Dr. Jawad Hashim: Legal Aid (Hansard, 25 October 1994)

§ The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)
My Lords, Dr. Jawad Hashim was granted legal aid for civil proceedings. Decisions on the grant, discharge and revocation of civil legal aid certificates 442 are delegated by regulation to an area director of the Legal Aid Board. Assessments of applicants' means are carried out by the legal aid assessment office of the Benefits Agency. The London area office has been dealing with the Hashim case. The total costs claimed in this case to date amount to £4.1 million, of which £2.8 million has been paid. I am considering what changes might need to be made to the legal aid scheme in the light of this and other cases, and I expect to issue a consultation paper shortly seeking views on some specific proposals.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that extremely interesting Answer. However, is it not a really appalling thing that the British taxpayer should have had to find this very large sum of money to finance the operation of this very rich man? Can my noble and learned friend assure the House that, thanks to what he has said, this kind of thing will not happen again?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, the precise circumstances of Dr. Hashim are a matter on which I am not able to give comment. As my noble friend knows, the details submitted in connection with a legal aid application are protected as to their confidentiality by the statutory provisions. However, I emphasise that the rules which govern entitlement to civil legal aid are the same for everyone. Those rules are applied by the Benefits Agency. But it may well be that, in the light of cases such as this one, it is right to consider changing the rules. The Law Society has made some proposals, as have some others. I have sought to consider them and, as I said, I hope shortly to issue a consultation paper on specific proposals. No proposals in this area are without a degree of difficulty. I believe that it would be right to have some opportunity for discussion of them before any decision is taken about amending the rules.

§ Lord Williams of Mostyn
My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor recognise that many in this House are extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, for exposing these apparent problems? Does he understand that there is deep public disquiet about the donation of public money to those who are not British nationals for the resolution of their private disputes, particularly when the countries from which they originate have no reciprocity by way of benefit for British subjects in their jurisdictions? Is he aware that there is serious concern about the inadequate checking of true financial resources and about the grossly insufficient attempts to recover substantial sums of public money from those who are the beneficial owners of very considerable assets?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I am aware of concerns on matters of this kind. However, it is important to try to deal with such concerns through practical proposals. It has been a principle of the legal aid scheme since its inception that legal aid is to be granted in relation to cases in our courts. Up to now, it has not been a principle to distinguish between litigants on the ground of nationality. I am not sure whether the 443 noble Lord was suggesting that that would be a good principle to incorporate in the legal aid scheme now for the first time.
The checking of assets is a matter concerning which the Benefits Agency has certain skills. I seek to learn from the experience of some recent cases whether or not there may be scope for improving that aspect. As to the recovery of costs, as the noble Lord knows, in so far as cases are successful in recovering money for the applicant, the Legal Aid Board has a first charge on that recovery for recoupment of the public funds involved in the grant of legal aid in the first place.

§ Lord Clark of Kempston
My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that although the Legal Aid Board is completely independent, it is regulated by rules and regulations set out by Parliament? Surely the regulations must be at fault when the situation of rich people, who ostensibly have no assets but whose family have massive assets, is not taken into account when the Legal Aid Board decides whether or not legal aid is to be given? Clearly, it is scandalous that the British taxpayer should pay over £4 million to a man who, apart from not being a national of this country, has a high standard of living while many people who have applied for legal aid are denied it for various reasons.

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, my noble friend referred to a man with no assets and then described him as wealthy. For me, the problem is that the regulations have to apply to the man and those members of his family, particularly his wife, covered by the regulations. The question of what should be covered in regulations is the matter about which I propose to consult. Obviously, it is necessary that funds which are taken into account in this connection should be funds on which the person would be entitled to draw in relation to defraying the cost of his litigation. I am very open to any practical suggestions that can be made to ensure that legal aid is given to those who need it. That is the object of the scheme and the regulations made under the scheme. Certainly, I am very anxious to consider any improvements that can be made to the regulations to make them even more effective in achieving that aim.

§ Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord will recall that he has already told me in a parliamentary Answer that in this case leading counsel for the defendant has already been paid £671,000 with more claims to come. Has the noble and learned Lord received any reports or suggestions from the Bar Council about how those fees might be curbed and what part counsel are prepared to play in resolving the matter?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I understand that the Bar Council has proposals which seek to deal with these matters. One of the proposals relates to regulations which we have been preparing in draft for some time and which I hope to be able to lay quite shortly in relation to the number of counsel that should be instructed. The Bar Council has made other proposals which might well have a beneficial effect, particularly 444 in relation to the type of opinion that is furnished to the; Legal Aid Board in regard to the merits of a claim for which legal aid support is sought by the applicant.

§ Lord Campbell of Alloway
My Lords, when consideration is given to the amendment of the rules, as assuredly it must be-it is a total scandal -can my noble and learned friend give an assurance that each and every one of the questions put to him by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will receive serious attention, because those were the very questions, including the issue of nationality, which I would have put myself?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, such a coincidence would surely make me consider the matter even more carefully. But the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, raised the question is certainly sufficient for me to give it serious consideration. Questions of that type have been in my consideration and the consultation paper will attempt to deal with them. However, I am particularly concerned about the idea of distinguishing between people before the courts in this country on the basis of nationality. I had not thought to make that kind of distinction. No doubt it will be for consideration and certainly it will be open to consultees during the consultation to raise that point. For myself, I thought that the principles of legal aid established long ago did not allow for that particular consideration to play a determining part.

§ Lord Swinfen
My Lords, can my noble and learned friend say what are the provisions for the repayment of legal aid by a recipient of that aid?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, there are a number of provisions. For example, if it turns out that the information on which legal aid was granted is not correct-if the information was false-there are consequences in respect of repayment. There is also an important point which is not always understood; namely, that the legal aid fund has first call on any assets recovered or preserved as a result of the action for payment of outstanding fees previously covered by legal aid. That is a very important aspect when the applicant is successful. I believe that those are the principal systems for recovery. There is machinery for the recovery of contributions when for any reason contributions are unpaid. However, I took it that my noble friend was referring in particular to the recovery of costs which are not covered by contributions.