Session 2009-10
Publications on the internet
General Committee Debates
Delegated Legislation Committee Debates

Legal Services Commission Funding
Code: Criteria and Procedures



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

Column number: 3 

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. 

Column number: 4 

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. 

Column number: 5 

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. 

Column number: 6 

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

Column number: 7 
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

Column number: 8 
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. 

Column number: 9 

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

Column number: 10 
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,

Column number: 11 
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. 

Column number: 12 

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. 

Column number: 13 

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   

Column number: 14 
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.  


©Parliamentary copyright
Prepared 11:12 on 25th March 2010