Legal Aid (Hansard, 2 December 1993)

Mr. John M. Taylor

Decisions on the grant or refusal of legal aid in criminal cases brought in the approximately 600 magistrates' courts in England and Wales are an integral part of procedures which, in the interests of the liberty of the subject, have to be as expeditious as possible. The Legal Aid Act 1988 vests the function of deciding in the courts themselves, but gives me the power to transfer it to the Legal Aid Board.

The evidence continues to indicate that, under the present arrangements, the Lord Chancellor cannot be certain that the existing regulations governing the grant of legal aid are being applied sufficiently rigorously, in particular in determining the financial eligibility of applicants. This has led the Comptroller and Auditor General repeatedly to qualify my Department's appropriation account because of material doubt whether this category of legal aid spending is regular.

In no circumstances can any irregularity in dispensing public money be acceptable, and the Lord Chancellor will take every available step to ensure proper safeguards consistent with the due administration of justice. In addition to the guidance issued last year, the Lord Chancellor has made changes in the regulations, with effect from September 1993, to clarify and strengthen the duty on justices clerks to satisfy themselves of an applicant's means before granting legal aid. In addition, 642W with the help of the Justices Clerks Society and the Legal Aid Board, the Lord Chancellor is considering whether the previous guidance on the "interests of justice" criteria requires to be revised. The impact of these measures will be closely monitored.

In January 1992, the Lord Chancellor invited the Legal Aid Board to consider whether, in the interests of making decisions on the grant of criminal legal aid in the magistrates courts more uniform and systematic, I should transfer this function from the courts to the board. The board reported earlier this year that it would be ready to assume responsibility if certain changes were made in the present scheme, but that it could not do so until 1995 at the earliest. In consultations on the board's report, reservations were expressed about some of the details, while other aspects commanded widespread support.

Transferring responsibility for the grant of criminal legal aid to the Legal Aid Board offers the advantage of greater consistency in decision-making. However, there could be countervailing risks to the speed and efficiency of criminal procedures. As a matter of policy, I feel bound to take these risks seriously, and I am not at present satisfied that they are outweighed by the advantage.

However, if the current measures do not achieve an acceptable result, I will give further consideration to a transfer to the board. At the same time, I will consider any identifiable alternative measures, with a view to achieving the best practicable balance between speed of decision-making and assured regularity in the handling of public money.