Legal Aid (Hansard, 19 February 1992)

§ The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)
My Lords, legal aid is available to those defending an action in the High Court, provided that the Legal Aid Board is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for defending the action and that the applicant's disposable income and capital are within the financial limits. The Government are concerned about those individuals who may be financially ineligible for legal aid yet who face high costs. They made various proposals for dealing with that problem in the recent consultation paper on eligibility for civil legal aid.

§ Viscount Hanworth
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that reply. Does he agree that there nevertheless remains the problem which was encapsulated in my Question? I believe that he does. Secondly, will he confirm that everyone has the right to defend himself or herself in the High Court unless he or she is a vexatious litigant?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I agree that there is a problem, and that is why the Government addressed it in the consultation paper to which I referred. On the second point, I confirm that any person has the right to defend himself or herself in the High Court.

§ Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone
My Lords, will my noble and learned friend confirm my belief that if a defendant wins his action against a legally aided plaintiff he receives his costs?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, there is a statutory limitation on the liability for costs for which the legally aided person may be liable. The court has to have regard to all the circumstances in assessing the amount of any liability. There are some circumstances in which the successful opponent of an assisted person may be able to have his costs refunded from the Legal Aid Board.

§ Lord Airedale
My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that many of us in the House deplore the unruly and disorderly manner in which certain lawyers saw fit to receive his announcement of proposed changes to the legal aid system?

Noble Lords
Hear, hear!

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, while I appreciate the sentiments that the noble Lord has expressed, that matter is somewhat wide of the Question on the Order Paper.

§ Lord Mishcon
My Lords, the House may be assured that I was not one of the lawyers involved. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will agree that there is a problem as regards not only those who wish to defend actions in the High Court but those 1262 who rightfully wish to bring them. Is the noble and learned Lord aware that the Law Society and the Legal Action Group commissioned a survey last year as a result of which it was found that eligibility for advice and assistance dropped from 66 per cent. of the population, representing 36 million people, in 1979, to 37 per cent of the population, representing 20 million people, in 1990?
In personal injury cases, where as the noble and learned Lord knows the income limit is higher, in 1979 81 per cent. of the households were eligible. The figure has fallen to 57 per cent. in 1990. Is that not a worrying situation?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, these figures are estimates based on various assumptions. The reliability of the estimates depends on the accuracy of the assumptions, and many such assumptions can be made. While I read with interest the mathematics that lie behind these estimates, I am more concerned with what actually happens—the real figures. For example, in 1979–80, about 191,000 civil legal aid certificates were issued. By 1991, the figure had increased by 56 per cent. to over 297,000. It is clear that many more people today receive the benefit of legal aid than received it in 1979.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, will my noble and learned friend tell us what is the total expenditure on legal aid this year compared with what it was five years ago?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, the gross expenditure on legal aid for this financial year appears to be in excess of £1 billion. The figure has risen by more than 50 per cent. over the five-year period.

§ Lord Mackie of Benshie
My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord tell us whether the productivity of the legal profession has risen with the enormous rewards it receives?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I believe that that question also is somewhat wide of the Question on the Order Paper.

§ Lord Mishcon
My Lords, in the light of the Question on the Order Paper, is it not the case that the problem is not that the poor may be suffering, as they may be covered, or that the rich are suffering, as they can afford it? Is not the real problem the people who come between the poor and the rich?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, there is no problem for those who are so wealthy that they can afford the fees they may be charged. The president of the Law Society last year warned his members that if they were involved in litigation they would not be able to afford their own fees. The situation of those in the intermediate level between what the noble Lord described as the poor and the rich is a problem. That is what our consultation paper addressed. It is difficult and so far as I know the problem has not yet been solved in any country in the world which has a legal system remotely like ours. In the consultation paper I 1263 put forward a number of proposals for solving the problem. None is ideal but I hope that we shall be able to make progress with it.

§ Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe
My Lords, the Question refers to the costs of defending an action. Is it not time that we looked closely at the charges of the legal profession? It has seemed to me since I came to the House that it is the strongest trade union in the country.

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I am interested, particularly on behalf of taxpayers, in the costs involved in litigation. The noble Lord will be aware that securing changes is not the easiest task with which I am confronted.