| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Departmental Waste and Bureaucracy
31. Mr. Flynn: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what new proposals he has to reduce (a) bureaucracy and (b) waste in his Department.[21923]
Mr. Jonathan Evans: A wide range of measures to improve efficiency has been introduced, including the implementation of the Department's senior management review and the introduction, over the next year, of a new management structure for the Court Service.
Mr. Flynn: As £750,000 of public money has already been spent on the defence of the three soldiers who were found guilty of the foul and cowardly murder of Louise Jensen, does the Minister not think that it would be a
waste of legal aid funds if a similar sum were paid out for an appeal against their conviction? How would he explain the expenditure of our money to defend those three soldiers when constituents of mine on average or below average income have been refused legal aid?
Mr. Evans: It is not the policy of the Lord Chancellor's Department to respond to particular questions in relation to certain cases where legal aid has been granted; that matter is in the hands of the respective legal aid authorities. The Government are very much aware of the necessity to ensure that the substantial sums of public money that are expended on legal aid are better targeted. That is why we are engaged in undertaking consultation on targeting need in terms of legal aid and why, in due course, the Government will announce their response to that consultation.
Mr. Stephen: Is the Minister aware that if a Member of Parliament tries to find out whether and, if so, how, a decision by the Legal Aid Board to grant legal aid can be justified, he will be told that the facts of the case are confidential? If he then asks the ombudsman to inquire, the ombudsman will tell him that he cannot inquire unless he is asked to do so by a party to the case. I understand that even if our noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor were to ask, he would be told that the matter was confidential. Will my hon. Friend consider ways in which the Legal Aid Board can be made more accountable to Parliament and place a note of his conclusions in the Library?
Mr. Evans: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that it is important that the Legal Aid Board should be accountable, but that it is also important that its decisions to grant legal aid in specific cases should not be influenced in any way by governmental or individual political decisions. That is why, as I said earlier, the policy of the Lord Chancellor's Department not to respond on individual cases is right. My hon. Friend is quite right, however, that the Legal Aid Board must be seen to be accountable for its actions.
Court Buildings (Closure)
32. Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will review the procedure for closure of court buildings.[21924]
Mr. Jonathan Evans: The Lord Chancellor's Department has responsibility for the Crown and county court estate, and has no plans to change its procedure for considering court closure. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Department has no role in initiating the closure of magistrates courts, which falls to the local magistrates courts committee.
Mr. Hinchliffe: The Minister will be aware that Wakefield Crown court was closed two years ago. As that building is still in the ownership of the Government and has not yet been sold, can he give me an assurance that the building will be properly maintained, because concern has been expressed about its fabric? It is one of the finest buildings in Wakefield. Bearing it in mind that, since its
closure, it has been used nearly 300 times for court purposes, will he review the formal closure programme agreed two years ago?
Mr. Evans: It is important to distinguish the cases that are dealt with at Wakefield Crown court from the generality of cases dealt with at Wakefield county court. The county court deals with a range of civil business and will continue to do so, whereas the cases dealt with at Wakefield Crown court are those transferred to it from the Leeds area--some 262 cases according to my latest information. I am keen to ensure that the fabric of all buildings within the Government's estate are properly maintained. In view of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman, I will look into the matter.
Sir Donald Thompson: When my hon. Friend goes to Wakefield to look into the matter, perhaps he could pop on to Calder Valley to pay me a visit at the same time, because we in Calder Valley would like to thank him and the Lord Chancellor for their recent decision on the magistrates committee in Calderdale. Small market town courts are important; if we lose them, we lose a cadre of solicitors and associated people who have known a town and district for generations. That would also affect the speed of justice, but law's delay is less irksome if we keep as many courts as possible.
Mr. Evans: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks in relation to the recent meeting that the Lord Chancellor and I had with him to discuss the organisation of magistrates courts in his area. I draw the distinction, as I did in reply to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), about the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor's Department in considering the future of county court premises as against the magistrates courts, but I give an assurance to the House that the factors that influence the Lord Chancellor's Department are primarily geared towards improving the service to court users and that, in those circumstances, financial considerations do not overrule any other considerations in relation to court premises.
Mr. Boateng: Is the Minister aware that the funding arrangements and the formula applied by the Lord Chancellor's Department in calculating grant to local magistrates courts committees is responsible for many of the closures of courthouses and courtrooms and the laying off of court staff, especially those responsible for security and the collection of awards made to victims of crime? Is he aware of the widespread anxiety on both sides of the House about the impact on the morale of the Court Service and on the interests of justice? Imposing Treasury-driven inflexible rules on the magistrates court system has led to incalculable harm and denial of justice.
Mr. Evans: I am aware of the fact that the magistrates courts committees are funded on a formula basis, and that is a necessary and essential product of the fact that we decided, following the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994, to retain the independence of those magistrates courts committees.
When I had the opportunity of speaking to the council of the magistrates courts committees but a matter of days after my appointment to this post, I said that the Lord Chancellor's Department was happy to examine any anomalies in relation to the formula basis. In my judgment, the current operation of the formula properly assesses the rate of grant that should be given to most magistrates courts, but clearly some courts are disadvantaged by the way in which the formula works out and, as I said to the council, if the hon. Gentleman can propose any change in the formula that properly tackles that, I shall be happy to examine it.
Legal Aid Board
33. Mr. Ainger: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many solicitors have been prosecuted for attempting to defraud the Legal Aid Board in each of the last three years.[21925]
Mr. Evans: The number of concluded cases where solicitors have appeared at court charged with offences of fraud or attempted fraud against the Legal Aid Board in the past three years are as follows. In 1993-94, three cases; in 1994-95, no cases; in 1995-96, two cases. In addition, 19 cases are currently under investigation by the prosecuting authorities or are awaiting trial.
Mr. Ainger: Does the Minister accept that that may well be the tip of an iceberg, especially in view of the number of complaints that pass through my constituency surgery about the quality of service provided by solicitors? Is it not about time for us to ensure that the Solicitors' Complaints Bureau starts acting more like the General Medical Council, for example, with clear powers and an independent role? My constituents perceive that the Solicitors' Complaints Bureau is merely a mechanism by which solicitors investigate themselves. We should have a far more independent element in order to retain people's confidence in the system.
Mr. Evans: My response earlier that 19 cases are currently under investigation by the prosecuting authorities or awaiting trial tends to run against the thrust of what the hon. Gentleman said. Between 1990 and 1995, about 4,600 investigations have been undertaken of solicitors or of assisted persons, but decisions as to whether there should be prosecutions in individual cases must remain that of the individual prosecuting authorities.
Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend accept that, increasingly, the Legal Aid Board is regarded as a soft touch by unscrupulous solicitors and unscrupulous litigants?
Mr. Evans: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that the legal profession, whose members, for the most part, behave with the utmost integrity, must take on board the message that those individual solicitors, small in number, who are engaged in improper activity must be rooted out and dealt with. I confirm to my hon. Friend that the Government are determined to do that.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Minister have the figures for disciplinary proceedings instigated against solicitors acting in legal aid cases? Is he aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction among senior officers of the Legal Aid Board? Some solicitors are not doing their job properly and wasting a large amount of public money, as well as giving a very bad service for that reason.
Mr. Evans: As I said earlier, it is certainly the Government's view that we could be targeting legal aid expenditure very much better than we are doing at the moment. That is the philosophy that underpins the Government's approach to consultation about taking forward changes to the legal aid structure. At the same time it is important to draw a distinction between cases in which one is dealing with disciplinary proceedings against individual solicitors and allegations of fraud. Cases in which fraud may have taken place must clearly remain in the hands of the individual and independent prosecuting authorities.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |