Legal Aid: Cost (Hansard, 22 July 1993)

§ The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)
My Lords, I estimate that net expenditure on legal aid in the current financial year will amount to £1.3 billion and that that figure will rise to £1.4 billion next year.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, while I thank my noble and learned friend for that Answer, is he not disappointed that his gallant efforts to restrain the growth of this expenditure have failed to curtail it? Is it not particularly tiresome that at a time when much very important expenditure is being cut in the interests of public economy this element should be rising?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I have sought to restrain the growth of legal aid. I believe that the measures which I have announced and which are now in effect will assist in that direction. However, increasing numbers of people are being helped under these schemes over the years and that, of course, has an effect on the budget in addition to the increases in other elements.

§ Lord Renton
My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that his efforts to restrain the cost of legal aid are welcomed, even by a considerable part of the legal profession? However, will he bear in mind two factors which could mitigate the problem? The first is the maximum use of conciliation where appropriate. The second is the maximum use of local advice centres of one kind or another, for which there is a demand locally and among local authorities.

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I have indicated in discussions in your Lordships' House that I believe that there is a good deal to be said for trying to build on local efforts by way of support from the Legal Aid Fund. The Legal Aid Board is examining proposals in that direction.

§ Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone
My Lords, must we not come to terms with the fact that the real reason for the increase in expenditure on legal aid is the increased volume of business before the courts, both civil and criminal? Can my noble and learned friend supplement his original Answer by telling us how expenditure is broken down between civil, family and criminal cases in the estimate which he has given?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, it is true that there has been a certain degree of increase in the business before the courts. However, it is not true to say that 788 that is the sole cause of the increase in cost. For example, the unit costs of civil legal aid rose between 1988–89 and 1992–93 at a rate of 70.5 per cent. Therefore, there are at least two elements at work: the increase in unit costs as well as the increase in the number of units in question.

§ Lord Ackner
My Lords, is my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor aware of the following facts? Over £200 million of public money was spent last year on matrimonial disputes. By contrast, only £1.25 million was provided by the Government to Relate (the National Marriage Guidance Council). Last year that council dealt with 70,000 cases, thereby saving legal aid and national insurance funds many millions of pounds. Given those facts, does my noble and learned friend agree that if the Government were a little more generous in their grants to that organisation they would make substantial savings both in relation to legal aid and social security payments?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, as my noble and learned friend knows, my responsibility in this area is for legal aid. The other grants to which he referred are the responsibility of others. It is perhaps a good idea to encourage others to take responsibilities that one has to discharge oneself. However, I very much accept the thrust of what my noble and learned friend said. I believe that there is value in mediation and conciliation in matrimonial matters and that money spent in that area may be much better spent than in disputes before the courts. Sadly, however, one cannot be certain that however much is spent on mediation or conciliation there will not also be demand for legal aid before the courts in matrimonial disputes. I do not believe that it is established that the one necessarily excludes the other. I am working very hard to bring forward proposals in this area, which would at least take some encouragement from the thrust of my noble and learned friend's question.

§ Lord Irvine of Lairg
My Lords, I recognise that the Law Society did not succeed in its recent High Court judicial review challenge to the noble and learned Lord's decision to impose huge cuts in eligibility for legal aid, but has the noble and learned Lord taken to heart and accepted the statement of the Divisional Court that whenever time permits there should be consultation with the Law Society and other experienced bodies before changes of this drastic and far-reaching nature are made? Will he undertake for the future not only to consult with those bodies but also to consult with his own Advisory Committee on Legal Aid which, amazingly, he did not consult before his recent cuts in eligibility for legal aid?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I am of course well aware of the terms of the opinion of the Divisional Court in the proceedings, in which I am glad to say that I was successful. The situation is that as long ago as the beginning of December I intimated what I proposed in this connection. We had a number of discussions in your Lordships' House. I made it clear to anyone who had any interest or anything to contribute, including the legal aid advisory committee, 789 that I would be very glad to hear from them. The regulations making the detailed proposals were not laid until very much later, so there was ample time for consultation. I can assure your Lordships that I paid very close attention to all that was said to me in that interval.

§ Lord Gisborough
My Lords, will my noble and learned friend say whether he believes that the cost of adjournments, both in court time and legal appearances, is significant and, if so, whether he has plans to reduce the number of adjournments which occur?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, it is often the case that adjournments are costly in a number of ways. It depends a great deal when the adjournment takes place. For example, postponement of a trial on the day on which the trial was due to start can often have very great effects on the convenience of witnesses, jurors and the like. It is therefore important to seek to cut down such adjournments as much as possible.
It is easier to discern the problem than the solution to it. The Royal Commission has proposed some solutions. Not all of those have met with universal acceptance, but who knows, my Lords? The proposals may have met with sufficient acceptance to put some of them into practice.