House of Commons Hansard Debates for 8 Jun 1993

Column 239

When faced with the stark facts, the promoters say that they are only too happy to abide by the construction industry's best code of practice, which means that no lorries will emerge from the work sites at night. The disturbance caused by digging and other extraction from the tunnel will be minimised. I hope that those disturbance problems will be ironed out in Committee. I have spoken to the promoters and I am satisfied that they are bearing the problems in mind and trying to ensure that our city, which needs the infrastructure, will suffer as little as possible during the construction stage.

I support the Bill, not because it will provide a kick start, as the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) suggested--I hope that it will be more of an electrical start--but because it will improve infrastructure in the working as well as the investment environment. I also support it because of the spin-offs that it will provide for my Finchley constituency- -through Tottenham Court Road and the fact that it will mean fewer cars on the roads in all surburban parts of London. I believe that the project is well designed and a good buy. It will provide 150 km of new concept railway from a tunnel that is only 10 km long--it is demonstrably a good buy.

The project has a wider general benefit. The improvements that we gain tonight by way of the Crossrail Bill will, I hope, tomorrow apply to the Northern line.

9.57 pm

Mr. Mike Gapes (Ilford, South) : I speak as a Member of Parliament who represents a constituency which has a station on the crossrail line but which will not, as far as I know, be substantially changed. There are strong arguments for improving Ilford station which we could consider. I believe that the Bill and the project should be supported as a necessary but insufficient step towards improving transport from east London and Essex across London.

If crossrail becomes a reality, it will significantly reduce travel time to Paddington. It will make it possible for people from my constituency to travel to Heathrow airport without having to allow two hours to get there and then waiting an hour for a plane which might be delayed. It is a long journey from Ilford and parts of north-east London to Heathrow airport. If the developments, including a possible change at Heathrow and the crossrail link to Heathrow are achieved, they will greatly benefit my constituents.

I have a number of concerns about the Bill. I do not want to repeat what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) and for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). We must consider an integrated long-term plan for public transport in our capital city. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) referred to 1947 and the development of the Central line. He may not be aware that London Transport is currently proposing to stop trains running between Epping and Ongar.

Over the years there have been significant cuts in the Hainault to Woodford line. Anyone who travels on the Central line into central London and stands on the overcrowded platforms at Leytonstone or Leyton when trains are delayed, as my constituents do, will know that it becomes positively dangerous for any more trains to empty their passengers on to the platforms as there is no

Column 240

space. People who travel on that line will know of the need for significant improvements, as well as proper integration with the British Rail link.

We must consider the channel tunnel--its connection to Stratford and a passenger interchange at Stratford, which is vital. In that way we could take some of the pressure off the existing Central line. But the real answer lies in investment in public transport. I refer not simply to crossrail but to the whole gamut of public transport services in London. I am especially worried on that count when I recall that last year's autumn statement led to drastic cuts in the investment funds available to London Transport. That has resulted in LT not being able to do the job that we all accept is necessary. Investment is vital if public transport in the capital is to work more efficiently. To achieve efficiency, we must have the necessary resources, yet we know from what has occurred with the Jubilee line and the channel tunnel that we cannot rely on hypothetical private sector investment--

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,

That, at this day's sitting, the Crossrail Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until Midnight.-- [Mr. Conway.]

Question again proposed, That the Bill be read a Second time.

Mr. Gapes : We cannot leave it to the whims of the private sector to do the job. Proper public investment is necessary, so while I support the Bill, I remain wary lest it is the precursor of further privatisation of London's public transport system.

10.1 pm

Mr. George Walden (Buckingham) : I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on taking the Bill forward. It is particularly welcome to me because it means that a matter of great and direct importance to my constituency is in the hands of an extremely capable and trusted hon. Friend and neighbour.

A glance at the map shows that my constituency is shaped like a funnel. Many people dribble down it into Aylesbury, so the line there is vital to many of my constituents, particularly bearing in mind the fact that my area is not well served by large roads. Clearly, we have a strong interest in the Bill and we welcome crossrail proceeding through to the Aylesbury link.

Access to London by road from my part of the world is highly problematical, as anyone who has traversed Western avenue will know. Road works along it are eternal. The A413 is in part reduced to what resembles a single track country road. It is all very primitive and old-fashioned and we need a modern high-speed, low-priced--an important point, to which I shall come-- railway such as exists in some curious countries on the mainland of Europe.

The Minister should not be too upset at displays of scepticism over some financial aspects of the proposal. I am sorry to say that I vibrated a little in sympathy with some of the arguments adduced by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). I say that because scepticism is justified when we remember that we have no examples of such grandiose ideas of public-private railway systems functioning, not just in this but in analogous countries.

Column 241

Others, like me, find when they are abroad that private telephones work, so we vote for them here ; that private electricity companies work, so we vote for them here ; and that private water companies work, so we vote for them here. But I do not vote for the privatisation of railways for the simple and pragmatic reason that I have not experienced many of them abroad. Indeed, I have not used them abroad and, as a Conservative, I like the idea of seeing things working before I vote for them.

Hence, like some Opposition Members, I am worried about the financial future of the Bill. While hon. Members on both sides are saying that it is a grand idea, I am left wondering who will pay for it.

I differ from Opposition Members in that I am ready to say that I would like the Government to adopt a much more centralising, strategic role in transport planning, but I also believe it logically impossible to want that without stating where the money will come from. So, in order to maximise Government spending as necessary on proper transport schemes we must be perfectly honest about where the money will come from. It should, of course, come from a diminution of universal benefits and tax breaks, such as mortgage tax relief, which damage our economy. That money should be put into transport as a prime area of investment, to strengthen our economy.

Anyone who believes that this is a quirky view should read the article in The Daily Telegraph today, written by Mr. Howard Davies, the director of the CBI, who singles out transport as the prime area in which the Government should invest for the benefit of industry and the country.

I do not want to sound too doubtful. I should be delighted if the Government came up with a viable and swift scheme for public-private co- operation. That is what my constituents want. Conversely, I would be pretty fed up--as would many of my constituents--if this beautiful idea evaporated because it was not anchored in sensible finance. 10.6 pm

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : I should like to add my belated congratulations to the hon. Member for Ayslesbury (Mr. Lidington) on his double joy of a baby and a Bill. I assure him that there will be a lot more bills to follow the birth of the baby--but not of the parliamentary variety. It is just as well that the gestation period of his wife's baby was not as long as that of this Bill, which has taken some years to progress from conception to Second Reading.

I listened with great care to the speech by the silver-tongued Minister. I am afraid that I came to the conclusion that the Government's transport policy, particularly for London, was drawn up by Samuel Beckett. The Minister will of course recall that Beckett wrote a famous play called "Waiting for Godot". Clearly that principle seems to attend the Government's transport policy in respect of crossrail and a number of other proposed ventures. He will also remember, as he is a classically trained literary gent, that the two main characters in the play were Gogo and Didi, two tramps. I find it difficult to envisage the Minister of State as a tramp, the more so in view of the cut of his Saville Row whistle and of the amount of gold in his Rolex watch, which I understand the new Chancellor has been eyeing up

Column 242

enviously--working on the assumption that there is probably as much gold in that watch as he will get from a new tax hike.

It is a lot easier to see the more crumpled and sartorially challenged Secretary of State as one of Beckett's tramps. Like Gogo and Didi, the two Ministers sit under the tree waiting for something to turn up. Today, crossrail ; yesterday, the Jubilee line extension ; the day before, the channel tunnell so-called fast rail link to London.

In London, all we get from these two political tramps is unending talk, press releases galore and interminable newspaper stories with headings such as, "Minister/Government gives green light to crossrail--or Jubilee line extension, or something else". Then come all the follow-ups about the doubts and question marks, the delays and rethinks :

"Jubilee line extension faces the axe" ;

"Ministers consider flotation to fund tunnel rail link". The idea of floating a tunnel is rather wonderful.

"Minister minimises Jubilee line snag" ;

"A compromise to get Jubilee line back on track".

The only consistent theme in all these schemes is that, rather like Godot, they never show up. I hope to continue my literary allusion a little longer, by adding that I trust that the Minister is familiar with the fact that Gogo and Didi contemplate hanging themselves on the tree if Godot does not arrive. Even in my darkest moments, I would not urge such a solution on the Minister or the Secretary of State ; apart from anything else, they would probably bungle it. But I wonder how much longer they can hang on to their political credibility, in the absence of political action. Recent talk on the street, as they say, was that the Minister had had enough : that he was becoming depressed, rather like the Prime Minister. This highly successful seller of secondhand Rollers--as we know he used to be--had eventually been laid low by his failure to sell a third-rate transport policy to London. I am glad to say, however, that the Minister is still with us, hanging on in there like a driver in a clapped-out Lada, wondering whether the wheels will drop off before or after his big end goes. What a way not to run a railway !

Opposition Members want crossrail to go ahead, and we shall vote for the Bill's Second Reading. However, we shall do so without illusion. I am not convinced that the project will come about while the present Government are in office. On this occasion, I hope that I am proved wrong ; but I have a distinct feeling that, rather like the grand old Duke of York, the Minister is marching us up the hill tonight only to march us down again tomorrow. As other hon. Members have pointed out, if crossrail is built, it will relieve heavy congestion on the most overcrowded sections of London's existing underground network, and will take much traffic off the roads. We would welcome that in London and the south-east : it makes great sense, which is why--as my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) said earlier--the original proposal came from the Greater London council.

We are worried by the estimated cost of £2 billion during the period to 1999. The Minister has given us no guarantee in regard to where the money will come from. Earlier, a little interchange took place in the Division Lobby between my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) and myself. Like a number of other Labour Members from outside London, he asked why all this investment should go into London.

Column 243

Mr. Don Dixon (Jarrow) : It was nice to see my hon. Friend. We normally see him on the television.

Mr. Banks : My hon. Friend is becoming very jealous, bitter and twisted in his old age. I understand that our right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) recently failed to turn up on the television programme "Have I Got News For You" for the third time ; perhaps my hon. Friend could stand in for the right hon. tub of lard that replaced him. He is certainly substantial enough adequately to represent the former deputy leader of the Labour party.

Let me tell my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow, and other Opposition Members representing constituencies outside London, that we are not just discussing investment in London. Projects such as crossrail and the Jubilee line extension mean jobs in manufacturing industry outside the greater London area. My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow said that crossrail would not provide shipbuilding jobs on the Tyne ; as I told him, it would be very difficult to run ships on crossrail, but--given all the assurances provided by the hon. Member for Aylesbury in his attempt to get the Bill through tonight--he will no doubt assure my hon. Friend that that will be done if at all possible.

The former Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the appointment of consultants in his Budget speech on 16 March. Their reports have been presented to him. The Bechtel report has proposed some cost adjustments, andS. G. Warburg--appointed to assess the viability and options for private finance--has reported favourably. I hope that, in fairness to the House and the Standing Committee, the Minister will make those reports available, because they are very important. The Minister said that they contained favourable comments about the financing of crossrail ; I think it incumbent on the Government to present them to members of the Standing Committee, so that they can make their decisions on an informed basis.

The Minister understands a bit about money. Why does he not talk ackers? The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) rightly pulled him up on this. How much will the private sector contribute to crossrail? The Minister said that the private sector wanted to see the legislation in place, and that it would then consider. He cannot have it both ways.

The Minister said that in the reports, the private sector said that it was favourably inclined towards crossrail. How can he now say that it wants to see the legislation in place before coming up with a definite deal? The Minister did not give the House enough assurances, and he certainly did not satisfy his hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden).

There was no indication of the proportion expected to be forthcoming from the private sector or on what basis it would wish to participate. The Minister has to answer many more questions, if not in the House, they must be answered when evidence is being taken in Committee. The Minister gave no guarantee about the Government's financial commitment. This looks to us to be something akin to the Jubilee line extension. We are waiting for it and the Minister keeps assuring us that everyone thinks that it is a good idea and that money is forthcoming. When is it to happen? The Minister must answer that question.

My borough of Newham has petitioned against the Bill because, among other things, it wants to secure full disabled access at all stations, to all platforms on all the rail services covered by Crossrail. I hope that the hon.

Column 244

Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) will say something about that, because there has been no mention of disabled access so far. Crossrail proposes disabled access only to Stratford and other central London stations.

Notwithstanding what I have said, we wish the Bill well. However, we will not hold our breath while we wait for crossrail to be constructed.

10.16 pm

Mr. Norris : With the leave of the House, I should like to make a brief reply. I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). It was wonderful--a real pleasure. I have always felt diffident about the fact that the hon. Gentleman is clearly obsessed with my life style. Scarcely a day goes by when he does not either make an offer for my car or, on occasions, for my watch, which is an extraordinary implement which does not even tell the time very well. There is not a word of inscription on the back, either in English or in Latin. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will keep this strictly between us.

On one occasion, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West wanted to know more about my tailor. He happened to be enjoying a ride in my ministerial limousine at the time. It does not give me much pleasure to record these facts, but I lay them on the record because it is important to understand them.

Mr. Dixon : Did my hon. Friend have on his chairman's chain when he was in the ministerial limousine?

Mr. Norris : The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) is a shrewd judge in these matters.

This is all good, jolly knockabout stuff, but it misses an essential point. The Labour party has an extraordinary sterility on the business of investment in infrastructure in Britain. It has only one solution--the taxpayer must pay. There is no equivocation, it is always the taxpayer who pays. The Conservative party believes--it seems to be beyond peradventure-- that there are many opportunities for investment, and I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) that there are many examples of such opportunities internationally, where the private sector has been able to co-operate with Governments to take great projects forward. I have no doubt that crossrail will be an example of just such a successful project. 10.18 pm

Mr. Lidington : With the leave of the House, I wish to thank all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate, and who have, in the main, supported the Crossrail project. I wish to thank them also for their remarks about my domestic circumstances. I shall make sure that a copy of the Bill and the relevant copy of the Official Report are stored with the christening robe and the silver-plated tea spoon. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) asked a direct question about access for the disabled. He was slightly unfair to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) who alluded to that in her speech, but as the Member of Parliament who represents the Stoke Mandeville spinal injuries unit, I shall make sure that those points are conveyed to the promoters of the Bill.

Column 245

I can tell the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) that nothing in the Bill or the crossrail project would preclude the additional junctions or the electrification which he seeks. It is open to railway operators in future to take that course if they so choose.

I can the promoters accept utterly that they have a duty to do right by the people of Bethnal Green and the people of Hayes as much as by the people living in Mayfair or other plusher parts of central London, or indeed the leafy shires. The promoters have already been in touch with many community representatives in the areas represented by the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend. They will continue to do that and will take note of the points that have been raised tonight.

The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney made some broader criticisms of the Bill. I shall not reply to them at length because they were dealt with in my

Column 246

speech and that of my hon. Friend the Minister except to say that passenger forecasts may have proved wrong because of the severe and long-lasting recession in London and the south- east, but despite the recession there is congestion on the Central line and at Paddington and Liverpool Street stations which demonstrates the need for the additional link that crossrail will provide.

With the economic recovery now under way, there is every prospect that the project will not only bring many thousands of new jobs in the construction industry to London and the south-east but will provide a first-class railway link in London and the south-east which will serve the region's and the capital's economy well for many years to come. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse) : Does the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) wish to move the instruction? I see that he does not.

Question put and agreed to.

Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Column 247

Legal Aid

10.22 pm

Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North) : I beg to move, That the Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1993 (S.R. (N.I.), 1993, No. 121), dated 11th March 1993, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th March, be revoked.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse) : I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following motions :

That the Legal Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1993 (S.R. (N.I.), 1993, No. 123), dated 11th March 1993, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th March, be revoked.

That the Legal Aid (Assessment of Resources) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1993 (S.R. (N.I.), 1993, No. 122), dated 15th March 1993, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th March, be revoked.

That the Legal Advice and Assistance (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1993 (S.R. (N.I.), 1993, No. 124), dated 15th March 1993, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th March, be revoked.

Mr. McNamara : The original purpose of the legal aid scheme was that all people, regardless of their means, should have access to the legal system ; not only the poorest in our society, but also those of moderate means who could not otherwise afford to litigate. "We are committed to enabling people with limited means to have access to justice."

So said the discredited Conservative party manifesto of last year. The original aim of the legal aid scheme has now been sabotaged by Government cuts.

It seems clearly contradictory that a Government who boast about their citizens charter, much good though it has done citizens and Government, is, through the regulations, denying those same citizens the chance of enforcing their rights by cutting legal aid, and no more severely than in Northern Ireland.

There is no doubt that the regulations will have a severely restrictive effect on the availability of justice and many people will now be denied access to legal aid in Northern Ireland. The lower limit below which a person is entitled to receive legal aid without payment of a contribution has been reduced from £3,060 to £2,294, with the upper limit remaining at £7,500 per annum for personal injuries cases and £6,800 for all others. That, coupled with the increase in the fraction of disposable income which is payable by way of contribution to one quarter to one third of the difference between that person's disposable income and the lower free limit, will have the combined effect of depriving a significant number of people in Northern Ireland of the ability and the right to seek justice.

The figures concerning the changes in Northern Ireland are not readily available, but in a written reply to a question of mine, the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, said that "the effect of the introduction of the new regulations will be a small decrease in the proportion of households eligible for legal aid. It is estimated that this reduction will be in the region of two percentage points."--[ Official Report, 19 April 1993 ; Vol. 223, c. 9. ]

He also indicated that more households would be made to pay increased contributions.

I believe that the figures and the suggestions put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary are misleading

Column 248

and that the effect on people in Northern Ireland will be even more severe than the hon. Gentleman predicts, as there are more people on lower wages there than in the rest of the United Kingdom. The Government's failure to publish figures shows all too clearly their "don't know, don't care" attitude and exposes the measures for what they really are--Treasury-inspired, ill thought out and with no consideration for the prospective litigants seeking justice in the courts.

The figures of the number of people affected in England, Wales and Scotland range from hundreds of thousands to many millions. I do not wish to play the numbers game because no one knows what the figures really are. The thing that matters is that not one single person should be denied an opportunity to obtain justice. But to satisfy the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his autumn statement, money is to be saved at the expense of justice. That is not a proper basis for the changes to the legal aid system set out in these regulations. Any alteration should come about as a result of a thorough and comprehensive review of the cost-effectiveness of the legal aid system, something which has been generally lacking throughout the United Kingdom and especially in Northern Ireland.

In England and Wales, the Law Society and the Bar Council put forward an alternative package of proposals which they believed would save the Treasury £43 million and protect the eligibility levels. I have contacted the Law Society in Northern Ireland. It, too, was willing to consider any and all ways to cut costs, but, because of the profound lack of consultation surrounding these measures, the Law Society proposals have not been given the consideration that they undoubtedly deserve. The Law Society in Northern Ireland invited the Lord Chancellor some time ago to discuss the best ways to implement measures and it is still waiting for a reply.

My office has also been in touch in the past week with the office of the Lord Chief Justice in Northern Ireland and, although not wishing to comment on actual cuts in eligibility, he has assured me that he has been active in seeking to resolve the differences beween the Lord Chancellor, the Law Society in Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Bar. We wish him well in his future efforts in very testing circumstances and we hope that he has more luck in influencing the Lord Chancellor than has his counterpart, Lord Taylor, in England or, for that matter, any interested body in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would give the House an undertaking that in the future, before such regulations are brought forward from the Lord Chancellor's Department, it will work closely with all the relevant groupings in Northern Ireland because it has singularly failed to do so in this instance. Will he also give the House an undertaking that if agreed savings can be found between the professions and the Lord Chancellor's Department it will be possible to restore the cuts in eligibility in the near future?

Opposition Members had hoped that some credit might be given for the fact that in Northern Ireland expenditure on legal aid per head of population is significantly lower than in England and Wales and that the average cost of all cases is also lower. I realise that it may be unfair to compare costs because we are not always comparing like with like, but I feel that these are relevant figures. In

Column 249

England and Wales the average cost of a case was £2,008, in Scotland £815 and in Northern Ireland only £613. So for the sake of argument, even if there was a case for the cuts to be made in legal aid--I do not believe for one second that there is --surely there is even less of a case for these measures to be applied to Northern Ireland than there is in England, Wales and Scotland.

Once again, an English solution to an English problem has been exported and imposed upon the people of Northern Ireland without any regard for the logic or the justice of the situation. These cuts have been introduced without particular research into the effects that they will have on Northern Ireland.

It is impossible to impose basically the same regulations on Northern Ireland when its history is so different. Northern Ireland has generally suffered higher unemployment and poverty levels and the present conflict makes access to legal aid perhaps more fundamental, more necessary, than anywhere else.

Of course, it is possible to argue that Northern Ireland, like Scotland, has been spared a certain amount of the harshness of the cuts, as the contributory part of the green form scheme has not been ended and the contribution liability will not continue throughout the life of the case, but will be limited to one year. This should, of course, be welcomed, as far as it goes, but it is more a sign of incompetence and lack of research on the part of the Lord Chancellor's Department in failing to recognise that different laws affect Northern Ireland than of any show of leniency by the Government to the people of Northern Ireland.

Furthermore, we should be under no illusion that these parts of the cuts in eligibility will not be ended. In a written reply in another place to an inquiry whether the changes in eligibility in England and Wales would largely be extended to Northern Ireland, the Lord Chancellor stated :

It is not possible, under the present enabling powers in Northern Ireland, for regulations to be brought forward immediately to give effect to two of the changes which have been made in England and Wales--namely, the extension of the payment of contributions over the lifetime of the case and the abolition of the contributory part of the legal advice and assistance scheme. Nevertheless I intend to bring forward legislation, as soon as a suitable opportunity arises, to enable the Northern Ireland civil legal aid eligibility criteria to be fully aligned with those in England and Wales."- -[ Official Report, House of Lords, 14 April 1993 ; Vol. 544, c. 73. ] The Lord Chancellor may regard this as a promise ; I regard it as a threat.

I, and I am sure most hon. Members, hope that, before such a move is made proper research will be carried out to assess the consequences, although on experience this seems highly unlikely and the people of Northern Ireland will, as a result, suffer for it. I was under the impression, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that Whips were silent. They are also, apparently, deaf.

Therefore, I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman--

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor) : Not learned

Mr. McNamara : I take the hon. Gentleman's word for it that he is not learned. Certainly the content of his regulations when they came before us were not. But I assume that he is an honourable man. Therefore I ask the

Column 250

hon. Gentleman to give an undertaking to present an extensive consultation paper before these further changes are proposed. It is vital for the Government to commission a wide-ranging and detailed study into the effects of the legal aid eligibility cuts throughout Northern Ireland. Work must be done urgently to establish the cause of the rising costs. How can the Lord Chancellor talk of "targeting legal aid towardes those people whose need is greatest" when his Department has not even identified those who are in greatest need?

Indeed, these changes will hit some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in the community. Two groups among those who will suffer the most are women and children. It seems ironic that, in the immediate aftermath of major expenditure on the setting up of the Child Support Agency, the Government should now be implementing proposals which will tend to reduce the availability of legal advice to the very mothers whom the Child Support Agency was designed to help.

Similarly, the Children's Order (Northern Ireland) will create a need for significant advice and assistance by lawyers to parents. These new regulations seem deliberately designed to ensure that this desperate need is not met, at a time of great emotional stress and considerable financial worry for women and their children. Such a study as Labour is urging would establish the savings that could be made in the ways in which legal services are provided. Then perhaps it would be possible to raise, not cut, eligibility levels. Unless such a review is undertaken, the very person that the whole scheme was constructed to help, the person of modest means with a legitimate case, will the greatest sufferer. The unhappy effect of all the Government's recent conduct of financial affairs has been that the person of modest means--wherever that person may be--has been the greatest sufferer.

10.34 pm

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor) : It is important to set the debate in its context. Disciplines on public expenditure are necessary. Notwithstanding that fact, we are entitled to say that our legal aid system in this country--in using that expression, I rightly include Northern Ireland--remains the most generous in the world.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) asked, "Who are the most needy?" In Northern Ireland, civil legal aid is available to 65 per cent. of households or more. That means that two thirds of the community, all the way up from the most poor, remain eligible for civil legal aid. The arrangements for criminal legal aid are even more generous, a considerably larger section of the community being eligible without contribution.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North made the common vernacular mistake of referring to the alterations as cuts. They are not cuts. Spending on legal aid in Northern Ireland is destined to continue to rise, and legal aid is actually available to a larger proportion of citizens in Northern Ireland than in Britain. It is important to be honest about these developments. The hon. Gentleman is correct to say--as I said in answer to his parliamentary question--that we assess that a decrease of about 2 per cent. in those eligible for legal aid

Next Section

Home Page