| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Garnier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Vaz: I shall not allow interventions, as time is very short and many of my hon. Friends wish to contribute.
I therefore commend the Lord Chancellor on the Bill. I should also like to say--as there have been comments in the press about his commitment to equal opportunities--that I strongly welcome the way in which he has appointed so many black and Asian silks. He has a record of appointing more silks from the ethnic minority communities than any other Lord Chancellor at this point in office. I thank him for the way in which he has sought to attend so many meetings at which we have addressed the issue of diversity. He is also not afraid to take on the vested interests of the legal profession. Hon. Members, too, should not be afraid to do so, although many of us are from that profession.
I was astonished to hear the comments of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield on the need for more money for legal aid. He is a new hon. Member. I remember being in opposition, for almost 12 years, when eminent persons--such as the former Attorney-General, the right hon.
and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire(Sir N. Lyell)--were telling the House that there was no more money for legal aid.
Mr. Grieve:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Vaz:
I shall, as I mentioned the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Grieve:
I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstood what I said. Perhaps I expressed myself badly, but I do not think that that is what I said. The point I was making was that the sums that the previous Government were prepared to provide for legal aid rose exponentially. The previous Government cannot be criticised for starving legal aid, because it provided vast sums of cash. I accept--as I did at the start of my speech--that we have reached a crisis point, which is why I said at the outset that I supported the Government's attempts to address the issue.
Mr. Vaz:
We can spend only so much taxpayers' money on legal aid. It is quite right that there should be a cap, and that the money should be focused and given to those members of the profession with expertise in a particular field to represent individuals. That is precisely what the Bill seeks to do--to ensure that the enormous resources in the legal aid budget are properly targeted. Legal aid--the green form--exists not to provide trusts for solicitors and barristers but to allow people to prosecute their cases before the courts of this land.
I am glad that we are to reform the Legal Aid Board, and should like to pay tribute to the work of Henry Hodge, the deputy chairman of the Legal Aid Board. He has been a breath of fresh air in that organisation. However, I hope that we shall not simply change the organisation's name, but that there will be a new attitude in how the new Legal Services Commission operates.
Many of my constituents come to my surgery and complain about the time it takes to get the Legal Aid Board to approve legal aid cases. I hope that, in the new-found zeal that we clearly have, we shall ensure that such cases are processed as quickly as possible. I welcome the Government's commitment to prioritising urgent cases, by coding them, which I hope will ensure that the changes bring positive results.
We want the right lawyers for the right type of work. It is not possible for every single lawyer to be an expert in welfare law, immigration law, disability law and criminal law. There are not many experts in criminal law at Clifford Chance--which may have merged since I last looked at the list--or at Slaughter and May. They are not experts in criminal law. It would therefore be absurd if we simply made criminal legal aid available to every firm of solicitors.
The Bill seeks to ensure that contracts are issued to those solicitors and members of the Bar who are expert in their field. That will enable better justice--not only better access to justice, but a better quality of justice--and ensure that people are properly represented by those who have an interest in those fields.
I strongly welcome the establishment of the community legal service. I have always felt that we need to have a much more coherent and cohesive approach in the provision of legal services. I am delighted that the Minister of State has chosen Leicester as one the associate
pilot schemes for operation of the new community legal service, and believe that the new commission will pull together all the various strands.
I worry about the possibility that the service may be better in some parts of the country, which have forward-thinking local authorities, and that it may not be so good in other parts of the country. I worry also about the situation in rural areas and constituencies. Perhaps we have to examine that matter much more carefully. Nevertheless, I welcome the commitment to creating a service that is not only national in outlook but deals particularly with local circumstances.
I commend the work of the citizens advice bureaux and law centres. Some people believe that lawyers are the only ones who can give advice, but that is simply not true. For two years, I worked in the Highfields in Belgrave law centre, in Leicester, and learned everything that I know about immigration law from immigration advisers and workers, who were not legally qualified but understood the working of the law.
Mr. John M. Taylor:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Vaz:
I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman has just come into the Chamber and has not listened to the whole debate. We also have a time limit. There are very few Opposition Members in the Chamber, and I am sure that he will want to make his own speech.
The problem with law centres is not only underfunding but the fact that they are located only in certain areas, in our big cities and big towns. We have to ensure that if we are to provide legal services through organisations such as law centres, they are funded in different parts of the country.
CABs should be commended. They are composed of voluntary workers who daily go in there and, in some cases, provide complex advice. For a few years, I worked as a volunteer in the CAB in Richmond, in Surrey, when I lived there. The quality of advice given by my co-workers was incredible. The amount of information that came from the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux was amazing. We must ensure that the CABs are part of the system. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, who is nodding, will ensure that that happens.
Sir Nicholas Lyell:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Vaz:
I will not allow interventions because we are on a time limit and a lot of hon. Members wish to speak.
Sir Nicholas Lyell:
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I quite understand the hon. Gentleman cherishing his time but--I say this with all friendliness--will he clarify his position? I understood that he was the parliamentary private secretary to the Law Officers. He is quite entitled to make a speech, and it will be welcomed by Government Front Benchers that he is commending the Bill. However, could we have a clarification of his position?
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
May I say two things? First, there is injury time for interventions so that an hon. Member under a time limit is not penalised. Secondly,
Mr. Vaz:
As has been mentioned, the Bill is led by the Lord Chancellor's Department. As the right hon.and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) says, I am the PPS to the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General. This is not a Bill from our Department.
Mr. Bercow:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
I have a problem with the words "criminal defence service," and I think that we should find a new title. It reminds me of the criticism that was used against the Crown Prosecution Service before the dynamic David Calvert-Smith arrived, when it was referred to as the "criminal protection society". The criminal defence service is a service to provide defence for alleged criminals. I know that people do not like the words--which come from the United States--but perhaps the public defender service would be a better title. We need to have people who are expert in defence work, as we have on the prosecution side through the Crown Prosecution Service.
I support and welcome conditional fees. I saw a film last week called "A Civil Action", starring John Travolta, which was all about conditional fees. As the film was made in Hollywood, the lawyer mortgaged his house, the lights were taken out and the fax machine was sold because he wanted to get to the wire to make sure that the case was dealt with. He won the case, and they settled for $8 million. However, the clients would have liked a better settlement. I support the idea of conditional fees, but we must be wary of the fact that people may settle when they think that they have their fees in order. I am sure that we will look at that.
There is a challenge for the legal profession. I say to the president of the Law Society, Michael Mathews, and the chairman of the Bar, Dan Brennan, that they need to get their professions in order. There are bad solicitors and bad barristers--as there are bad practitioners in every profession--but it should not be up to Parliament each time to try to draw attention to the fact that there are problems in the professions. I hope that they--both men of integrity and both leaders of their professions--will ensure that something is done to deal with that problem.
Finally, I commend and echo the words of my noble and learned Friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton, who said on 14 December 1998:
"I believe that the Bill makes a genuine contribution to making justice more accessible to the general public than it is at the moment."--[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 December 1998; Vol. 595, c. 1201.]
I strongly support those views, and I look forward to serving on the Committee, with all the Opposition Members who are present, to debate the matters.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |