| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The Minister's comments were splendid, but he was not absolutely exact in his timing. I am sure that his remarks were appreciated.
We now move on to the debate on publicly funded legal services and legal aid in Reading, East.
Legal Services (Reading, East)
12.30 pm
Jane Griffiths (Reading, East): I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the important subject of publicly funded legal services in Reading. The title of the debate might give the impression that a parochial matter is being aired in the House today, but that is not so. I shall raise several important issues relating to the legal aid service in Reading that reflect a worrying national picture.
Parliament is considering a number of Government Bills relating to access to justice that will make important changes to the justice system. Consultations have been taking place and the public and interested bodies have been expressing their views. Therefore, it is all the more essential that existing bodies which provide access to legal services for those who need them, but who do not have the means to fund legal representation from their own income, operate in a manner that disburses public funds correctly, and that those bodies monitor rigorously the disbursement of those funds so that public money is not squandered, either on hopeless cases or on cases in which the full evidence is not in the possession of either of the parties concerned or their legal representatives.
I was pleased to learn from the Reading legal aid office that the targets for speedy processing of claims for legal aid assistance, which are set nationally, are being either met or exceeded by that office. Some months ago, I tabled parliamentary questions in an effort to establish where the Reading legal aid office fits into the national picture in terms of meeting those targets and processing my constituents' claims for legal aid assistance. From the answers provided by Ministers, it is clear that the Reading legal aid office is almost entirely typical of the country as a whole.
The figures show that Reading legal aid office had an average level of debt write-off of £637 in 1997-98, which is the last year for which figures are available. That is slightly less than the national average of £700 in1997-98. The figures for the same year also show that, at £1.5 million per permanent employee, the cost of the legal aid service in Reading is less than the national average cost per permanent employee of £1.7 million. To attach a health warning to the latter figures, I should point out that the national figures include central support staff, whereas Reading's figures do not.
I am delighted that Reading's legal aid service appears to be performing well, but a darker picture has emerged after a meeting that I had with staff from that office. It is apparent that the need to meet or exceed national targets is putting pressure on staff at local legal aid offices to process claims without necessarily having the opportunity to put due checks and balances in place. The staff have targets for the number of claims that they have to process every day. They are checked constantly, and falling behind in achieving the targets results in a visit from a supervisor and possible disciplinary action.
I have no problem with the existence of targets to measure efficiency of processing--in fact, I believe that it is important to have targets to ensure that work is being carried out as efficiently as possible. However, that efficiency, those targets and the management systems must not apply solely to processing of claims, but should apply also to the accuracy of the claims that are entered.
To illustrate my argument, I shall refer to a constituent, whom I shall call Mr. B. He is in the unusual, but by no means unique, position of being in the throes of a marriage break-up, but still living in the same house as his spouse. Representations have been made seeking legal aid for his spouse, to the effect that she is responsible for various financial outgoings of the household. Because of their joint occupation of the household, Mr. B is in a position to have seen the claim that his spouse has submitted and learn that she has claimed for household expenditure that he actually pays. He can demonstrate that her financial situation is not as it has been represented.
That evidence is not being properly considered by the Reading legal aid office, despite the fact that its authenticity is at least worthy of respect. That is apparently because, were it to be considered, the excellent record of the Reading legal aid office in meeting its targets might be compromised. Mr. B, whose income would not in any circumstances entitle him to legal aid assistance, is left in the unfortunate position of knowing that public funds are being issued to a person who is not entitled to benefit from them, and that he could lose his home as a result.
Another constituent, Mr. L, has been in dispute for 10 years or more with his neighbour over a piece of land adjoining both their properties. Despite the fact that Mr. L's case and others like it are unlikely to achieve a satisfactory settlement through the courts, public funds have been disbursed over the years to the extent that the piece of land in dispute could have been purchased at the market value, donated to my constituent and an equivalent sum paid in compensation to his neighbour with the legal aid funds that have already been disbursed--but, of course, those funds have gone into the pockets of solicitors. As it is, the action continues, with no hope of success and with distress and worry caused to my constituent, whose legal representatives have been happy to receive legal aid certificates for a hopeless case. The legal aid service's remit allows it to refuse assistance for such cases, but in Mr. L's and other cases it has not done so.
Those examples, which are replicated in othercases that constituents have brought to my attention, demonstrate that there is some substance to the concerns of the staff at the Reading legal aid office. I am worried to learn that the Reading office is now taking on work from Manchester, Brighton and elsewhere. I understand that legal aid offices do that, if they have spare capacity. I hope that the systems for dealing with that work will ensure that there is proper scrutiny of the claims. The staff at the office have further concerns: paperwork is thrown away, so there is no record of the development of a case and no paper record should there have to be court action for recovery, making that recovery much harder; and auditing of claims by solicitors firms for legal aid under the delegated scheme again fails to provide proper scrutiny, as a result of the same pressures to pass claims.
Mr. Martin Salter (Reading, West):
My hon. Friend is making a good argument and the people of Reading will be grateful to her. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, does she agree that there is an urgent need for that Committee to examine the roots of the suspicion
Jane Griffiths:
I agree that there is cause for concern about the activities of unscrupulous solicitors in several areas. I hope that the sort of rigorous scrutiny that I shall recommend will be carried out.
I do not ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, to comment upon individual cases, as that would not be appropriate. However, I do ask him to reflect upon the fact that the Reading legal aid office is under such pressure to meet its targets for speedy processing of claims that claims are being routinely approved, without sufficient checking or scrutiny. Under the current system, it is easier to approve all claims that pass across an officer's desk than to check the reasonableness of the claims.
The professional staff at the Reading legal aid office would like to check all the claims that pass before them, but they are not given the opportunity to exercise their professionalism. Thus, year after year, huge sums of public money are disbursed--sums that almost match the budget of Reading council for the provision of all services to the people of Reading. Targets are met, but my constituents in Reading, East have less-than-adequate access to justice and solicitors get fat on the proceeds.
Money is walking out of the door of the Reading legal aid office, because management systems are set up to issue money as efficiently as possible and equal attention is not given to ensuring that the money is effectively spent. Solicitors in Reading, East are well aware that legal aid claims are not rigorously monitored. Who can blame them for claiming what they can, or for encouraging their clients to pursue cases that are either hopeless or misrepresented?
Access to justice is a basic human right. I hope that the Minister will take into account the fact that, whatever the situation in the Reading legal aid office may be, according to the Government's figures, it is not untypical of the national picture. Therefore, it may be true that, all over the country, the speedy processing of legal aid claims is taking precedence over good monitoring and scrutiny. I hope that that is not the case.
I should like to take advantage of the privilege that I have been granted in raising this important subject in the House today by asking the Minister whether he will ensure that the legal aid service in Reading, and others elsewhere in the country, will be obliged in future to undertake strict monitoring of financial disbursement and rigorous scrutiny of the evidence presented when legal aid is sought. My constituent Mr. B should be permitted to present evidence that may affect his adversary's entitlement to legal aid under our current system.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |