The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chairman:
†Dr.
William McCrea
†
Atkins,
Charlotte (Staffordshire, Moorlands)
(Lab)
Baldry,
Tony (Banbury) (Con)
†
Bellingham,
Mr. Henry (North-West Norfolk)
(Con)
Campbell,
Mr. Ronnie (Blyth Valley)
(Lab)
†
Hemming,
John (Birmingham, Yardley)
(LD)
†
Howarth,
David (Cambridge)
(LD)
†
Iddon,
Dr. Brian (Bolton, South-East)
(Lab)
†
Jones,
Helen (Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's
Household)
†
Laxton,
Mr. Bob (Derby, North)
(Lab)
†
Prentice,
Bridget (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
Justice)
†
Raynsford,
Mr. Nick (Greenwich and Woolwich)
(Lab)
Redwood,
Mr. John (Wokingham)
(Con)
†
Stoate,
Dr. Howard (Dartford)
(Lab)
Twigg,
Derek (Halton)
(Lab)
Walter,
Mr. Robert (North Dorset)
(Con)
†
Wright,
Jeremy (Rugby and Kenilworth)
(Con)
Ben Williams, Committee
Clerk
† attended the
Committee
Eighth
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Wednesday 24
March
2010
[Dr.
William McCrea
in the
Chair]
Legal
Services Commission Funding Code: Criteria and
Procedures
2.30
pm
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Bridget
Prentice):
I beg to
move,
That
the Committee has considered the Legal Services Commission Funding
Code: Criteria and
Procedures.
It
is a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Dr. McCrea,
especially as I have dragged everyone away from the sparkling
contributions being made in the Budget debate. I shall do my best to
let hon. Members hurry back to that as quickly as
possible.
We
are debating the revised Legal Services Commission funding code. The
changes were considered and agreed in another place yesterday. The
funding code, created under section 8 of the Access to Justice Act
1999, sets out the merits criteria for granting civil legal aid in
different types of case and the procedures for operating the civil
legal aid scheme, covering, for example, application, refusal and
appeal
procedures.
The
funding code criteria and procedures are being modified under section 9
of the 1999 Act, which requires any changes to the code criteria, such
as these, to be approved by both Houses of Parliament before coming
into effect. That is done by laying the whole code, as amended, before
each House, rather than by dealing with it amendment by
amendment.
The
funding code does not set out the remuneration arrangements for civil
legal aid, which are set out in orders and contracts; nor does it cover
the financial eligibility rules for civil legal aid, which are in
regulations. Instead, it covers the test that cases must meet, in the
judgment of the Legal Services Commission, to merit civil legal aid
funding. The merits test includes consideration of the likely costs of
a case against the likely damages and how likely the case is to
succeed. It also sets out the considerations that apply to cases that
are not primarily about
money.
Generally,
the intention is to model the approach that a reasonable privately
paying client would adopt with regard to litigation, taking into
account the importance of the issues at stake, the likelihood of
success and all other circumstances. That helps to ensure a level
playing field between those who can afford to litigate privately and
those who do not have the financial resources to do so. It follows that
public funding should not be provided if a case is not sufficiently
strong for a private client to risk his or her own money and bear the
risk of having to pay the costs of the other
side.
The
revised funding code introduces a number of changes to the operation of
civil legal aid. We devote very significant resources to civil legal
aid—about £1 billion annually—so it is
important that we review regularly how that money is being spent and
the cases and matters on which it is being targeted in order to ensure
that we achieve value for money.
Following a
review of the code by the Ministry of Justice and the Legal Services
Commission, we published a range of proposals to refocus and target
resources on the cases of greatest merit. The changes have not been
driven primarily by financial considerations. Indeed, the savings,
which we expect to be about £5 million a year, are relatively
modest compared with the overall legal aid budget. Rather, we have
looked critically at the existing funding rules in order to identify
areas in which they can be strengthened to ensure that the funds are
properly
targeted.
The
changes were subject to a full consultation last year, and we had very
useful further discussions with interested parties following the
consultation. As a result, we have substantially revised our original
proposals. For example, we have dropped plans to restrict funding for
individual damages claims against public authorities. In addition to
discontinuing some proposals, we have substantially modified others, in
the light of suggestions from stakeholders. For example, we are acting
to restrict legal aid for low-value multi-party action damages claims,
but we are retaining funding for multi-party claims for discrimination,
child abuse claims and cases of wider public interest, as suggested by
consultees. The stakeholders have expressed gratitude for having been
fully engaged in that
process.
This
is a series of somewhat technical changes, and it might assist the
Committee if I summarise the key changes. In section 2 of the code
criteria, we have tightened the definition of the “wider public
interest” test, so that the case not only must have the
potential to produce real benefits for individuals other than the
client, but must be considered on its particular facts to be an
appropriate case to realise those benefits. That will ensure that when
funding is sought for a weaker case—a case with borderline
prospects of success—on the basis that it could benefit others,
it will receive funding only if the outcome has a realistic, rather
than just a theoretical, prospect of delivering benefits to
others.
Section 5
sets out the criteria of general application. We are withdrawing
funding for claims that are part of a multi-party action when the
likely damages assessed by the LSC are £5,000 or less, but we
have retained funding for lead claims because we believe that that will
allow legal aid to fund the initial determination of the issue, and
further cases can then proceed on a private or conditional fee basis.
We are imposing an identical restriction through the Lord
Chancellor’s Direction on the Scope of the Community Legal
Service for out-of-scope cases that are funded on the basis of wider
public interest, such as some personal injury claims. The direction is
not subject to parliamentary approval, but has been provided to the
Committee for
information.
Section
7 covers funding for judicial review, and there are two changes. First,
we have ensured that funding is available only to individuals seeking a
benefit for themselves or their family. Legal aid is intended to assist
individuals with their personal legal problems. It should not be used
as a tool for those who want to campaign about matters with which they
have no personal connection. It is important to focus our resources on
our priorities, such as debt, employment and housing advice, in the
current economic climate, and resources should not be diverted
elsewhere. Of course, campaigning organisations are free to seek
judicial review, although they will not be eligible for legal aid,
which is provided only to individuals.
Secondly, we
have removed the existing presumption of funding. The presumption
applies to cases of wider public interest or overwhelming importance to
the client, or those raising serious human rights issues. In practice,
the presumption means that when a judge has granted permission for
judicial review, legal aid funding follows with no consideration by the
Legal Services Commission of the likely costs, the likely benefits, the
case, or the prospects of success. A judicial decision will always
carry great weight, and indeed, it is the proper role of the LSC to
decide whether the use of public funds is justified. We want to ensure
that it can carry out that role, and we want that role to be clear. We
anticipate that funding will be withheld in only a handful of
cases.
Section
8 sets out the criteria for damages claims against public authorities,
and we have included an additional prompt by referring to the prison
and probation complaints schemes. There is already a general
requirement to that effect, but the change is intended to highlight the
need to consider alternative forms of dispute resolution before
litigation
commences.
Sections
12 and 13 relate to mental health and immigration matters respectively.
We have taken the opportunity to update the references to the tribunals
to recognise the reformed service implemented under the Tribunals,
Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. That is not a substantive change to
legal aid for such cases, but simply a change in
terminology.
The
code sets out the operational procedures for civil legal aid, and I
want to comment just on the two main changes. Section C15A of the
procedures sets out the new process that we are introducing to fight
fraud. Before legal aid is granted in an ancillary relief or a private
law children case, the LSC will notify the other party to invite them
to provide evidence if they believe that the applicant is financially
ineligible for funding. The other party will have 14 days to put
forward any evidence, after which funding will commence in the usual
way. That notification requirement does not apply to domestic violence
cases or to urgent cases, when it can be waived. If the commission
receives evidence that the applicant may not be eligible, it will pass
that to its fraud team to investigate, or contact the Department for
Work and Pensions if the allegations concern benefit
entitlement.
Our intention
is to consider the process for all areas of civil legal aid, but the
changes before the Committee are confined to private law children and
finance cases. We are conscious that the new process has the potential
to increase the number of vexatious representations. We currently
receive the highest proportion of genuine representations about client
eligibility in these areas. Some 50 to 60 per cent. of representations
about client eligibility are of substance, so we have chosen to start
the new process in those areas because we are conscious of the risk
that it might increase the number of vexatious representations. The new
power is drafted as a discretion so that the LSC can roll out the new
process gradually. If we were to find that it was not as effective as
anticipated, it could be stopped and we could reconsider.
Cases subject
to the new special controls regime can be referred to the new special
controls review panel for advice on their merits. Where funding is
refused, cases will be referred to the panel for reconsideration. The
panel will then report, and the LSC can make the final decision, taking
into account the panel’s findings.
We are making
the changes to legal aid now in advance of the transformation of the
LSC to an executive agency for pretty straightforward reasons.
Transforming the commission to agency status will need primary
legislation, so it will inevitably be some time before such changes
could take effect. The current system, therefore, would continue in
place for the time being. Clearly, if we implement any changes we will
need to ensure that the decision making in individual cases is
independent of Ministers.
In
conclusion, I hope that the Committee finds that my explanation of the
revised funding code is of help. It is technical, but we are talking
about important changes that will help to ensure that funding is
directed towards the cases of the highest
merit.
2.41
pm
Mr.
Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk) (Con):
It is a
pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr. McCrea.
First, I should like to declare an interest as a former practising
barrister who did a substantial amount of legal aid work. We are
talking about the community legal service this afternoon and, as the
Minister pointed out, there is a great deal of pressure on the budget.
Although the Opposition feel that there is a critical need to bring new
funding streams into the legal aid budget, we must have a greater
emphasis on more efficiency and better value for money. Much of the
scope will probably be in the criminal service with the very high cost
cases, but there is undoubtedly scope in the community legal service as
well.
In
principle, we support the changes, but I should like to put some points
to the Minister. It would have been helpful to have had in the
explanatory notes some indication of how much is spent on each area and
of the savings that would be made in each area as a result of those
changes. The Minister alluded to an overall figure, but it is difficult
to assess the funding code in the explanatory notes without that
information. In my humble judgment, it would require many parliamentary
questions to elicit the information.
Paragraph
7.2.3 of the code makes it clear that if there is scope for
administrative appeals or other procedures, it is not appropriate to
get legal aid for judicial review. By definition, judicial review
involves complaints against local authorities, public bodies,
Departments and other organisations. Obviously, by definition,
complaints procedures will be in place, and councillors or Ministers
will be accountable for those organisations and can be called to
account and asked to explain what is going on.
Will the
Minister tell us how much is spent a year on legal aid cases involving
judicial review? Can she give us some indication of how much would be
saved by the two key changes that she will make as a result of the
changes in the funding code—first, the restriction of the
judicial review to individuals as opposed to campaigning organisations
or groups of people and, secondly, the change to the presumption on
funding?
Turning
to claims against police and prisoners, am I right in saying that we
currently spend about £30 million a year on financing such
claims and complaints? Paragraph 8.2.2 makes it clear that
investigative help can be refused if it is more appropriate for the
client to pursue a complaint or use other channels rather than
litigation, and that is something that we support. All
prisons have a proper complaints process. The governor is accountable to
Ministers who in turn are accountable to Parliament. From time to time,
my hon. Friends and I receive letters from prisoners complaining about
their treatment or about what they can or cannot have in their cells
and such matters can often be resolved through normal channels. My
concern, looking at that £30 million figure, is that
too often the default position is to get legal aid and to mount a case,
and that is wrong. We need the opportunity to take legal action, but
only in those cases where all other avenues have been completely
exhausted. Will the Minister comment on
that?
On
clinical negligence, why has paragraph 5.6.1 on conditional fee
agreements been disapplied? In the case of criminal negligence, there
should be scope for using conditional fee agreements across the board.
They are all monetary value cases, with many taken against private
hospitals and the vast majority against the NHS Litigation Authority.
As I understand it, there are certain categories of patients who do not
qualify for legal aid. Some categories do qualify; for example,
children under a certain age, or people with mental disabilities. Would
it make sense, or be possible, to put some of those cases on to the CFA
scheme? I am concerned that the number of cases of criminal negligence
is mounting and the cost to the NHS Litigation Authority is
substantial.
When such
legal aid cases succeed, there is a clawback to the legal aid fund.
They are not necessarily a big cost to the legal aid fund, but can be a
substantial cost to other Departments. Will the Minister comment on the
escalating costs of running criminal negligence cases? Time and again,
one sees examples in which the costs of the case far exceed the damages
that are eventually awarded. I do not necessarily suggest that we move
to the system used in Germany which restricts costs to a percentage of
the final damages, but perhaps more predictability could be built into
the costs if the judiciary were more proactive and if some of the
procedure rules were
changed.
On
family legal aid work—I am looking at paragraph
11.11.3—does the Minister agree that there is scope for more
mediation and dispute resolution? How seriously do the Government take
mediation and dispute resolution? It strikes me that once they end up
in court, many of those cases are by definition high-stress cases where
any sort of relationship between the parties has completely broken down
and the argument is very often about maintenance—money. The
children of the family are the pawns in that equation and they suffer
most of all. Does she agree with me that it would make sense to put
even more emphasis on mediation to try to prevent such cases going to
court?
On paragraph
13.2, other procedures are often available for sorting out immigration
cases. Of course money needs to be put into law centres, advice centres
and citizens advice bureaux so that our constituents can go and receive
general advice on issues such as welfare, housing, benefits,
immigration or any other concern. I agree with the Minister that there
will be cases, especially in immigration, in which the matter will go
to court and legal aid is justified. Will she comment on the case that
has given rise to much recent publicity involving Howe & Co.? That
firm of solicitors is being paid to advise Gurkhas in Nepal on their
visa status. I understand that
it has already been paid approximately £1 million in legal aid
for that advice. My concern is that we already have the Ministry of
Defence out there offering
advice.
The
Chair:
Order. May I ask the hon. Member to keep within the
scope of the matter before the
Committee?
Mr.
Bellingham:
I certainly will, Dr. McCrea. Without in any
way suggesting that you are not quite right to correct me, I suggest
that the matter is relevant because we are talking about the code. Does
the Minister feel that it is right in this particular case, where the
Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence are offering advice, that a
firm of solicitors should take legal aid
money—£1 million so far—out of the
budget? Will she comment on that case? I am sure it has already been
brought to her attention.
There is
nothing in the code about welfare and benefit advice. Various statutes
relate to how benefits are paid and a constituent going to an advice
centre will be indirectly legally aided. Does anything in the code
cover any form of legal process that might flow from a complaint about
benefits or welfare payments not being
paid?
We
welcome the action that the Government have taken. I could have spoken
at far greater length and perhaps picked holes in some of these
changes. However, I accept that there has been wide consultation with
all interested parties, and that the Government are under a great deal
of pressure. The Treasury has made it clear that there will be no extra
money for legal aid, over and above the £2.1 billion. We feel
strongly that maintaining funding for advice centres, law centres, CABs
and community legal aid centres is incredibly important. Therefore,
efforts must be made within the budget to concentrate funds on the most
deserving cases, which unfortunately will mean some changes in the
funding code. There will be unfortunate consequences for some of our
constituents, but overall the Government are doing their best to get it
right. We expect answers from the Minister to those few questions, but
overall we support what she is
doing.
2.51
pm
John
Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD):
I am pleased to serve
under your chairmanship, Dr. McCrea, for the first time. I must declare
an interest in that I chair the Justice for Families campaign, which
deals with issues of public family law. We often encounter the
interrelationship between the legal services code and what happens in
the family courts.
One problem
at times is that to get a case into the European Court, one has to
oppose proceedings in the lower courts. If someone has applied for an
interim care order, and one does not oppose that, one cannot appeal the
process. In a couple of cases the LSC has said it will withdraw funding
if we oppose an interim care order. That in a sense runs through all of
the issues relating to the code.
I am sorry
that we will not be supporting the Government, although I do have some
questions. To what extent do the code and its operation interfere with
the process of justice—not just access—by forcing people
into case management decisions and into not opposing things as they
would like to do? We are in a mess, particularly in the family law
environment.
We talked
about mediation. It is clearly far better to get separated parents to
co-operate in the best interests of their child, but the whole system
seems to conspire to do the complete opposite. The Government’s
review is the right way forward, asking whether we should completely
restructure the family courts, so that we look at trying to solve the
problem. The problem in private family law is normally that parents are
not co-operating. We encourage that and throw money at it, rather than
approach it in a completely different way.
In essence,
the difficulty is access to justice. We need to look at other countries
such as Ireland for how law centres work. There are ways in which we
could support litigants in person, with a limited amount of advocacy
giving greater access to justice, rather than just taking a system that
is not working very well and making it work a little worse by producing
particular constraints. For instance, we are particularly concerned
about the programme implications for access to justice. We understand
that the savings are less than £6 million gross, or 0.5 per
cent. of the civil legal aid budget. Yet that is having a significant
effect on access to justice for potentially vulnerable groups and
significant public interest cases.
We are
particularly concerned about judicial review, with the abolition of the
presumption of funding. If there is permission, there is arguably a
case that locus standi has been agreed. The impact assessment expects
that that will save only £75,000 a year, which is hardly
anything compared with the change in principle. It is unacceptable,
because the Government are pre-judging the courts’ decisions
about interest and saying that one cannot have a judicial review that
is not selfish. That is one of our biggest concerns about the
proposals. They may only affect five cases a year, but those could be
five very important
cases.
We
are also worried about the wider public interest cases and the new
special controls review panel. The Executive are again making decisions
through a management process about who gets funding for public interest
cases, which are often taken against the Government themselves. That is
what we were worried about when we expressed concern about the
restructuring of the LSC and whether it would result in conflicts of
interest due to decisions being taken closer to Ministers. How will the
new panel fit into the body that replaces the LSC? What are Ministers
doing to safeguard its
independence?
Funding
for community actions will be limited based on the proportion of people
in the local area who are eligible for legal aid. That, however, is a
really difficult thing to work out. What is the local area? How do the
Government propose to calculate the eligibility of an entire population
for legal aid when individual means-testing is a complex process? How
can they guarantee that the proposal will not penalise poor or
vulnerable groups with a community action plan but who live in an
otherwise wealthy
area?
On
out of scope damages cases, under a new and tighter merits test,
funding will be granted only if the likely damages for the client
exceed £5,000. What about injunctions? Damages are not involved
in an injunction, because it is something that one tries to put in
place in
advance.
The
hon. Member for North-West Norfolk mentioned prison complaints. We are
not as worried about having to go through the complaint process first,
because that
is a normal part of a judicial review—one is supposed to exhaust
some of the internal processes. We are worried, however, about the fact
that one cannot even get the relatively informal advice without
initiating a case. We think that it is wrong in principle that somebody
cannot get advice about anything, let alone that they have to initiate
an
action.
The
issue of legal aid for non-residents is interesting. A constituent of
mine had lived and worked as a bus driver in Yardley for his whole life
before retiring to Thailand. He then returned to the UK because he
wanted to come back here, but found that he had no locus standi at all,
because he was not habitually resident. The test, rather than being one
of ordinary residence or habitual residence, is whether or not one has
a UK address other than that of a solicitor. That is interesting, but
where does it leave a homeless British citizen such as my erstwhile
constituent who came back from Thailand? If he has any rights, he
cannot establish them because he cannot get any advice. He does not
know how to deal with the situation, other than to talk to the MP for
where he used to live. Members of Parliament, however, should be a
backstop. Two of my constituents may have succeeded in criminal cases
of miscarriage of justice due to action from my office, but that should
be a backstop, not
commonplace.
It
is claimed that the changes will be operated and enforced by the LSC,
but it is being scrapped. How is that expected to fit into the new
regime? We would also like an assurance that the key issue of
independent decision making will be safeguarded, given that, in many
cases related to the changes, the Government will be the defendant.
Moreover, to ask a wider question, to what extent will a judicial
review operate to check the power of an overbearing state? I am
sceptical about the family area in
particular.
The
impact assessment states that the
Government
“does
not consider that these changes will have a significant adverse impact
on the justice
system.”
That
suggests that they are willing to tolerate what they deem to be an
insignificant adverse impact for a saving of no more than £6
million. Indeed, it could be substantially less than that, given that
the impact assessment is based on estimates by the LSC, which is being
scrapped because of incompetence and financial irregularities. We do
not, therefore, know where that money is going. It is an insult that
the Government are willing to sacrifice access to justice and the
independence of the judicial system to save such an insignificant
sum.
That
is my party’s position, but I go a little further because I see
a lot of dreadful individual cases going through the system. It is
shocking how bad things are. There are conflicts of interest and many
other things in the system, and the provision moves further in that
direction. I am sorry to say that I will oppose
it.
2.59
pm
Bridget
Prentice:
I will do my best to answer all the questions,
but add my usual caveat that, if I miss anything, I will write to the
Committee. I say to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley that we
have left non-residents out of scope and defined residence in a
particular way because our advice was that basing this change to the
code on the Access to Justice Act 1999, which is what we have been
using, would not be appropriate,
so primary legislation would be needed. We do not exclude that
possibility in the future when it is looked at further. I understand
all the hon. Gentleman’s concerns in the family law area but
some of his concerns relate more to public than to private family
law.
The hon.
Member for North-West Norfolk always asks his questions in a logical
and clear fashion. He asked how much we were spending on the different
areas. I cannot give him the exact figures for each of the different
areas, but in family legal aid in 2001-02 we spent just under
£400 million. The figures for 2007-08 show that we are now
spending over £580 million, which is an increase of about 25 per
cent. In prison law in 2001-02, we spent £1 million; we are now
spending £22 million. Those are significant increases and I know
that he would agree, because he said so in his remarks, that we need to
control this in a way that ensures that we prioritise the distribution
of the money to those who are most in need.
We spend
about £12 million on judicial review cases and the changes that
we are making today will probably save us in the region of
£125,000 a year. That is not an insignificant sum, but it is not
huge. That is why I would be less concerned than the hon. Member for
Birmingham, Yardley about the judicial review cases, because only a
tiny number will be
affected.
John
Hemming:
The point about judicial review is that it
establishes a precedent to guide public authorities on how they should
act. So the fact that it is a small number of cases that go to court
does not mean that it is a small number of situations where that
precedent is
important.
Bridget
Prentice:
I perfectly understand and accept that argument.
Nevertheless, I think that the code will work in a way that ensures
that, where cases have that wider public interest, that will
remain.
The hon.
Member for North-West Norfolk asked about alternative dispute
resolution, particularly in prisoner cases, but also in family cases. I
wholeheartedly agree with everything he says there. We need to do a
great deal more work on that. My noble Friend Lord Bach and I have
spent a considerable amount of time in the Ministry of Justice not just
with officials but with other stakeholders talking about how we can
extend the use of alternative dispute resolution and mediation. We have
even gone so far as to ask stakeholders about the possibility of making
mediation a compulsory element before matters come to court. I quite
agree that using the court system should be the last resort. It is
particularly traumatic for children and I am never entirely convinced
that it is the best solution. I am sure that he will support us as we
take that
forward.
The
hon. Gentleman also asked about clinical negligence and the amount of
money that is spent by the NHS in that area. We are not changing the
issues here in this exercise. CFAs can increase the costs to the NHS
but we will review that in light of the Jackson review. Sir
Rupert Jackson’s review on costs has been extensive; I spoke
with him only the other week about that. It will need primary
legislation when it is taken through. He has done an amazing piece of
work, which we will look at in considerable detail.
The hon.
Gentleman also asked about the solicitors Howe & Co. My noble
Friend Lord Bach has already asked the LSC to look into the allegations
about that company. Those inquiries are being made and I shall ensure
the hon. Gentleman and the Committee see any decision taken as a
result. The hon. Gentleman asked about savings in each area. We expect
savings of about £2.7 million from better fraud detection, with
the balance from refocusing the resources in other
areas.
The hon.
Member for Birmingham, Yardley touched on the presumption of funding.
It is not the LSC’s role to determine whether a case should be
brought or should proceed, but it is its role to determine whether
legal aid funding should be made available. At the moment there is a
presumption that the funding will be granted, irrespective of the
LSC’s assessment of whether the case merits public funding.
There is not another judicial decision that determines civil legal aid
in that way. That is why we have changed the code on
that.
John
Hemming:
The ECHR has a system whereby if admissibility is
declared, aid is
provided.
Bridget
Prentice:
The hon. Gentleman obviously knows a great deal
more about that aspect than I do, and I take his word for it. If that
has a bearing on what we are doing today, I shall ask my noble Friend
to have another look at
it.
The
hon. Gentleman asked whether we could provide more support for
litigants in person. The civil legal aid scheme provides help to cover
initial advice and a McKenzie friend. He also asked about the LSC
withdrawing legal aid where there is opposition to an interim care
order. None of the changes being made today will affect child
protection cases, because they will have the highest priority for
funding. He finished with a concern that Ministers might be too close
to the decision-making process. I assure him that there is a clear
separation between Ministers and funding decisions in individual cases.
Nothing that is being done in creating the agency will prevent that
independent decision and appeals process from working. We will make
sure that the legislation provides those
safeguards.
John
Hemming:
I made the point about the LSC refusing to fund
an opposition to an interim care order because that is already
happening. That sort of unwillingness of the system to challenge the
state—in that instance the local authority—is
particularly concerning and already
happens.
Bridget
Prentice:
In that case, if the hon. Gentleman gives me
some examples, I will pass them to my noble Friend, who can take it up
directly with the LSC.
I hope, Dr.
McCrea, that I have covered all the questions that hon. Gentlemen have
asked. I appreciate the supportive and positive way in which they dealt
with these quite technical changes. These changes are important if we
are to ensure that the £2.1 billion—as the hon. Member
for North-West Norfolk mentioned—spent on legal aid is spent on
those most in need. We spend more on legal aid than any other western
nation, and on a per capita basis we spend considerably more than any
nation with a similar legal system. We should be proud of our legal aid
system, but we want to make it better and more efficient, and to reach
those most in need.
Question
put.
The
Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes
1.
Division
No.
1
]
AYES
Atkins,
Charlotte
Bellingham,
Mr.
Henry
Iddon,
Dr.
Brian
Jones,
Helen
Laxton,
Mr.
Bob
Prentice,
Bridget
Raynsford,
rh Mr.
Nick
Stoate,
Dr.
Howard
Wright,
Jeremy
NOES
Hemming,
John
Question
accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That
the Committee has considered the Legal Services Commission Funding
Code: Criteria and
Procedures.
3.11
pm
Committee
rose.