| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 395
Scotland. In fact, the average cost per case in Scotland was £815. I realise that it is unfair to compare the two costs because of different systems ; nevertheless, in England and Wales it was £2,008 per case. Therefore, the Chancellor, having noticed the spiralling costs in England, had a knee-jerk reaction, Treasury-led, which fed through to Scotland. As was said earlier, we were hanging on the coat- tails of the action that had to be taken immediately here in England because of the spiralling costs.Mr. Mike Watson (Glasgow, Central) : On that point of the cost, my hon. Friend will have heard the Minister say that the cost of civil legal aid had almost doubled in the past five years. Does he recall that, at last week's meeting of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, Mr. Brian Adair, president of the Law Society of Scotland, refuted that saying there had been no increase in real terms, and that it was only over the past year. He described the increase as a blip, and said that it was due to a number of factors, including the fact that solicitors are submitting their accounts faster because of the recession.
Is it not a fact that there is no demand for this review of legal aid in Scotland, and that we are just being tagged on the back of the English and Welsh review, for reasons which suit the Government but do not suit the people or the legal profession in Scotland?
Mr. McKelvey : That is indeed the case, but if there is--as there ought to be--an immediate investigation of legal aid costs in England and Wales, I would not object to a subsequent investigation into the costs of legal aid in Scotland, because, if there is any waste of money by virtue of the system, such money could be put to a proper use by making legal aid available to a larger number of people rather than a smaller number, as will happen under these regulations. I cannot give evidence, because there has not been an investigation to provide it, but from a gut reaction and from my own personl experience as a constituency Member of the people who come to me seeking advice, I feel that there is no question but that the recession, with greater unemployment, has led to more domestic separations and violence, and more problems caused by the lack of jobs or money. It must have had an effect on people who seek legal aid, and it is those very people that we are going to bar. I do not want to get involved in the numbers game, but if there is one person, one family, one group, who will be denied legal aid and yet who deserve it in all justice, there is something wrong with this process that we are going through today. Several groups of people have written to us--Family Law, the citizens' advice bureaux, Glasgow Women's Aid, the Scottish Council for Civil Liberties, the Scottish Association for Mental Health, the Law Society--and a common thread runs through their letters. They have made out a case not for themselves but for those who, they say, will suffer because of this legislation, and they are not just the poorest and neediest but include even those on moderate incomes. Are the Government seeking to turn this legislation into an extension of the benefits system? I suspect that they are. I object to that, and I support the objections from various groups.
Family law cases account for the majority of expenditure in civil legal aid cases and for half the expenditure in advice and assistance. It follows that any reduction in eligibility would have a major impact on that
Column 396
area of law. The majority of initiators of family proceedings are women. The nature of the eligibility criteria for civil legal aid are such that only the woman's income is assessed, and the husband's is discounted. As women are traditionally responsible for child care, they are often in part-time employment to fit in with their child care obligations. Women are also traditionally at the lower end of the earnings scale. Any reduction in eligibility for civil aid will disproportionately affect women across a broad spectrum. I am not saying that there are not men in that position ; of course there are. However, proportionately it is women who will bear the brunt of the cuts.Glasgow Women's Aid says :
"Abuse of women takes place in every sector of society ; both rich and poor men are abusive, and regardless of the financial situation within the family few women have control over the financial resources."
That is not a guess, but a fact. Women in Scotland will bear the brunt of the suggested cuts.
Although the Government announced on 17 February revisions to their proposals to change the legal aid system in Scotland, there remains concern that individuals' access to justice is under serious threat. The Scottish Council for Civil Liberties says of the legal aid system :
"This is an important right which has been recognised by many international treaties and courts and cannot be discarded lightly." If the Government are modern, democratic and caring--they say that they pursue policies of charters for people : charters for patients, charters for pupils and charters for pupils' parents--they cannot turn their back on the basis on which the interests of people are looked after--the question of human rights.
The universal declaration of human rights, which has been adopted by 48 states of the United Nations General Assembly, says in article 7 :
"All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law".
The people of Scotland, of England, of Northern Ireland and of Wales are entitled to that equality, and are entitled not to be discriminated against. They should not be concerned, as they are at the moment, about what will happen to them after today's debate. The Scottish Association for Mental Health has outlined two important areas which we should consider : civil legal aid and mental health hearings. If the proposed changes to civil legal aid take place, people with disabilities might have to face large bills for legal fees if they were involved in court proceedings. Among the proceedings covered by the rules would be a hearing to determine whether a person should be detained in hospital under section 18 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984.
Among the people who might be affected by the changes are those on invalidity benefit. A person who was unable to work because of mental health problems could be entitled to invalidity benefit if he or she had paid the appropriate contributions. The benefits range from £54.15 for older people to £65.70 for a disabled person who is under 40. A person in the first category would have to pay £200 towards the cost of a mental health hearing, whereas the younger person's contribution would be £300.85. To pay such a sum out of such an income would be unthinkable for a normal person. It is intolerable that we should consider imposing such a burden on a person suffering the stress and strain of mental disability.
The effects of the cuts on people with disabilities are similar. They receive extra income only because the
Column 397
benefits system recognises the extra living costs that are associated with disability. If we take the approach that we should penalise that group of people, how on earth can we be considered humane, modern, democratic or caring? It is because those concerns are shared by the disability movement in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland that we are grateful that the submissions of disability organisations should be circulated in the House today. Declarations made by hon. Members about those groups of people will be recorded and read, and should be acted on by the Government. I have no overall solution to the problem of the growing cost of legal aid. The matter has never been investigated properly. However, I have one direct suggestion for the Minister. He should withdraw the motions and have a proper inquiry into the whole question not only of legal aid, both civil and criminal, but of the judicial system and its costs. I do not know why it is so much more costly to defend cases in England than in Scotland. The comparisons are worth making. If the Minister cannot do that, my advice to his hon. Friends, who I believe are genuinely concerned about the issue and about the groups of people who will be affected, is at least to abstain tonight, if they cannot join us in the Lobby to defeat the Government. 6.26 pmMr. James Pawsey (Rugby and Kenilworth) : I listened with considerable interest to the speech made by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). It was an especially thoughtful speech and I congratulate him on it. I was interested in his passing reference to the ombudsman and I believe that he was right to make that reference. I believe, as I am sure other hon. Members agree, that the ombudsman has a part to play in this area. I find it significant that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson), who is sitting in his usual place in the Chamber, played a prominent part this morning in the activities of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, which discussed the ombudsman. Mr. William Reed could do much to assist the House on matters relating not only to the health service, but to a wide range of other issues, such as the Legal Aid Board.
In considering the future of legal aid, it is necessary first to look at the nation's economic position. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor made it clear in his Budget statement that we face a deficit of £35 billion this year, which will rise to £50 billion next year. We all know that the reason is a major recession and we all know that recessions squeeze Government revenues both ways. They reduce the amount coming in and they increase the amount spent on benefits. Given that position, it is necessary to take a long, hard look at the cost of legal aid.
The House will be aware that the cost of legal aid has risen dramatically. In 1988-89, the cost was £475 million. Four years later, it is well over £1 billion--a rise of about 130 per cent. Revised estimates for this year already show a substantial increase on that enormous figure. Like all other hon. Members, I understand the importance of legal aid. Without it, justice would be denied to a substantial number of those who are worse off, but action is necessary
Column 398
to curtail the rising cost. Legal aid should not, therefore, be regarded as some form of income support designed exclusively for the convenience of the legal profession.Mr. Llwyd : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Pawsey : I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has sat through the entire debate.
Mr. Llwyd : On the question of necessary action, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the courts could be run more efficiently? When I was in private practice as a solicitor, I appeared in court daily in a rural part of my constituency. I found that there were often five or six other solicitors waiting for their cases to come up. They frequently waited for half a day, which cost the country hundreds of pounds. Should not this matter be taken up immediately at the highest level? Secondly, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the practice, in civil listing centres, of listing three active trials per day on the basis of the often wrong premise that two will settle is also stupid, ridiculous and costly and ought to be looked at?
Mr. Pawsey : Again, the hon. Gentleman makes valid points, which I have no doubt will be referred to in my hon. Friend's winding up speech. Clearly, it would have been very helpful to listen to a major contribution from the hon. Gentleman, had time allowed.
It is argued that as solicitors are human there may sometimes be a level of abuse, with adjournments requested and granted by the courts even when they are not strictly necessary. Cases are sometimes disposed of with a slowness which may owe more to legal aid than to legal complexity. I readily accept that the fault is not all on one side. Were the clerk of a court to consider lists more carefully, it might prove possible to avoid having solicitors waiting in court while unrepresented cases are heard.
Mr. David Ashby (Leicestershire, North-West) : And barristers.
Mr. Pawsey : I take my hon. Friend's point.
It should always be remembered that the legal aid clock is ticking at the charge while the solicitor or the barrister is in court. Even if it is not his case, it is a magh them, but I commend them to the House. These are admirable regulations which should be implemented as soon as possible.
6.32 pm
Mr. Paul Boateng (Brent, South) : As a practising barrister, I should first declare an interest.
We shall oppose these regulations in the Lobby because they represent a betrayal of the bipartisan approach to legal aid which has lasted in this House since 1949, when the Lord Chancellor's Department was able to announce, to universal acclamation, proposals "as a result of which no one would be financially unable to prosecute a just and reasonable claim or to defend a legal right." In 1979, during a debate on the outgoing Labour Government's proposals to improve legal aid, it was clear from remarks of the then shadow Solicitor-General--soon to be Solicitor-General Sir Ian Percival--that the
Column 399
incoming Conservative Government would be committed to a legal aid system such as had been described by Sir Hartley Shawcross, the Attorney-General in 1949, as"a charter for the little man to the British courts."
The Legal Aid Act 1979, under which these regulations are made, is a real charter--not a phoney charter such as has been introduced by the present Government. It is a charter providing that all people, regardless of their means, should have access to the courts. It is not the sort of access that we have heard described--access to the Ritz for someone unable to buy a meal within those sacred portals. The Act provides a right to legal assistance and advice, to ensure that no one is financially unable to prosecute a just and reasonable claim or to defend a legal right.
That cross-party consensus is betrayed in these regulations and by the Lord Chancellor, and Conservative Members who vote for the regulations ought to be ashamed of themselves. The right of all people, even the most deprived and regardless of means, to access to the courts ought not to be a matter of party political controversy. Legal advice and assistance for those who need it ought to be a right. In the course of the debate to which I have referred, Ian Percival drew an analogy. He said that this right ought to be comparable to people's right to health care. The then Mr. Percival, the Conservative shadow Solicitor-General of the day and Solicitor-General-to- be, said :
"Just as it was unthinkable that an accident victim's injuries should be untreated through inability to pay his doctor, so he should not be prevented through lack of funds from pursuing his just remedies at law."-- [ Official Report, 30 March 1979 ; Vol. 965, c. 841.]
Mr. Percival was right then, and we are right in our opposition to these regulations.
Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) : Hon. Members will have seen early-day motion 1726, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), myself and other hon. Members, concerning benzodiazepine cases. Across the country, there are about 18,000 such people in great hardship. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should take a fresh look at such cases and at the way in which multi-party actions are handled? Does he agree that, in any review, the House should look very carefully at the possibility in such cases of the introduction of no-fault liability? That might assist
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse) : Order. The time available for the debate is limited, and this is a very long intervention.
Mr. Boateng : There is certainly scope for taking up the issues raised by that important early-day motion. It is possible, not least in the area of multi-party actions, to make some savings in terms of legal aid and to provide better protection from those affected by oppressive action.
Dr. Liam Fox (Woodspring) : The hon. Gentleman made a point about limited funds. The funds for the national health service are not unlimited. Does the Labour party believe that funds for legal aid should be unlimited? If not, what limit would it set?
Mr. Boateng : In this House it is customary, when someone has given way, to show a little more grace than the hon. Gentleman has shown. However, I shall respond in kind. We believe that it is as wrong for health to be
Column 400
rationed in the way that the Conservative Government have rationed it as it is for access to justice to be rationed, as they propose to do under these regulations.It is important that we put the interests of the consumer above all other considerations. Of course we should take note of the question of remuneration and of costs. It is important that we seek ways of achieving efficiency in these areas, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) indicated, but it is important also to look at how the interests of the consumer are affected by these regulations.
Like many other hon. Members on both sides, I expect, I have received letters from numerous solicitors--not only legal practitioners, but social work practitioners and others involved in this area--as well as from people in receipt of legal aid. Perhaps the most striking of those contributions came from a firm of solicitors called Daniel and Harris, which practises in north-west London. On behalf of solicitors who represent not the fat cats of the Queen's Bench division and their Fleet street employers--important though that area of law undoubtedly is and as erudite as the contribution from the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) was--but the poorest and most disadvantaged, that firm stated :
"The majority of our clients do not choose to go to law. Battered women do not have a choice about taking injunction proceedings to protect themselves and their children. Local authority tenants do not have a choice about defending possession proceedings, often for rent arrears that have arisen because of the council's failure to pay itself housing benefit. The homeless do not have a choice about challenging the council's decision to refuse to house them. The social and human costs of the Lord Chancellor's proposals are enormous. The proposals are mean, short-sighted and unjust." The people concerned in the field share that view without exception.
Although the proposals are unsatisfactory, it is no wonder that they fail to meet the interests of justice when we consider how they came into being. The proposals do not stem from research carried out by the Lord Chancellor's Department into cost-effectiveness and efficiency. Opposition Members, and, I hope, hon. Members in all parts of the House, want that research to be carried out. As my hon. Friends the Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey), for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) and for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) have said, we want a thorough and comprehensive review of the cost-effectiveness or otherwise of the legal aid system. To go beyond that, we would like a broad view taken of the whole of our criminal and civil justice system to see how it can be made more consumer friendly and how it can deliver the goods more effectively to people seeking justice.
The proposals do not emanate from that compulsion. They emanate from the Treasury. The origin of the regulations lies in the Treasury and in the desire to save money at the expense of justice. That is no basis on which to proceed, and we shall oppose the regulations for that reason.
The impact of the regulations on a particular section of the community which has not been mentioned very much in the debate causes particular concern and is illustrative of a wider problem in respect of the Legal Advice and Assistance (Amendment) Regulations 1993, which deals specifically with the green form and advice by way of representation. The people about whom I am concerned here are those who require the assistance of the legal advice
Column 401
and aid scheme when dealing with issues of mental health and care in the community. As a result of those regulations, many of those people will slip through the net. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) reminded the House of the Lord Chancellor's stated concerns in that area and his reference to the importance of a safety net to ensure that people do not just slip through the system as a result of the regulations. We are entitled to ask where that safety net is. What proposals are being introduced today to show that consideration has been given to that area? I will give a brief example of the impact of the regulations in respect of mental health. Section 47 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 will give carers and users of services legal rights to assessment from 1 April. From that date, too, however--it is ironic that it should happen on the same day-- many of those people will be unable to afford the advice of a solicitor to enforce those rights. What is the point of giving rights with one hand while taking away the means of enforcing those rights with the other? That is unfair and it is not right. The House should reflect that in the Lobby tonight.The problems do not end there. Let us consider the impact of the regulations on a person of modest means--I make no apology for joining my colleagues in emphasising that particular aspect of the regulations--and particularly the way in which they affect women. Time and again, women are disadvantaged. I have an example of that from Sunderland, Tyne and Wear. I will describe the lady in question as Ann T. She used to work as a part- time cleaner, but she is unable to work as she was badly injured by a motorist. Her husband earns £126 a week. She is currently entitled to legal advice under the green form, with a contribution of £12, so that she can be advised in respect of a possible claim against the Motor Insurance Bureau. Under the proposals, she will not be entitled to any subsidised or free legal advice or assistance. We have heard nothing from Conservative Members to show that people like Ann T. will be given any consideration in the regulations.
We shall oppose the regulations. They are a denial of justice. We intend to fight them tooth and nail now, and we shall continue to do so.
6.46 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor) : In the 14 minutes left to me, I will endeavour to replyto the many points that have been made in the debate. I hope that the House will bear with me and not think me graceless if, in those circumstances, I take no interventions.
May I first of all congratulate the Home Affairs Select Committee and its learned Chairman, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), on their report. I thank my hon. and learned Friend and tell him that I have taken note of his remarks on conditional fees, private legal insurance, ADR--alternative dispute resolution--and small claims procedures.
May I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) on his thoughtful speech, which brought the proceedings of the Home Affairs Select Committee to life here in the Chamber. However, I would
Column 402
not wish to raise his hopes on rapid progress on those matters of co-operation with the professions which have been on the agenda of the efficiency commission since 1986. Together with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), I acknowledge the very remarkable talents of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn).Mrs. Roche : I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way and for his congratulations to the Home Affairs Select Committee. Given those congratulations, may I remind him of the Committee's recommendation that
"the Government commit itself to restoring cuts in eligibility in real terms when compensatory savings are found, and that it set a long term goal of ensuring that citizens have access to advice and assistance either free or at a price they can afford"?
Will the Minister give that assurance?
Mr. Taylor : The cost penalty of allowing that intervention is probably a matter of regret. However, I promise the hon. Lady that I will very carefully consider that. In fact, having read the Select Committee report once, I will re-read it. I cannot say fairer than that.
I was addressing my remarks to the very unusual talents of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross. He said that expenditure on civil legal aid in Scotland has dropped. I am afraid that I must tell him that there has been a large surge in civil legal aid expenditure in Scotland over the past year--almost £24 million now compared with £16.5 million in 1991-92.
Several hon. Members spoke about improving the efficiency of court procedures. There is a Standing Committee operating in Scotland to that end and there is the royal commission in England and Wales. I am sure that all who follow these events look forward with interest to their results.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) looked for further instruments of control. I invite him to share our thinking in anticipation of standard fees, franchising and fixed hourly rates in non- matrimonial cases, alongside his proper hopes for alternative dispute resolution.
The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Birmingham) and others spoke of the vulnerabilities in certain circumstances of women. It is important to remember that for civil legal aid for women facing domestic violence, it is likely, where a husband or wife have contrary interests--where their means are separately assessed--that, women in those circumstances will be among the least affected by the changes and will be ready candidates for an emergency legal aid certificate.
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) that I shall be more than glad to look at the difficulties to which she referred with the Legal Aid Board and I shall be happy if she will pursue those matters with me and my Department. I must tell the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey)-- [Interruption.] I am sorry if I pronounced his constituency incorrectly ; I shall content myself with referring to it simply as Kilmarnock. He detected the increase in Scottish expenditure as a blip. As the Parliamentary Under-Secretary explained, the caseload, measured by grants of legal aid, which will fuel future expenditure, has continued and is continuing to increase inexorably in Scotland.
Column 403
In 1979, the cost of legal aid was less than £100 million. In the year which ends today, it will be £1.1 billion. Over the past four years alone, legal aid expenditure has risen by 130 per cent. That cannot be allowed to continue. If it were to continue, expenditure would be nearly £2 billion by the mid-1990s.The measures which are contained in the instruments that are before the House will help to contain the large and rapid growth in expenditure. But in doing so, they will safeguard access to justice to the greatest extent possible and will target the available money to where it is most needed.
It is important to remember that there is no question of legal aid being cut. Expenditure will rise by 10 per cent., 10 per cent. and 10 per cent. over the next three years to £1.528 billion in 1995-96. Over the same period, we expect the number of "acts of
assistance"--that is, grants of legal aid or advice and assistance--to rise from 3.4 million in the current year to over 4 million. That is an increase approaching 25 per cent. In 1979-80, there were fewer than 1 million acts of assistance. The legal aid scheme is not being destroyed. It is continuing to grow.
It would be wrong to deny--and we have not sought to hide--that, as a result of the changes, fewer people will take advantage of legal aid than otherwise would have been the case. But the figures that I have given put into context the suggestions that the changes will affect as many as 14 million people. Clearly, it is nonsense to suggest that 14 million people will drop out of a scheme that helps just over 3 million people.
Let us explore that by looking in turn at civil legal aid, criminal legal aid and advice and assistance. In calculating disposable income--we talk about disposable income and that is important--for legal aid purposes, allowances are made for tax and national insurance, dependants, community charge, which in future will be council tax, housing costs, being rent or mortgage, water and sewerage charges and upkeep and insurance, work-related expenses, being fares, subscriptions to trade unions or professional associations, and the cost of child minding. In addition, assessing officers have discretion to allow other expenses, of which repayments of loan for home improvements and school fees are examples. That is a pretty hefty list of items to be discounted in determining disposable income.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose --
Mr. Taylor : I am sure that I shall regret it, but I give way to my hon. Friend.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : Put like that, my hon. Friend deserves to regret it. In fact, he probably will not, because I am simply asking him to confirm what the Lord Chancellor said and what has always been said-- that disability allowances are also allowable.
Mr. Taylor : I think that is right-- [Interruption.] I read the litany once. I am not sure that the House wants me to read it all over again.
The amending regulations provide that from 12 April, attendance allowance, disability living allowance, constant attendance allowance paid as an increase to a disablement pension and any payment out of the social fund will be disregarded in the calculation of disposable income for advice and assistance. Those are additional disregards
Column 404
which bring advice and assistance into line with legal aid. That additional help recognises in particular the needs of those with disabilities.Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that explanation.
Mr. Taylor : I hope that I have been able to retrieve my apparent lack of grace and I thank my hon. Friend for asking an extremely helpful question.
It has been argued that the changes are unnecessary. It has been suggested that because there has been in recent months a fall in the caseload of magistrates courts and a fall in the volume of criminal legal aid orders, the necessary savings will be found without any changes. But the Lord Chancellor is committed to expenditure targets not only for 1993-94 but for the further two years of the public expenditure survey. We cannot change plans on the basis of what may prove to be merely a blip in the trend of criminal business. It has also been suggested that civil legal aid and personal injury litigation in particular are self-financing. That is not the case. Civil legal aid as a whole carries a net cost to the legal aid fund and, although the recovery of costs is relatively high in personal injury cases, so too does that category of case.
The Lord Chancellor and I appreciate the sincerity of the arguments which have been put to us, not least by the professions. However, the fact which must be faced is that the Lord Chancellor must take steps now to ensure that the expenditure totals to which he is committed until 1995-96 will be achieved. Ifs and buts and maybes will not do. We need to be certain that expenditure will be brought under control. The changes in the regulations will provide the required certainty. But in attempting to achieve that control, we have done all that we can to preserve access to legal services. The scope of the legal aid scheme is unchanged : legal aid and advice and assistance will continue to cover the range of legal problems which it now covers. Almost half all households will be eligible for civil legal aid. That is not a bad poor man's lawyer. More than a fifth will be eligible for free legal aid and the same number will be eligible for advice and assistance. Criminal legal aid will be largely unaffected. Over the next three years, expenditure will grow by over 30 per cent. and the volume of legal aid business will grow by 25 per cent. We shall, of course, keep all that under review.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn rose --
Mr. Taylor : I will not give way to my hon. and learned Friend at this stage. To do so would be even more hazardous. I am sorry that he did not hear my earlier remarks and those of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary about the great talent that he has and how seldom we find that he is mistaken in his contributions to our debates, although he managed it today.
Working within the priorities set for public expenditure, we have had to set our priorities for legal aid. We have planned for significant growth and we have targeted the available money to where it is most needed. We still have a legal aid system of which we can be proud. It is arguably the best in the world and arguably the most expensive, too. But, as the Lord Chancellor said, every pound that is spent on legal aid is a pound that cannot be
Column 405
spent on housing, education, transport or the health service. This is a debate about priorities and we have taken a responsible position on the priorities.I shall end with a quotation from Lord Williams of Mostyn, who said, since the autumn statement :
"Ours is probably the most generous system of legal aid in the world."
He is a former chairman of the Bar Council and he speaks for Labour in the other place. I agree with him and I commend his words to the House.
Question put :--
The House divided : Ayes 304, Noes 259.
Division No. 226] [7 pm
AYES
Adley, Robert
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Aitken, Jonathan
Alexander, Richard
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Amess, David
Ancram, Michael
Arbuthnot, James
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Ashby, David
Aspinwall, Jack
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Baldry, Tony
Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Bates, Michael
Bellingham, Henry
Bendall, Vivian
Beresford, Sir Paul
Biffen, Rt Hon John
Blackburn, Dr John G.
Body, Sir Richard
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Booth, Hartley
Boswell, Tim
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Bowden, Andrew
Bowis, John
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Brandreth, Gyles
Brazier, Julian
Bright, Graham
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Browning, Mrs. Angela
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Budgen, Nicholas
Burns, Simon
Burt, Alistair
Butcher, John
Butler, Peter
Butterfill, John
Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Carrington, Matthew
Carttiss, Michael
Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Churchill, Mr
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Coe, Sebastian
Colvin, Michael
Congdon, David
Conway, Derek
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Cormack, Patrick
Couchman, James
Cran, James
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Davis, David (Boothferry)
Day, Stephen
Deva, Nirj Joseph
Devlin, Tim
Dorrell, Stephen
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Dover, Den
Duncan, Alan
Duncan-Smith, Iain
Dunn, Bob
Durant, Sir Anthony
Dykes, Hugh
Eggar, Tim
Elletson, Harold
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Evennett, David
Faber, David
Fabricant, Michael
Fenner, Dame Peggy
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Fishburn, Dudley
Forman, Nigel
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Freeman, Roger
French, Douglas
Fry, Peter
Gale, Roger
Gallie, Phil
Gardiner, Sir George
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Garnier, Edward
Gill, Christopher
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Gorst, John
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Grylls, Sir Michael
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Hague, William
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Hampson, Dr Keith
| Next Section
| Home Page |