Legal Aid (Hansard, 16 July 1992)

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, we are determined to improve the control over legal aid expenditure. I have already announced that standard fees are to be introduced later this year for the majority of criminal legal aid cases in magistrates' courts.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that helpful reply, but can he indicate whether the increase in the cost of legal aid over the past two or three years has been faster than for any other social service?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, it is true that the rising cost of legal aid is a source of anxiety. There are two elements in this. One is that the number of people helped is increasing. The principal concern that I have is that in my view the rate per case is increasing faster than it should. It is certainly rising faster than the annual rate up-rating that I allow under the regulations. That is one of the reasons why in my view an extensive system of standard fees would be a considerable improvement.

§ Lord Hooson
My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that, as regards the first part of his reasoning, the most effective way of controlling the cost of legal aid is to control the growth of crime in this country? Does he further agree that it is the enormous increase in crime which is mirrored in the increasing cost of legal aid, certainly on the criminal side?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, the noble Lord has just pointed out that there are two sides to the question of legal aid; one is civil and the other criminal. The rise in prosecutions for crime rather than the crime rate itself has an effect. That is the first factor that I mentioned. The second factor remains important and it is one which I believe should be subject to control.

§ Lord Renton
My Lords, as regards legal aid in civil cases, is my noble and learned friend quite sure that all that can be done is being done to take advantage of the conciliation process which exists, especially in Family Division cases?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, in granting legal aid the legal aid authorities have to take account of what is a reasonable action on the part of the person applying for legal aid. I personally would like to see conciliation used greatly in matrimonial and family cases. I believe that it is a very useful way of helping people to solve their own problems in that area.

§ Lord Richard
My Lords, perhaps I may put two questions to the noble and learned Lord. First, why is it that he has decided to proceed with standard fees in magistrates' courts in advance of the decision of the Royal Commission which, as I understand it, is going to consider this point in particular? Secondly, does he agree that, however one wants to slow down the growth in legal aid, one way in which it should not he done is by delaying the payment of fees which have been properly incurred and properly taxed? In that 319 respect is he satisfied with the operation of the central taxation unit which he has set up as regards the payment of legal aid in criminal cases?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, it is clear that the present system of legal aid taxation in individual cases is a costly procedure which takes time. As regards the central taxing units, they are concerned primarily with cases in which the fees charged are £4,000 and over. It is necessary that these should be examined thoroughly. The improvement in the performance of the taxing teams has been quite considerable. I hope that further improvements will eventuate.
On the first point, the Royal Commission is considering the system of criminal justice under a wide-ranging remit, but I have responsibility for determining legal aid remuneration. I shall, of course, pay attention to anything that the Royal Commission may say on the matter, but it is quite clear to me that the Royal Commission does not wish to intervene between me and the profession in my discharge of my duty. It may comment on the result.

Baroness Faithful,
My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord whether a lot of legal aid could be saved by the better programming of court hearings?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, the programming of court hearings is quite a difficult operation because so many people have to be considered. Obviously, in so far as it is possible, we are seeking to improve these arrangements and any improvement necessarily produces a saving in costs when it works. The main difficulty in programming courts is the number of people and interests which have to be taken into account in reaching a view of the date on which a case will start. Perhaps I may say in elaboration of that that, even when one has fixed a date for a case to start, one often finds that the case collapses at the last minute. That is the sort of problem that the listing officers face.

§ Lord Harris of Greenwich
My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware of the statement made by Judge Stephen Tumim in his report on Feltham young offenders' institution, pointing out that in the first nine months of last year over 700 inmates were not produced in court, thus causing wholly unnecessary expenditure on legal aid? Is he also aware that when replying to the debate on young offenders, the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, said that that problem existed in other institutions as well? Given his responsibility both for legal aid and for magistrates' courts, can the noble and learned Lord tell us what action he hopes to take to deal with this situation?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, there is undoubtedly a difficulty and this is an illustration of the point that I was making in response to the last question. If a case is listed and one of the principal parties to the case does not arrive for reasons within the control of others, whatever arrangements the listing officer has made are rendered nugatory. I am very concerned about this particular problem, and I 320 believe that it is being dealt with, particularly by the department for which the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, was speaking when replying to that debate.