| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Ron Davies : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If that was a statement, we now have the opportunity to ask questions of the Leader of the House. If it was a point of order--
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I said that it was not a point of order for the Chair ; it was a statement. I thinkit right to allow a brief period of questioning, which must be confined to that point.
Mr. MacGregor : In view of the ruling that you have just made, Mr. Deputy Speaker, let me make it clear that that is not the case. We should have much preferred the Bill to go through as a public Bill, which would have ensured that the Cardiff bay barrage procedures came in much more quickly. It was, however, a local issue initiated and supported by local interests, and we consider it entirely right for those interests to promote it through the private Bill procedure. Many other local developments have been handled in this way. As I have said, there is now little opportunity for the Bill to make progress in the current Session. That is why we thought it right to make an announcement.
Mr. Gwilym Jones : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What my right hon. Friend has just announced will be warmly welcomed in the capital of Wales, and throughout south Wales. May I urge the Government to produce their legislation at the earliest possible opportunity so that there is as little further delay as
Column 376
possible? The only reason the Bill has already been delayed so much is the obstructionist filibustering tactics of Labour Members.Mr. Michael : The Leader of the House said that the Bill was initiated and supported by local interests. An enormous amount of time was spent on consultation and discussion and, at times, people leaned over backwards to satisfy some of the objectors. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the interests of the area and those of my constituents will be carefully considered in formulating the Bill that the Government intend to introduce ? In the light of the spirit of the discussions over the past couple of years with local authorities, the development corporation and the Welsh Office, will the Government seek the consensus of those who wish to see Cardiff's future guaranteed ? I hope that we shall see a positive development on the lines of the conclusion that I sought in the debate.
Mr. MacGregor : I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) and the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) for their contributions. I assure the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth that all the work that has gone into the preparation of the private Bill and the debates on it will be valuable in developing the Government's Bill. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will consult and will, of course, take account of all that has gone before. He will hope to introduce his Bill as soon as possible.
Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher) : My right hon. Friend's announcement is welcome, especially by my hon. Friends who have worked so hard in the interests of the Bill, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) who in a former capacity was a candidate for Cardiff, South and Penarth.
Those of us who have been in the House all night to support the measure are frustrated about the lack of leadership in the Labour party. The Leader of the Opposition represents a Welsh seat, and it is absolutely absurd that he cannot instil some sense into his Welsh colleagues. He has not been here for the debate, has shown no leadership in the matter, and has given no indication of his interest as a Welsh Member. That has caused disreputable behaviour in the House. I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to comment on that. I hope that we shall not see such behaviour when the Government introduce their Bill.
Mr. MacGregor : All of us who have been here through the night would have liked to see the Bill make progress and be accepted in its present form. That would have been greatly in the interests of people in Cardiff and south Wales, but, as it was not possible, we have decided on the course that I have announced. That will be greatly in the interests of most hon. Members and of the area.
Mr. Ron Davies : Will the Leader of the House remind his hon. Friends that we were debating a private Bill and that it would have been quite inappropriate for the Leader of the Opposition or any Opposition Member to try to influence or dragoon hon. Members into voting against their wishes?
How long does the Leader of the House intend to consult about the preparation of the Bill? Will he undertake to consult such reputable bodies as the Royal
Column 377
Society for the Protection of Birds, the National Rivers Authority and the new Countryside Council for Wales? Will he take seriously their environmental reservations?Mr. MacGregor : My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will make it clear how he intends to consult and he will, of course, consult widely.
Mr. Win Griffiths : Where does the announcement leave the environmental assessment procedure which can be applied to major planning developments? Will bodies such as the National Rivers Authority now get opportunities that they did not have under the private Bill procedure because they were not set up in a way that allowed them to object to or comment upon a private Bill? Will the slate be wiped completely clean in terms of participation by the House of Lords in the original Bill? Will the start be from scratch?
Mr. MacGregor : The hon. Gentleman had better await my right hon. Friend's announcement. We recently had to take a decision on the matter. My right hon. Friend has heard the hon. Gentleman's comments about consultation.
Mr. Rogers : Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Wales, when he is engaged in framing the new Bill, to consider the alternative mini-barrage, which was proposed and discussed as part of the original thoughts of the development corporation some time ago? Will he take on board the statement of the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist), which was made in a disgraceful speech, criticising the Opposition for tabling so-called frivolous amendments?
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. We cannot have a post-mortem on the debate. I have asked the House to confine itself to questions on the statement made by the Leader of the House.
Mr. Rogers : You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central said during an Adjournment debate--
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The Leader of the House does not have responsibility for that speech.
Mr. Rogers : The hon. Gentleman said that the promoters were prepared to accept many of the constructive amendments that had been tabled by the Opposition. I ask the Leader of the House to ask the Secretary of State for Wales to take on board what the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central said, and to accept some of our constructive amendments in framing the Bill that he will bring to the House. Can the Leader of the House tell us when he will introduce the guillotine?
Mr. MacGregor : The hon. Gentleman's final point does not arise. Obviously, in the consultation my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will take account of what has been said during the progress of the Bill. That will include consideration at least of some of the amendments that might have been moved. That is a matter for my right hon. Friend. We shall introduce a Government Bill to achieve the main objective of the private Bill, which a few opponents have frustrated by preventing it from making progress.
Column 378
Mr. Roger Gale (Thanet, North) : Those of us who have been voting on the Bill throughout the night and who have seen our endeavours to ensure that the Bill makes progress frustrated are gratified by my right hon. Friend's statement. Is he aware that we have noticed throughout the night the absence of the Leader of the Opposition, who is a Welsh Member, and the lack of interest that he has taken in the Bill?
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. That is at least a gross discourtesy. It is an irrelevant and needless discourtesy.
Mr. Gale : I think that there are some in the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, who consider it a gross discourtesy that the Leader of the Opposition, who is a Welsh Member, has not been in the Chamber for at least part of the night.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should so blatantly disregard the advice that I offered him. He will have regard to the guidance that I have given.
Mr. Gale : If I am guilty of a grave discourtesy, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I apologise.
The Opposition have suggested that the statement of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is a move to come out of a disguise to pick up what was a private Bill. May I say to my right hon. Friend that many of us who have heard the arguments advanced by the promoter of the Bill and by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) have been impressed by those arguments? It is clear that the Government have been impressed by them and have taken them up. I hope that the Government's Bill, and the project, will make rapid progress.
Mr. MacGregor : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We would have much preferred the private Bill to pass through the House, and that was the process on which we embarked many hours ago.
Mr. MacGregor : That the House embarked on--that we in the House embarked on during the past year. Many of us have been present throughout the proceedings to demonstrate our position on the private Bill. We would have much preferred it to go the way that I have outlined, but as that was not possible we have taken the action of which I am glad my hon. Friend approves.
Mr. Rowlands : May I seek clarification of the time scale for the introduction of the new Bill? It is already mid-April, and I should like to know whether it is intended to introduce the Bill during this Session.
Dr. Marek : Is the Leader of the House aware that none of the Ministers on the Treasury Bench spoke throughout the debate? Is he further aware that it is the barrage part of the Bill that causes the most argument? I suspect that there is general agreement on both sides of the House about the overwhelming majority of the other measures in the Bill, which could be carried over without any problems. When the new Bill is framed, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consult widely and meaningfully on the barrage, for that is causing the problem.
Column 379
Mr. MacGregor : That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and, as I have already said, I am sure that he will be consulting.
Mr. Morley : Conservative Members' comments have shown what a sham and how corrupt is the private Bill procedure. At least the Government are being forced to show their hand. Having done that, will the Leader of the House assure us that the Government will comply fully with EC directives on conservation of important wetlands and SBA and potential SBA sites when they consider the issue?
Mr. MacGregor : I disagree entirely with the hon. Gentleman about the private Bill system, which provides an opportunity for opponents as part of a long-established procedure. However, it is equally right, where there is heavy public investment, for the Government to introduce their own Bill. I have already made it clear that we would much have preferred the Bill to proceed as a private measure.
Mr. Cryer : Does the Leader of the House accept that it is perfectly proper for hon. Members to exercise scrutiny over matters like the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill when important environmental issues are involved? It would have been a dereliction of duty if no amendments had been tabled and there had been no debates on the very important issues involved.
Now that the shabby conspiracy between the Secretary of State for Wales and the rest of the Cabinet has been revealed, it is time that the Leader of the House introduced the long-overdue changes to the private Bill procedure that the Government found convenient to delay because they have used that private Bill procedure as a way of pursuing Government policy. Today's events are the first honest developments that we have seen with regard to the private Bill procedure.
Mr. MacGregor : I reject the hon. Gentleman's final point. I have already made it clear that we would have preferred the Bill to have proceeded as a private Bill.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman's first point about the right of hon. Members to scrutinise private Bills. However, it is clear that the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill has received long scrutiny in both Houses, and I have the details of that scrutiny before me. We hoped that the Bill would progress with greater speed, and if it had made faster progress during the night that would have saved prolonged further consideration.
Column 380
I reject absolutely the claim that we are delaying the introduction of reforms to the private Bill procedure. I have already made an announcement to the House about that. Mr. Deputy Speaker has introduced changes to the Standing Orders that will take effect next Session, and I have made it clear that further announcements will be made shortly. We are pursuing reforms of the private Bill procedure.Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : Why will not the Leader of the House admit that, throughout the night, as on previous occasions with regard to private Bills, the Government lost control? They have staggered from one crisis to another under John the ditherer. When the Leader of the House introduces the new private Bill procedure, will he bear in mind that we need not just some trimming at the edges but a system that allows private Bills to be introduced which are not tainted by the whatever party is in government, so that writs can be issued to Cabinet Ministers and PPSs and the private Bill procedure is what it says it is and does not involve Ministers shuffling into the Division Lobbies in their carpet slippers in the middle of the night to help the promoters who are making money hand over fist whenever private Bills are introduced?
Mr. MacGregor : Ignoring entirely the hon. Gentleman's final comments, let me say that all hon. Members are entitled to participate in votes on private Bills, and to some extent that happened during the night. I reject the hon. Gentleman's charge. We have concluded that it is right to introduce a Government Bill to promote the Cardiff bay barrage. It is clear from the response and voting in the House, as well as from the response in the local area, that this decision, taken by the Government in the light of events, will be widely welcomed.
Mr. Roger Knapman (Stroud) : I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his announcement, but, when he prepares the Bill, will he bear in mind the remarks of the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley)? Will he ensure that the title of the Bill is printed in very large letters? The hon. Gentleman spoke at length on the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, but only recently when we considered the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill that affects his own constituency he--
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. We are dealing not with that Bill but with the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill.
Column 381
British Technology Group Bill
Postponed proceeding on Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, resumed.
8.30 pm
Dr. Lewis Moonie (Kirkcaldy) : We return from the glorious heights of Government incompetence over private Bills to the more mundane level of Government incompetence over the privatisation of the British Technology Group. I am delighted that the Minister is still with us.
I do not intend to prolong the debate. I have lost the enthusiasm for my speech that I had 13 hours ago. Suffice it to say that we remain implacably opposed to the privatisation of the British Technology Group, for the reasons that we outlined at great length on Second Reading and in Committee. We think that privatisation will damage an essential part of the support structure for technology transfer in this country. Therefore, I give the Minister notice that we shall oppose the Bill on Third Reading.
8.31 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Edward Leigh) : It is my pleasure to wind up the Third Reading debate that began over 13 hours ago, with some interruptions since then. Neither in our debates on Third Reading, nor in our debates on Report, nor in our long debates in Standing Committee did the Opposition succeed in sustaining their case. The fact is that the British Technology Group is a commercially viable operation, with no loans or debts outstanding to the Government. Its niche is to exploit inventions that potentially are commercially viable. We believe that its rightful and proper place is in the private sector.
I am sorry that, after a good night's sleep, the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) has not decided to change his mind. Perhaps he has realised at the last moment that we intend to bury the old National Enterprise Board. It is abolished by the Bill. Thereby we shall prevent any putative Labour Government from implementing any plan to resurrect that disastrous creation of the Wilson and Callaghan years.
We should now proceed to a vote on the Third Reading of this excellent Bill, which will give a bright, new commercial future to the British Technology Group.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill read the Third time, and passed.
Column 382
Legal Aid and Advice (Scotland)
8.32 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) : I beg to move
That the draft Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1991, which were laid before this House on 20th March, be approved.
With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I intend to submit for consideration by the House a package of regulations to uprate the financial limits for legal aid, increase the fees paid to solicitors and advocates for legal aid work and improve the administration of legal aid in Scotland.
The regulations will, first, uprate the limits of income below which legal aid is available free and ensure that the most vulnerable sections of our community continue to have that reassurance and protection. Secondly, the level of financial authority delegated to the profession in respect of legal aid advice and assistance is to be increased, with consequent benefits in terms of speed and efficiency for the profession, clients and the Scottish Legal Aid Board. Thirdly, legal aid fees have been substantially increased, particularly fees for civil legal aid work.
The first two sets of regulations increase the income limits below which legal aid is available free of any contribution, so the Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1991 and the Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1991 increase the lower disposable income limit for civil legal aid from £2,645 to £2,860 a year and increase the weekly disposable income above which a person is required to pay a contribution for legal advice and assistance from £64 to £70.
The latter regulations also prescribe the scale of contributions to be paid where weekly disposable income exceeds £70 but does not exceed £135. These proposed changes represent an increase of around 8.1 per cent., which matches the uprating level of income-related social security benefits. These increases maintain consistency with the corresponding eligibility limits in England and Wales. The regulations will ensure that those members of the public who are most in need will continue automatically to qualify for free legal aid and for free advice and assistance.
We are not at present proposing to uprate the upper eligibility limits. The whole question of the provision of legal aid and the role of eligibility criteria is being addressed in the current review of legal aid. The first consultative paper is likely to be published shortly. We shall make certain that Scottish interests are fully consulted and that in the consideration of any proposals full account is taken of Scottish circumstances. Pending the outcome, the Government consider it appropriate to leave the upper eligibility limits unchanged. It is nevertheless important to ensure that the income threshold for free legal aid is uprated, and this is what is proposed.
Mr. Menzies Campbell (Fife, North-East) : Are we to understand that there will be a separate review of Scottish legal aid, conducted in Scotland at the instigation of the Scottish Office, or is Scotland to be included in a United Kingdom consideration of these matters?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton : I am very glad to confirm that that is indeed the case. [ Interruption. ] Like
Column 383
me, the hon. and learned Gentleman is an advocate, and he knows that it is very important that I should provide correct information. As for the courts and this House, we believe in presenting nothing but the truth.The third set of regulations is the Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Prospective Cost) Regulations 1991 and its associate, the Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Prospective Cost) Amendment Regulations 1991. These will substantially increase the financial authority delegated to solicitors to incur expenditure on legal advice and assistance without prior reference to the Scottish Legal Aid Board. Their purpose is to increase the financial limit from £60 to £80. This will give solicitors more discretion to proceed with their important and urgent work without having to wait for the board's formal clearance, and will be of benefit to solicitors, clients and the board. It will thereby speed up their service to their customers. All the foregoing proposals are intended to come into force on 30 April 1991.
With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall now explain the purposes of the regulations that have been prayed against. The following regulations, which came into force on 1 April 1991, increase the level of fees payable to solicitors and advocates for legal aid work : in the Advice and Assistance (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1991 ; the Civil Legal Aid (Scotland) (Fees) Amendment Regulations 1991 ; the Criminal Legal Aid (Scotland) (Fees) Amendment Regulations 1991 ; and the Legal Aid (Scotland) (Fees in Civil Proceedings) Amendment Regulations 1991.
In combination, these regulations increase from 1 April 1991 the level of legal aid fees by the equivalent of 9 per cent. in expenditure terms. In the case of advocates, an across-the-board increase of 9 per cent. in fees for civil and criminal work has been awarded. On the solicitors' side, the detailed civil legal aid fees have been increased by an average of about 12 per cent. By bringing the main detailed fees for civil work carried out by solicitors up to the levels available for criminal work, the regulations conclude a significant step in the rationalisation of legal aid fee structures. This work started in 1988, and has proceeded with the co- operation of the Law Society. I am particularly pleased to have achieved this objective. The work on simplification and further rationalisation will continue.
The fees for criminal legal aid work and for legal advice and assistance have been increased by 8.5 per cent. The fee for assistance by way of representation has been increased by 16.5 per cent.--from £60 to £70. I am sure that all hon. Members will see that those increases are significant and should help in the further improvement of the Scottish legal aid service. I draw the attention of Scottish Members in particular to the fact that both the Faculty of Advocates for Scotland and the Law Society of Scotland have accepted the increases and have urged their implementation as from 1 April.
Finally, I refer to the Civil Legal Aid (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1991. These are subject to the negative resolution procedure and should come into operation on 22 April 1991. Their purpose is to provide clarification as to certain aspects of legal aid administration.
I have referred to the Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1991 and other
Column 384
proposals to revise legislation on legal aid in Scotland. They represent worthwhile improvements, and show our resolve to continue to maintain an effective legal aid service in Scotland and our willingness to respond to the changing needs of the service. 8.40 amMr. John Maxton (Glasgow, Cathcart) : I welcome the Secretary of State for Scotland to the Chamber. We are delighted to see him here at this time of the morning for a debate on an important but relatively minor issue. He could not find the time to attend the debate on national testing, which is such a major issue in Scotland. I am not surprised that the Minister received the consent of the Law Society and the Faculty of Advocates to increase fees in line with or higher than the rate of inflation. It would have been surprising had they not given their full- hearted support. Many other workers are not receiving increases in line with inflation, and certainly not above it.
We welcome the uprating of the eligibility levels for legal aid, but the debate offers an opportunity to ask one or two questions about the failure to increase the upper levels of eligibility where a contribution must be made. The Lord Chancellor's working party is reviewing legal aid in the United Kingdom, as the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) said. Separate legal aid regulations have always applied to Scotland because of the two different jurisdictions. I served on the Standing Committee that established the Scottish Legal Aid Board, quite separately from the rest of the United Kingdom. I am concerned that the regulations are being considered on a United Kingdom rather than a Scottish basis. Concern is being expressed in Scotland because nobody knows who is on the Lord Chancellor's working party and because the legal profession in Scotland has not been consulted. The regulations appear to pre-empt decisions that have been taken by the working party. It is feared that there will be a major review of civil legal aid and that someone who is on a certain income, instead of having to pay a set amount, will have to pay between £2,000 or £3,000 towards the costs before applying for legal aid. That appears to be what the Lord Chancellor will do, and he is quoted in Law Society documents as saying exactly that.
Before legislation, or even a report from the Lord Chancellor's working party, regulations are being laid which, by refusing to uprate the upper levels of eligibility, appear to pre-empt that decision. There are questions which the Minister has to answer. The regulations mean that eligibility for legal aid will be reduced in Scotland. There will be people in Scotland who will no longer be eligible. We are entitled to know whether it is Government policy to reduce the number of people in Scotland who will be eligible for civil legal aid. If so, why? Is it simply an exercise to cut costs, or is it the first step towards changing the basis of legal aid? What is the proportion of people in Scotland who are eligible for legal aid compared to the number in, say, 1979? The Law Society pointed out that that date was chosen not because of the general election in that year when the Government came into power, but simply because it represented a high point in regard to eligibility for legal aid.
Column 385
I hope that the Minister can tell us exactly what Government policy is on legal aid. Will he promise that, instead of tinkering with the legal aid system he will try to find a means of making it more efficient and cheaper for ordinary members of the public to have recourse to legal assistance when they are in dispute over an issue rather than having to go through a costly and lengthy court procedure? Without that, the legal aid bills will continue to grow, and large numbers of ordinary people will not be able to go to the courts to settle genuine grievances. I hope that the Minister will make a statement on that.8.46 am
Mr. Menzies Campbell (Fife, North-East) : I should begin by declaring an interest in that I am still, in a limited way, a practising member of the Faculty of Advocates and at least one set of regulations which is sought to be approved would have some financial benefit for those who practise as advocates in Scotland.
I should also declare that before being elected to the House I was a member of the Scottish Legal Aid Board and before that of the Legal Aid Central Committee, and that since resigning from the Scottish Legal Aid Board upon election to the House I have from time to time been asked to provide professional opinions to it on matters of construction of either the principal Act or regulations made under it.
As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) pointed out, the legislation in Scotland is separate and distinct from that in England and Wales. Of course, to a large extent that springs from the separate legal tradition in Scotland in which there was established, I think as long ago as the 15th century, a system of legal assistance afforded by the legal profession to those who were impecunious. In my judgment, the separate Scottish system justifies separate consideration in any review. For that reason, I am extremely disappointed to hear from the Minister that the review is being conducted on a United Kingdom basis. May we know how many persons, apart from the Lord Chancellor himself, with experience in the law of Scotland have been appointed to the review? May we know from what bodies and organisations in Scotland evidence is to be taken to ensure that proper conclusions are reached? Will evidence be sought from lay bodies as well as professional bodies, and will the interests of the consumer be taken into account?
Since the regulations are in part conditioned by the fact that the review is under way, the House should be given rather more detail about its terms, about those who are participating in it and about the extent to which the interests of those who either have recourse to legal aid or who are funded by it will be taken into account in Scotland.
The regulations do not expand on professional eligibility--in terms of the merits of a case--or financial eligibility. Do the regulations contain anything to remedy the problem that arose in the Granger case against the United Kingdom Government, about which I have written to the Minister? That case exposed that our procedure contained a defect in the arrangements for making legal aid available in some criminal trials for accused persons. That matter ultimately went to the European Court, and although some attempt has been made to meet the Court's criticism, it has not yet been enshrined in legislation. The
Column 386
regulations might have proved the proper opportunity for that important change in the system of eligibility for legal aid to be made.The failure to uprate the higher income limits means that during the period of the review and perhaps afterwards, depending on its conclusions, some people will not be eligible for legal aid who would have been if the higher income limits had been uprated in accordance with the percentage by which the lower income limits are uprated. That means that some people will be denied the opportunity of legal aid. That cannot be seen as anything other than a policy decision by the Government.
I hope that the Minister will spend a little time, even at about 8.50 am to explain why it was thought necessary to embark upon that policy change in advance of the review. There might be an argument for saying that we will have a review and then change the policy, but to change the policy in advance of the review seems to deny the effectiveness of the review.
I do not wish to detain the House much longer. As has been said, these are modest upratings. They do not address the continuing gap between the extent of fees for private, non-legal aid cases and legal aid cases. In Scotland, there has never been any difficulty in persuading either branch of the legal profession to accept instructions on the basis of a legal aid fee. But there is growing evidence to suggest that, for many solicitors, the cost of maintaining practices and the overheads that they face are likely to make taking on legal aid work increasingly unprofitable--to the extent that, for some of them at least, it may represent a loss. There must be a limit to the extent to which the solicitors' branch of the profession can be expected to sustain that loss. That is a matter that the review should certainly address, because the gap between legal aid fees and private fees is known to be increasing all the time.
For those who practise the law in Scotland, the regulations will represent a modest increase in the fees that they are entitled to charge in accordance with the rate of inflation. Clearly it is no one's interests that the regulations should fail to gain the approval of the House, and I would not seek to suggest that for a moment. However, the regulations raise more questions than they answer and, in due course, the Government will have to come to the House with a comprehensive view of the future of legal aid and the extent to which they believe that it is still to be regarded as demand-led. There is more than a little evidence to suggest that there are some people in the Government who believe that legal aid should be the subject of financial capping. Whereas previously people who were eligible were entitled to access to legal aid, there may be cash limits so that the amount of legal aid available will inevitably be determined by the number of people who apply in any one year. That would be wholly contrary to the terms of the original legislation. It would drive a horse and cart through the right of every citizen to have recourse to the law to vindicate any legal rights which he or she may have. It would be a serious departure from what many people view as a fundamental liberty of the subject in the United Kingdom, and the Government will in due course have to address it.
8.55 am
Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland) : I shall not detain the House, but I wish briefly to ask the Minister about a case involving the administration of legal aid--a
Column 387
case in my constituency that has received considerable national prominence. It would certainly be improper to go into any question of the merits of the case of the alleged child abuse in Orkney, but the Minister is well aware that legal aid issues arise from it. The House may be interested to know that two solicitors from local firms have been acting for two families each. The circumstances of this case have meant that they have taken telephone calls, sent out fax messages, and intimated notices of motions on behalf of each other's clients. I can confirm, from my own observations, that the solicitors involved have been working most hours of the day to pursue the interests of their clients.The legal aid regulations do not neatly cover such circumstances, especially when it comes to feeing. The question that I ask the Minister to address--I have already put it to him in correspondence--is whether, with the fiat of the Secretary of State, and under the principal statute, the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986, a simplified method of feeing can be provided for in this case. The solicitors were heavily engaged in instructing counsel and in preparing for a proof before the sheriff ; if they had had to follow the detailed regulations of the legal aid provisions, they would probably have spent most of their time filling in time sheets relating to every telephone call taken, every fax sent and every letter read or dictated, which would have detracted from the main purpose of what I think that every hon. Member would accept was a case of considerable concern and seriousness.
The other matter will be partly covered by the regulations that we are debating which increase the level of fees. It is my understanding that in a case such as the one in Orkney the sheriff is entitled to allow an uplift of the fees of up to 50 per cent. I understand that that has been accepted by the Scottish Legal Aid Board. However, even if one accepted the increase proposed in the fees, and an uplift of 50 per cent. granted by the sheriff, that would still fall considerably short of what their counterparts would have got in England and Wales for undertaking similar work. Some explanation is required as to why that difference has been allowed to occur. I should emphasise that it is certainly no part of the solicitors' concern that these cases should be their great profit-making work for the year. They seek fair remuneration and the effort that they have shown has been in the best traditions of the legal assistance provided by the Scottish legal profession, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) said, for centuries. They have shown dedication to their clients that is consistent with that tradition.
Finally, in correspondence, the Minister has certainly acknowledged and praised the dedication with which those solicitors have set about their work. Although they acknowledge and accept the Minister's praise for their dedication, I think that they would prefer, or would seek to have in addition, simplified procedures for dealing with the feeing of this case and slightly more generosity than would appear to be possible even under these regulations.
8.58 am
| Next Section
| Home Page |