| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Ordered,
Ordered,
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Burns.]
Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South):
It has been an interesting few minutes when, instead of thinking about legal aid, I have listened to the authentic voice of the Labour party. I hope that Conservative central office will fillet that speech and use it for the next election campaign.
I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his powers of prophecy because, when we last had questions to his Department, he said that I returned
Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham):
Should one notice that our hon. Friend the Minister is moonlighting and that, with his promotion to the Department for Trade and Industry, as soon as he has finished speaking, he is certain to get in the news pages as well as into legal journals?
Mr. Marshall:
I gather from that that congratulations must be in order. I did not know what the moonlighting was; perhaps we can have elucidation as the evening progresses.
Everyone would agree that widespread public concern exists about the operation of the legal aid scheme. That is confirmed by an editorial in The Daily Telegraph on 12 January 1995, which said:
I should like to pay tribute to one or two of our national newspapers which have done a wonderful job in pointing out to the public some of the difficulties inherent in the current legal aid system. I should like to pay tribute to the work of The Sunday Times for its articles on the legal aid lottery, and the Daily Mail, which has done a good job in pointing out some of the idiocies in the legal aid system.
The legal aid system has seen substantial increases in expenditure while, at the same time, the number of households eligible for it has decreased. In 1979-80, 77 per cent. of households were eligible, by 1989-90 it was 58 per cent. and today it is 48 per cent. We have seen those two conflicting trends--the substantial increase in expenditure and the substantial reduction in the number of families eligible.
There is one issue above all else which creates a vast amount of annoyance among the general public and that is the way in which the seemingly wealthy are able to exploit the legal aid system. There was the case of
Mr. Hashim, the former head of the Arab Money Fund, who was involved in a civil claim for over £33 million. He received legal aid despite owning several mansions in Britain and abroad. The cost of that legal aid was not petty cash. According to written answers in Hansard, Mr. Colin Ross-Munro, his QC, received £671,111. Two other juniors and another QC received £646,891. The poor guys in all this were his solicitors, who received only £644,000. The experts, however defined, received £835,000.
We must ask ourselves why council tenants in constituencies such as mine and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) pay taxes which are then used to pay the legal aid bills of nasty shysters living in much better accommodation than they are. It is socially wrong that the seemingly rich, living in large mansions, should have their legal aid bills paid for by taxpayers living in worse conditions.
The case of Mr. Hashim is not an isolated incident. Mr. Ernest Saunders--his case was determined yesterday, so it is no longer sub judice--received legal aid which cost £1,342,465 in the original Guinness trial. Mr. Saunders is a remarkable man. He is the only person on this earth who has been cured of Alzheimer's disease--Guinness is good for you; it gets rid of Alzheimer's disease. Since then, he has been pictured skiing in Switzerland with his wife, he has been known to fly across the Atlantic on Concorde, and he gives lectures, no doubt for fat fees. He told the press that he will receive a pension of £70,000 per annum from Guinness. Despite all that, he recently received a second instalment from the legal aid fund to pay for his appeal.
I hope that he does not suffer from amnesia as well as Alzheimer's, because one of the things that surprises me about Mr. Ernest Saunders is that he has also had a case in the European Court. One does not receive legal aid for cases in the European Court, so he is obviously able to pay for that, but when it comes to the British courts, oh dearie me, he cannot fund it and goes off to the legal aid fund. Why should those enjoying a less affluent life style than Mr. Saunders pay for his legal bills?
Then there is Mr. Graham Foxley, who was guilty of massive corruption at the Ministry of Defence. He lived in a house worth £500,000 and owned a fleet of cars. Yes, you have guessed it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he managed to get legal aid. He stung the taxpayers twice, first as a corrupt civil servant and then as a defendant on legal aid.
The litany of the seemingly wealthy who have been able to obtain legal aid is too long. Mr. Asil Nadir succeeded; Mr. Bryce Taylor, who was reputed to have made a substantial amount of money from taking sneak pictures of Princess Diana, had legal aid; Mr. Peter Clowes and Mr. Kenneth Sinar had it. It is wrong that apparently rich individuals--some of whom may have lied about the sources of their income, others of whom may have transferred their assets to their wives or trusts-- should succeed in obtaining legal aid, paid for by the taxpayer.
The Lord Chancellor issued a consultative document about legal aid to the seemingly wealthy. Earlier this year, the Minister said that he was assessing the results. He said in response to a written question:
The second issue of concern is that there are few prosecutions for fraudulent applications for legal aid. In 1993, there were 1 million applications, but I have been told by the Attorney-General that there were just three prosecutions for fraudulent applications. Many of the people applying for legal aid are in fact applying for criminal legal aid. They are not the good boys of society. They would have had to be dishonest at some stage in their lives or they would not be before the courts--yet just 0.003 per cent. of applicants are prosecuted for making fraudulent applications.
The third problem with legal aid is another about which I feel very strongly. A legal aid certificate in a civil case amounts to little short of blackmail. In a civil case it helps to have a good case, but it is even better to have a legal aid certificate. I recently received an answer from the Minister about the number of payments made by the legal aid fund to a successful unassisted party. In 1990-91 it was as low as 119. The greatest number was in 1993-94, when in 186 cases the legal aid fund had to pay costs to someone who had won his case.
The difficulties created by a legal aid certificate were highlighted in two cases this year. One was the case of Green v. the Ministry of Defence. The MOD paid a sum into court, but the legal aid fund continued with the case. The court decided that the MOD was right, but the legal costs of £80,000 that it suffered will never be reimbursed.
The other high-profile case involved Kevin Taylor v. Manchester Corporation and Sir James Anderton. One of the issues that led to a settlement in that case was the pace at which legal costs were escalating. It became clear that it was probably cheaper to settle the case than to engage in a fight to the death.
There can be a real problem for ordinary individuals. Someone who came to see me at my constituency surgery had been sued by a business partner. His lawyer told him that he had a strong case; his accountant told him that he had a very strong case; so he decided to fight it. He won the case, but was hopelessly out of pocket because of his expensive legal costs. Of course, his legally aided opponent did not have any costs awarded against him. Although he won the case, it would have been cheaper for him to give way and to give money to someone who was not entitled to it.
In another case, a constituent who came to my surgery had been given planning permission to build a garage and had bought all the materials for it. That constituent's next-door neighbour, however, said that the garage interfered with his right of light. His neighbour applied and received legal aid. My poor constituent, who did not qualify for legal aid, realised that he was on a hiding to nothing because, if he fought the case and won, he would have to pay his own legal costs and, if he lost the case, he would still have to pay his own legal costs.
People in the legal profession have said that there is a fear that, under the legal aid scheme, certificates are perhaps given more easily than they should be. I have heard barristers say that the legal aid fund will occasionally support a case which they recommend the client not to contest.
It is significant that the Bar Council, which one would not think of as an organisation that would seek to suppress the level of legal activity, has said:
That Mr. Alan Milburn be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Ms Angela Eagle be added to the Committee.--[Mr. Burns.]
That Mr. George Stevenson be added to the European Legislation Committee.--[Mr. Burns.]
Legal Aid
9.32 pm
"with consistency to this subject."--[Official Report, 20 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 331.]
That was almost an incitement to call for an Adjournment debate, which I did with pleasure. I make another prophesy: whatever he and I say tonight will somehow not be reported in any of the national papers tomorrow morning, but, who knows, we may make the legal journals.
"It has been clear for some years that the traditional system of legal aid is no longer sustainable . . . the Budget has been the fastest growing area of public spending . . . which is not surprising since nothing formally inhibits the consumption of public provision for the cost of legal services."
We have to ask ourselves whether it is right that the legal aid budget should rise more quickly than spending on social security, the health service or any other Government expenditure.
"There were 50 responses to the consultation exercise held earlier this year on the grant of legal aid to the apparently wealthy. Since that time there have been 14 inquiries on this issue from Members of Parliament or the public."--[Official Report, 20 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 21.]
We want to know when the exercise will come to end and when there will be a decision. Nothing causes greater aggravation among our electors than the fact that those who fail to get legal aid have to watch other people, who seem to be better off than them, milking the system.
"the Legal Aid Scheme should be focused on cases of real merit with prospects of a worthwhile recovery. Both limbs of the merits test in civil cases should be tightened, focusing attention on real prospects of success and on whether the proceedings are reasonable".
If that is what the Bar Council is saying, we ought to listen because, when lawyers tell us that there should be less litigation, they are sending us a message.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |