§ Lord Goodhart asked Her Majesty's Government:
§ How many of the responses to the consultation paper Financial conditions for funding by the Legal Services Commission have (a) supported and (b) opposed the proposals in that paper for taking into account the equity value in homes in assessing the liability of applicants to pay contributions to the Community Legal Service Fund.
§ The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg)My Lords, I have received 34 responses to the consultation paper, including one from the Liberal Democrat parliamentary home and legal affairs team, signed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. Twenty-eight of the 34 specifically commented on the proposals—four favourably and 24 unfavourably. The noble Lord is therefore a member of a comfortable majority of hostile voices. Within the minority, however, were the Association of District Judges and the Bar Council, which supported the proposal on its merits.
The consultation period was 12 weeks, ending on 20th October. I shall receive an analysis of the responses from my officials around the end of November. I shall come to my decisions and announce them in December.
§ Lord GoodhartMy Lords, does the Lord Chancellor disagree with the extremely powerfully argued submissions by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and the Law Society, which commented adversely on the proposals? Does he accept that there is a serious risk of denial of access to justice for low-income home owners, particularly pensioners and single parents? When he considers the submissions, will he pay the greatest attention to the very serious consequences of this appalling proposal?
§ The Lord ChancellorMy Lords, the noble Lord puts it a little high. He spoke out strongly and clearly against the proposals in our debates on the Access to Justice Bill. They were to have been introduced at the same time as the Community Legal Service, which was established on 3rd April. Instead, the Government chose to consult. I understand very well the arguments 124 of the noble Lord and others. I am listening to them positively and sympathetically and I shall announce my decisions in December.
§ Lord TomlinsonMy Lords, as the Lord Chancellor has been so positive and sympathetic to the overwhelming case made so clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is there anything further to be said?
§ The Lord ChancellorWell, steady on, my Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has the sense of the drift of what I have said.
§ Lord Clark of KempstonMy Lords, does the Lord Chancellor agree that in many cases legal aid is given to individuals who live in a very lavish style? Would it not be a good idea to change the rules for using taxpayers' money on legal aid by taking into consideration the wealth of the immediate family of the applicant?
§ The Lord ChancellorMy Lords, we have put in place a range of measures to deal with those whose receipt of legal aid is objectionable because of the lavish lifestyle that they ostensibly maintain.
§ Baroness Gardner of ParkesMy Lords, is the Lord Chancellor aware that many ordinary people—and I consider myself among them—think it scandalous that to have any legal case someone has to be either immensely rich or very poor? Taking the value of a property into account would help to offset that a little.
§ The Lord ChancellorMy Lords, I have already addressed that in my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.