Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20
- 39)
TUESDAY 10 NOVEMBER 1998
THE RT
HON THE
LORD IRVINE
OF LAIRG,
QC, MR IAN
BURNS
20. Finally, on a totally different point are
you making any progress in your dispute with the House of Lords
about your official dress code?
(The Lord Chancellor) That was a good case. What people
ought to know is how limited are my ambitions in that department.
I feel that for male adults of sound mind like myself—I
hope that I am—the days of breeches, tights and buckled
shoes should go as part of the ordinary, everyday court wear.
I have no objections on great occasions of state like the state
opening of Parliament to wearing the full kit, but I think that
what I have described would be more sensible working clothes on
an ordinary day. The other odd thing about the House of Lords
is that when I am responsible for the Committee stage of a Bill
I can take off my wig and silk gown and go to the Dispatch Box,
as a Minister in charge of a Bill would ordinarily do, put my
papers on the Dispatch Box and be free of the outer garments and
wig. But amazingly I am not allowed to do that in all the other
stages of the Bill. I am not allowed to do it on Second Reading,
which may last for 12 or 14 hours, on Report or Third Reading.
It seems to me to be a sensible and modest proposition that I
should be able to undertake all the parts of a Bill from the Dispatch
Box less generously attired than I am required to be. I do not
doubt that there will be a great deal of opposition to that from
traditionalists, but I hope that to you it sounds like a rather
modest suggestion. When I sit on the Woolsack I shall continue
to wear the wig. The wig wears an absolute ton and is very uncomfortable.
I do not propose that I should not wear it on the Woolsack, but
I propose that I should not have to wear it when I am the Minister
in charge of the Bill appearing at the Dispatch Box.
Mr Winnick
21. As far as dress in court is concerned, the
late Lord Woolf tried without success to remove wigs and gowns
from courts. Are you of the same mind to make clearer that justice
is not such a remote concept? Is that your view, or do you have
a different view from that of the late Lord Woolf?
(The Lord Chancellor) Speaking for myself, I would
certainly discard wigs in court. I believe that the lawyers should
be distinguished from everyone else so that it is obvious that
they are lawyers, but I believe that bands and a gown are quite
sufficient. I am aware that there is a very strong argument entertained
by many that the criminal courts are different and that, there,
lawyers should have the full kit and majesty of the law, although
perhaps not in the civil courts. For myself, having appeared in
arbitrations in this country and abroad dressed as I am today,
I have never thought that the quality of justice or the effectiveness
of advocates depends in the least on the fancy dress that they
wear.
22. One notes that further up the corridor the
Pinochet case is being heard and the five Law Lords are wearing
ordinary clothes although the barristers are gowned. Is there
any possibility that an ultra-conservative profession like the
lawyers will be persuaded that it is not a bad idea to dispense
with gowns, wigs and all the rest of it?
(The Lord Chancellor) I am not really hostile to the
gown. Lawyers round the world wear gowns and they allow members
of the public to see that they are lawyers who have something
to do with the case.
23. I shall compromise, if you like. I concede
that in the States lawyers wear gowns. What about wigs?
(The Lord Chancellor) I have not concealed from you
that the country got rid of the rest of its wigs in the eighteenth
century and essentially only the lawyers have kept them.
Chairman
24. Lord Woolf is still very much with us, is
he not?
(The Lord Chancellor) Yes. I wondered whether your
colleague had some tragic news of which I was unaware.
Mr Winnick
25. I take this opportunity to apologise to
Lord Woolf. I am very pleased to correct that.
(The Lord Chancellor) When I saw him only a few days
ago he was very much alive, well and bouncy.
Mr Howarth
26. Speaking for the traditionalists, I hope
that you will be defeated in your endeavours in this respect.
I wish no personal discomfort on you, but I would like you to
continue to uphold those traditions which you accept upon your
office.
(The Lord Chancellor) That is a view that some have.
Earl Ferrers, whom I know and like, expresses that view very strongly.
I just disagree and believe that we must modernise.
27. I am delighted to be in such sound company
as Earl Ferrers.
(The Lord Chancellor) You are in excellent company.
Chairman: I think that his background is Cambridge
and the Guards.
Mr Howarth
28. I do not have the same distinguished pedigree
but hopefully I have similar views. Lord Chancellor, may I give
you some advice?
(The Lord Chancellor) I always like free advice.
29. I must offer you the free advice that if
you wish to gain support for the removal of the wig perhaps you
should take Madam Speaker as an example. If you had such a distinguished
shock of hair as Madam Speaker you might have no need for the
wig.
(The Lord Chancellor) I believe that one of the most
skilful acts of Betty Boothroyd was to discard her wig as a unilateral
act without any complaint from anyone. As you say, she has a rather
finer head of hair than the wig that I am required to wear.
30. I should like to return to the issue of
legal aid generally. You will be aware that there is public disquiet
about some of the cases in which legal aid has been awarded. I
have written to you—I do not expect you to have been briefed
on it—about what in essence is a somewhat trivial matter
but may illustrate public concern. A lady who tripped up on a
spilt carton of cream in a supermarket sued the supermarket and
the lady who dropped the cream. The significance of the case is
that it cost £15,000 of legal aid money. There is a very
strong feeling in the country that that sort of bill should not
be for the account of the taxpayer. Do you agree with that?
(The Lord Chancellor) You have not told me enough
about the case. It could have cost £15,000 to recover £100,000.
31. She lost her claim.
(The Lord Chancellor) Do you know what she would have
recovered if she had succeeded?
32. No.
(The Lord Chancellor) It is therefore very difficult
to evaluate. I want to assist as much as I can. I am of the view
that the merits test must be strengthened. I do not say that that
lady's case has no merit. I do not know based on what you have
told me. But I take the view that only really strong cases should
proceed under legal aid. I see no principled objection to the
proposition that the only cases that should proceed under legal
aid are those that private individuals would be willing to fund
for themselves out of their own resources if they were able to.
I do not think that the public purse should be available to be
drawn upon to support legal aid cases which individuals do not
think are worth the risk of committing their own money to. I do
not believe that public funds exist to put people in a better
position than those who fund the case themselves. But I really
cannot comment on the particular case because I do not know enough
about it. When did you write the letter?
33. On 30 October.
(The Lord Chancellor) I can tell you that it has not
reached me.
34. I also enclosed something that I had received
from a former constituent in response to the publicity which this
case had aroused. It was a circular issued by a firm of solicitors
in Birmingham which said, "Have you or your child
had an accident? If so, you may be entitled to compensation.
To find out tick the following boxes: tripped over; been hit by
a car; injured by someone else; injured on a bus or at school;
been in a car crash." This seems to me to be touting for
business and encouraging people to make claims for compensation.
Do you have a view on whether that is something that solicitors
should be doing?
(The Lord Chancellor) That conduct would probably
fall foul of the Law Society's professional rules, but you will
appreciate that the solicitors' profession is self-regulating
and the correct place to address a complaint about that conduct
is the Law Society.
35. I have done so.
(The Lord Chancellor) What have you been told?
36. I have not had a reply from the Society
either.
(The Lord Chancellor) You are not having much luck.
The Society is the proper addressee to deal with such questions
rather than me.
Chairman
37. One of the common complaints one hears from
lawyers is that it takes an awfully long time to get the money
that they are owed from the Legal Aid Board and sometimes years
pass between the case from which the money is earned and the payment.
Is there any truth in that?
(The Lord Chancellor) I do not have any detailed information
at my disposal. I believe that payment of graduated fees in criminal
cases is now giving a good deal of satisfaction and that it has
been speeded up very substantially. I know that there are much
greater delays in civil cases although there is a system for payments
on account in cases that drag on for a long time which alleviates
that. But all I can say is that if there is any particular incident
of delay to which you wish to draw my attention I shall certainly
look into it.
38. Do you know the average delay in a civil
case?
(The Lord Chancellor) I do not know; nor do I know
whether there is an average.
39. But frequently one hears it said in response
to criticism of the high fees that it takes the lawyers an enormous
length of time to get the money in the first place?
(The Lord Chancellor) I also hear those complaints.
| 
