House of Commons Hansard Debates for 10 Jul 1995

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my hon. Friend look at accommodation for asylum seekers? A couple of years ago, a whole year's supply of new housing in Ealing was taken up by asylum seekers and others, so my constituents are concerned that those matters be expedited. Does he have any plans to use barracks for asylum seekers? May we have some clarification on his plans for that matter?

Mr. Taylor: I have no plans, personally, for using barracks for asylum seekers. I am not sure whether the House would consider that that was appropriate, but I draw its attention to the fact that, under the 1993 asylum

Column 619

appeals procedure rules, formal time limits apply to asylum appeals and no time limits apply to immigration appeals.

Mr. Pike: Does the Minister believe that he receives adequate co- operation from the other Government Departments involved in appeals? The delays are unacceptable, and on many occasions it seems as though the Home Office or the Foreign Office is holding up the Minister's Department in going ahead with the appeal.

Mr. Taylor: One strives to get the best possible co-operation. An increase in the number of asylum applications received by the Home Office has inevitably resulted in an increase in appeals. Following an interdepartmental initiative, extra resources are being made available to both Departments to speed up the disposal of work.

Legal Aid

28. Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what comparison he has made between legal aid arrangements in the United Kingdom and in other EU countries. [31466]

Mr. Taylor: From the comparisons that we have made, I believe that our legal aid scheme is the most generous in the European Community. Generally, United Kingdom citizens have the same access to legal aid in a European Community country as a citizen of that country.

Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. It is excellent news that citizens of this country have access to the most generous legal aid support. Does my hon. Friend agree that the time has come to reassess exactly how legal aid is delivered? The legal aid bill is rising year after year, and we must ensure that those who genuinely need legal aid receive it, while those who do not, do not.

Mr. Taylor: I am looking forward to reading Hansard tomorrow because my hon. Friend could not have put it better. There can be no question but that our legal aid system is generous and that enormous amounts of money are devoted to it. The issue is whether legal aid is going to the right people, and that is the thrust of my hon. Friend's question. The Green Paper provides an opportunity for the most radical review of legal aid in the past 50 years, and we should take that opportunity.

Mr. Skinner: One of the problems with the £1.4 billion of taxpayers' money that is spent on legal aid is that a lot of it goes to relatively few people--many of whom, just like those on the Treasury Bench, come from the belly of the banking establishment. In other words, the Tory Government are handing large sums of money to people such as Roger Levitt and their other Tory friends in the City--I will throw in the Maxwells who have benefited as well, just in case the Minister mentions them. He should pay some attention to the document produced by the Labour party in the past few days, in which we suggest that the £1.4 billion should go to deserving people--many of whom do not qualify for legal aid--rather than to the fat cats.

Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend could not have put it better.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman could not have put it more typically. A consultation document entitled "Legal

Column 620

Aid for the Apparently Wealthy" was released some time ago and I gave as much publicity to it as I could. I do not recall any response from Bolsover to that paper.

As a result of wide consultation, the Lord Chancellor announced in April that he would tighten up legal aid means assessment for the apparently wealthy. His proposals include a special unit to investigate unusually complex cases and the confiscation of undeclared assets.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend realise that the issue of legal aid has united the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and me? There is widespread disquiet about the way that the legal aid fund is operated, and my hon. Friend may have seen the article in Saturday's Daily Mail about a child who has received legal aid on the basis of a quite flippant argument. Will my hon. Friend please look at the operation of the Legal Aid Board, which seems to waste public money? Will he recognise that, in civil cases, a legal aid certificate is the most important way of screwing a large sum of money out of the other party?

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend has always been very clear and very consistent in his criticism of the legal aid system. I remind him and the House that the legal aid Green Paper, which is now available for consultation, represents the widest and most radical opportunity for reform of legal aid, and I look forward to receiving my hon. Friend's reply.

Legal Aid Appeal Committees

29. Mr. Ainger: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many cases have been placed before legal aid appeal committees in each of the past five years. [31467]

Mr. John M. Taylor: In the categories for which figures are available for each of the last five years, the number of appeals to the Legal Aid Board in round numbers to the nearest thousand were 25, 000, 26,000, 34,000, 47,000 and 53,000 respectively.

Mr. Ainger: Is not the fact that the number of appeal tribunals has doubled over the past five years indicative of concerns that not necessarily poor people are being excluded from our system of justice because they do not qualify for legal aid? As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) rightly explained, rich individuals can afford by some unknown means to pay lawyers to ensure that they receive legal aid. Is it not time to address those issues?

Mr. Taylor: It is time for us all to address those issues, which is why the Green Paper is before the House. The main reason for the sudden jump in the number of appeals to which the hon. Gentleman referred was the board's introduction of a quality management system designed to secure greater consistency of approach in the application of existing criteria on legal merits. That led to a higher number of refusals and therefore appeals.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Has not the current legal aid system far too many characteristics typical of providing outdoor relief for the legal classes? If legal aid funding is to be increased, would it not be far better to invest money in simpler and faster justice for people?

Mr. Taylor: Despite all the criticisms, it must surely remain a benign and civilised intention to assist poor

Column 621

people and people of modest means with their legal difficulties. Complaints are made about the legal aid system but in general its operation remains generous and helpful.

Mr. Boateng rose --

Mr. Arnold: The hon. Gentleman should declare his interest.

Mr. Boateng: My interest as a legal practitioner is well known, but that does not blind me for one moment to a question of concern to hon. Members in all parts of the House. Is not justice delayed justice denied? Does that not apply to the activities of the Legal Aid Board as well as to the courts? Is it not time that the Parliamentary Secretary investigated why so many applications to the board and so many appeals from its decisions take so long as to cause manifest injustice to applicants? Is it not time that the Parliamentary Secretary examined that matter? Will he take on board the case of young Emma Van de Velde, a dyslexic whose appeal against the finding that she was not entitled to special help took the board so long to process that the time limit for the appeal was passed before the board finally sanctioned that help? Should not the consumer of legal services come before the bureaucrats who run the Legal Aid Board?

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman asked me to agree that the old adage can be affirmed, that justice delayed is justice denied. I oblige him, for that is certainly true. The House and the wider interested community are witnessing uniquely the convergence of the Green Paper on legal aid and Lord Woolf's paper on access to justice. The whole civil legal system is available for our criticism and for radical improvement. We should not lose that opportunity.

Civil Courts

30. Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals he has for the reform of civil justice and the civil courts. [31468]

Mr. John M. Taylor: Last year, the Lord Chancellor appointed Lord Woolf to conduct a comprehensive review of the civil justice system. He has now presented his interim report. The Lord Chancellor has warmly welcomed that report and is considering how best to give effect to those developing ideas.

Mr. Hughes: The Parliamentary Secretary will be aware that the Woolf report is generally welcomed. Nothing less than a huge and radical reform of the civil justice system is required. How will the Parliamentary

Column 622

Secretary gather opinions from the public on Lord Woolf's proposals? What is the timetable? Can the interim proposals proceed apace where there is general agreement, so that justice can be more quickly delivered in our civil courts?

Mr. Taylor: The Lord Chancellor's general view is that we must keep moving. There is no time to spend, spare or waste. In view of the wide- ranging review and consultations undertaken by Lord Woolf, the Lord Chancellor does not intend to undertake further public consultation. However, the power to make the necessary amendments rests with the County Court Rule Committee--which, as part of its consideration of the matter, will consult interested parties.

Mr. Batiste: I welcome the proposals for the reform of the civil courts, and congratulate the Minister on the introduction of conditional fees, which will open up civil litigation to many more litigants who cannot afford it now. May I, as a solicitor, nevertheless urge on my hon. Friend the fact that there needs to be an independent Bar capable of providing objective advice both in relation to civil litigation and, perhaps even more importantly, in relation to criminal litigation?

Mr. Taylor: It has never been remotely on my agenda--nor has the idea ever passed my lips in the House of Commons--to deny the need for an independent Bar, which has been a respected part of our English institutions for long years.

Legal Aid Reforms

31. Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the reforms of the legal aid provisions. [31469]

Mr. John M. Taylor: The consultation period for the Green Paper "Legal Aid--Targeting Need" ends on 31 August. The Government will decide what further action to take in the light of the responses to that consultation.

Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful for the Minister's response. Will he also take into consideration the point that I have raised with him about a letter from a constituent who has been denied legal aid because of her husband's savings? The funds and incomes of spouses are supposed to be separate nowadays; so will the Minister assure me that wives will not be disallowed legal aid because of their husbands' incomes or savings?

Mr. Taylor: I can promise the hon. Gentleman that I shall take his point into account and that I shall write him a letter, but I cannot promise that it will necessarily contain exactly what he wants.

Column 621

Next Section (Debates)

Home Page