§ Mr. CranstonTo ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what net savings in legal aid will be achieved by the implementation of the Government's proposals to remove legal aid from personal injury work and other areas to which conditional fee agreements will apply. [44131]
§ Mr. HoonOur intention is neither to increase nor to reduce in real terms expenditure on legal aid. We have, of course, estimated what the effect on the fund's cashflow would be of removing legal aid from the categories suggested in the consultation paper, Access to Justice with Conditional Fees. These estimates are:
- 1998–1999: £0 million
- 1999–2000: -£69 million
- 2000–2001: -£100 million.
The saving would diminish in later years, when case costs would be recovered to benefit the fund.
What we intend is, within a controlled legal aid budget overall, to re-focus limited resources on those most in need, particularly in the areas of social welfare law.
§ Mr. CranstonTo ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what investigations his Department has carried out into the capacity of the Bar to do conditional fee agreement work. [44132]
§ Mr. HoonBarristers are already taking cases on a conditional fee basis. I, and my officials, have had several meetings with the Bar Council during the development of the proposals to extend the availability of conditional fee agreements. They have responded in detail to the consultation paper "Access to Justice with Conditional Fees", as have a number of other organisations representing banisters. These, together with all the other responses, are being carefully considered before decisions are taken.