HL Deb 18 July 1996 vol 574 cc994-6

3.18 p.m.

Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether the proposal to require people on income support to contribute to their legal costs is to be referred to the Social Security Advisory Committee.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, no. My proposal that all legally-aided persons should pay a small minimum contribution if they pursue a civil court case against another party does not fall within the remit of the Social Security Advisory Committee.

Earl Russell

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his Answer. While clearly it is technically correct, does he agree that since this may affect decisions on income support, including decisions on its correct level, the advice of the Social Security Advisory Committee is well worth having? Before the noble and learned Lord assures the House that people on income support can afford to pay these contributions, can he list all the other deductions that they may suffer at the same time?

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, there are provisions for a number of deductions to be made at source in respect of such benefit, the main idea being to secure, for one reason or another, particular matters for the claimant. For example, amounts may be directly deducted in respect of payments to utility companies, mortgage companies, the Child Support Agency and the like. It is not my intention that this particular matter should be the subject of a direct deduction. My present intention is not to go down that particular road. So far as concerns the level of income support, that is a matter on which the Social Security Advisory Committee would have a locus. That is a rather more general matter than the matter with which I am particularly concerned.

Lord Irvine of Lairg

My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord confirm that in 1991, when free legal aid was available not just at income support level but at 20 per cent. above that level, his own department's eligibility review flatly turned down minimum contributions because they would operate as a deterrent to the most financially vulnerable either asserting or defending their legal rights, and that anyway the administrative costs would make it not worth while? Has there been any new research to justify what was unacceptable, as his department held in 1991, for those at 20 per cent. above income support level today becoming acceptable for those who are just at income support level?

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, time has moved on since 1991. The costs of the scheme and information about it have of course been accumulated since. I have to take account of the fact that, for example, the Bar Council said in its answer to the Green Paper: Many cases are supported on legal aid which no reasonably well off and prudent individual would consider starting or continuing". It is important that such matters are considered responsibly at the beginning. So far as concerns administrative arrangements, the proposals that I have made more recently are of a different kind altogether from the system which was operating in 1991. I am proposing that the system should depend to a great extent upon contracts in relation to representation for legal aid.

Lord Ackner

My Lords, can my noble and learned friend confirm that the success rate of legally aided civil actions is 92 per cent., as stated by Professor Zander in an article in The Times on 9th July? Can my noble and learned friend state also what is the amount of costs recovered to the benefit of the Legal Aid Fund as a result of those successful actions, and whether credit is given against the figures that have been announced to the House in relation to the total costs of legal aid?

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, where net figures are given, the deductions by way of repayment are of course included. I do not have the total figure in my head at the moment. It is, of course, as my noble and learned friend knows, in the Legal Aid Board's report. On the percentage success rate, the figure to which my noble and learned friend referred is one which of course includes many cases which are settled.

One of the problems with the present system is that even small or trivial cases which are started against an unassisted person can involve that person in costs which make it uneconomic for the person to defend the case, whether or not it is one which, fought out to the end, would be successful. Therefore one has to take those figures with a degree of caution. When one looks at the cases which are fought out, the figure is much lower than 92 per cent.

Forward to