve the opportunity for jobs in our inner cities. Law and other advisory services are consequently among schemes which must now take a much lower priority for this source of funding. There is certainly no prospect that the urban programme will be able to help realise the objective of a centrally funded, national network of law centres.

The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, spoke about a willingness to wound and a reluctance to kill. That simply is not so. Within the limits of our policy priorities we have been able to offer some help to law centres. When I spoke on 8th May last year, I undertook to clarify the position of the seven law centres given only two years' initial funding. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment decided to offer up to two years' additional urban programme support, on the basis of a tapered grant—75 per cent. in year three and 50 per cent. in year four. Each local authority would have to accept these conditions by formally submitting the law centres for the additional funding. To date, acceptances of the offer for the Bristol, Wolverhampton and Brighton law centres have been received and I understand that the other centres are also likely to be submitted for extended funding.

I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, that what I said last year is coming to pass. The two law centres in Lambeth which were the cause of much concern when we debated this issue then, duly reached the end of their period of urban programme funding, and subsequently received continued funding from—guess who?—the borough council. The great majority of successful time-expired urban programme projects receive replacement funds from the local authorities.

I hope that the House can appreciate why the priorities of the urban programme as a whole must take pre-eminence over the long-term requirements of any specific initiatives which I may help to start up. We are currently being pressed by noble Lords opposite to tackle unemployment with the utmost vigour. The increasing emphasis in the urban programme on economic and employment measures is only one of a great many initiatives we have taken in this area, and I take it amiss that we should, by implication, be criticised for this.

I shall turn in a moment to the particular issues of abolition and constraints on local authority spending, which noble Lords have mentioned. However, first I should like to dwell for a moment on the role that law centres play in our legal services.

In our response to the report of the Royal Commission on Legal Services, the Government said that they took the view that the needs of the public for legal assistance were most appropriately met by lawyers in private practice, in this context under the legal aid and legal advice and assistance schemes, supplemented, where this suits local circumstances, by law centres. It said that the Government does not believe that a sufficient case has been made for any direct ministerial responsibility for the availability of legal services in any particular area". However much noble Lords might deprecate this—and they have made their feelings pretty clear to me this evening at least—that is the Government's strategy.

My noble friend Lady Macleod mentioned the role played by citizens advice bureaux. It is of course the case that law centres are only one of a number of local arrangements made for the provision of general and legal advice, including citizens advice bureaux which the Royal Commission on Legal Services, I might add, saw as the front-line provider of such services. Citizens advice bureaux have developed various arrangements for making legal advice available, either by referring cases to private practitioners or themselves providing the services of lawyers directly. Voluntary organisations are of course independent bodies and they must decide for themselves how they should be organised. Public funders, however, do need to avoid supporting a proliferation of advice services. In 1984, for example, the community projects review, prepared for the Department of the Environment by a team including private sector and voluntary sector representatives, concluded that local authorities should not consider advice projects as separate entities but should consider their funding within a local strategy for such services. So there are different routes which might be followed to achieve the desired result in any area.

I would say to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln that the Government have no quarrel with law centres. The Government accepts that law centres may well have a role to play in providing legal advice in certain areas. They do not deprecate the efforts of law centres and indeed, in the past, have offered them considerable—not to say generous—support. Over the years many law centres have been given the opportunity to start their lives with urban programme grant aid. In 1985–86 about £2.2 million worth of urban programme support was given to 28 law centres. Over the same period, the Lord Chancellor's Department provided £628,000 of direct support for seven law centres. As many of your Lordships are aware, this is an exceptional measure taken, as we well know, as a result of decisions made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, in his period in that high office. There have been calls for this support to be extended to other centres; but it has been made clear on a number of occasions recently that my noble and learned friend does not consider it is open to him to do so.

He has no specific statutory authority to fund law centres but, even if he had, his department possesses neither the administrative nor the financial resources to take on this responsibility. And I can make it clear once more that there are no present plans to change the current arrangements for responsibility in respect of law centres.

Furthermore, the primary objectives of the Lord Chancellor are the administration of the courts and the provision of resources to the legal aid and legal advice assistance schemes. My noble and learned friend does not consider it appropriate that he should assume direct and general responsibility for the funding of agencies involved in the giving of advice to, and the representation of, litigants.

Putting aside all questions of propriety however—and here again I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, who mentioned the point of the propriety of having local authorities funding the law centres and I have explained now that there is an equal question of propriety in the Lord Chancellor's Department doing exactly the same thing—there is the question of resources generally. The claims in respect of law centres cannot be looked at in isolation from other demands on the resources which are available or from other demands on public expenditure generally. Expenditure on the legal services programme has increased significantly in recent years and spending on legal aid has, in the lifetime of the present Government, doubled in real terms and trebled in cash terms. The scope of legal aid has been extended in a number of respects and the level of financial eligibility maintained in real terms. Nevertheless, there are regularly calls for more to be done, just as there are calls of the kind which have prompted this debate in your Lordships' House. Concern has been expressed about the effect of restraint on local authority expenditure, and of abolition, on the funding of law centres. On the first of these issues, the majority of local authorities have, over the years, behaved responsibly and adjusted their spending policies in line with the overall requirements of national economic policy—under all governments. The Government have had to act, by means of rate limitation, in respect of a tiny handful of authorities who have not accepted the constraints imposed by our economic situation, and which are the highest overspenders in the country. Such authorities, like the rest of us, will have to cut their coats according to their cloth. But the limits that we have set are ones to which other authorities have been adjusting over the years, and they are not ones with which authorities cannot cope. There will still be room—and the greater the efficiency improvements the greater the room—to fund voluntary projects which serve the needs of the area.

On the question of overall spending restraints, the same applies. Clearly law centres cannot be protected from the general expenditure pressures, but there is still room to support them if the local authorities value them sufficiently highly.

As regards abolition, I realise that successor authorities are taking different spending decisions from those which the Greater London Council and the metropolitan counties have been taking. I welcome that, but the former's profligacy is not something which one would want to be inflicted on, for example, London's ratepayers for longer than necessary. But where voluntary bodies are concerned the Government have taken several steps to ensure that local authorities are in a position to continue funding worthwhile groups.

I must here reply to the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, who based his speech on particular aspersions as to what the Government were doing and had been doing in this respect. First, there is the rate support grant settlement, where we have given successor authorities not a bit but 100 per cent. of the resources that the GLC and the metropolitan counties would have had—and this of course includes the law centres, which those authorities have supported in the past. Furthermore, this year's settlement has of course recognised the special needs of the inner cities, where law centres are most prevalent. This might have been brought home to your Lordships as well as it has been to me by the loud protests of shire counties that have demonstrated just this in recent weeks.

Second, there is the additional transitional grant which we are giving to successor authorities in support of £20 millions' worth of local voluntary projects. Allocations were announced last week. The effect of this is to make it cheaper for the ratepayers to fund voluntary sector projects over the next four years, and so to encourage authorities to take on ex-GLC or met. county projects. I repeat that transitional grant is extra. The main support has to come through the rate support grant. It has always been made clear that the £20 millions transitional grant was not meant to match any given figure of local authority expenditure. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has, I regret, been misinformed about the nature of the grant. The figures that he gave comparing percentage allocations with bids are to that extent, I am afraid to say, somewhat misleading. Transitional grant is meant only as a partial and temporary support to local authority expenditure plans.

I freely admit that the decisions on grants next year are coming later than Ministers and voluntary bodies would have hoped, and that this is a worrying time for voluntary groups. I must point out, however, that it is by no means unusual, even in normal circumstances, for local authorities at this time of year not to have finalised their grant decisions for the next financial year. Local councillors are well aware of the timing constraints, and I am sure that they will take their decisions as quickly as possible. The Government have done all that they can to ease and to facilitate the move to new funders, and I am confident that the overall outcome will be satisfactory. I cannot, however, offer assurances to every individual voluntary group or to individual law centres. We have always made clear that abolition does not alter the general principle that these decisons remain—as they always have been—ones for the local authorities themselves. Just as Parliament did not compel the Greater London Council or the metropolitan counties to fund voluntary bodies, so it has not compelled districts and boroughs to do so. Nor has it given Ministers the power to compel districts and boroughs to do so, either.

I hope that this explanation will assist noble Lords in comprehending why the Government take the firm view that law centres are a supplement to the legal framework. As I have already indicated, they are by no means the only form of supplement, and where they do not themselves exist other alternatives may well be available to meet the particular needs of the community. Where they are felt to be necessary, we are entirely happy that they should exist. We commend the work they do, as we commend all forms of worthwhile voluntary activity.

In our inner cities policies we constantly strive to achieve private and public sector partnership. We adhere to the philosophy that the state should not be regarded as a bottomless source of funds, and that business should be more actively involved in their communities. Law centres, in common with other voluntary groups, might therefore consider looking for a greater contribution by the local community not only from public funds but also from local businesses, the professions and other private sources, either in cash or in kind. I know that one noble Lord mentioned a particular law centre where the local authority had suggested some form of pound-for-pound grant.

Lord Elwyn-Jones

My Lords, Westminster.

Lord Skelmersdale

Westminster, my Lords. I thank the noble and learned Lord. It had therefore sought to get contributions of this nature. This had failed. Does that not bear out exactly what the council had itself decided? If there was a need that was generally supported, then it would act: if there was not—and this can be taken as proof that there was not—then it would not. Involvement in the community—

Lord Pitt of Hampstead

My Lords, am I to understand that the noble Lord is actually saying that there is not a need for Paddington to have a law centre?

Lord Skelmersdale

No, my Lords; I am not saying that. I am saying that Westminster City Council, whose responsibility this is, is saying exactly that.

Involvement in the community is something which we can all pursue, and there are many skills which can contribute. I hope that it will not be taken amiss if I suggest that this is an avenue which the law centres movement should pursue, recognising that a single form of organisation, the large law centre, may not always be the only way of providing the services in question. For instance, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, mentioned housing and welfare benefit cases. The noble Lord. Lord Hutchinson, mentioned planning. I must ask them: are there no other sources of this advice? Time prevents me going into detail, but I must, like my noble friend Lady Macleod, refute the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, and answer "No" for the reasons that I have already given.

I am well aware that these are not the answers which noble Lords who have spoken are seeking. But I believe that the Government have given law centres a fair chance to prove their worth, and that it is now up to them to seek support locally from both public and private sources.

House adjourned at five minutes past nine o'clock.