Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 11 January 2007. It occurred during Adjournment debate on Legal Aid.


Legal Aid

Of course, we should encourage people to cost the Government, and therefore the taxpayer, the least possible amount. However, some people might not do the big and complex cases or cater for a large immigrant community that does not speak English. The reality is that cases vary. This is a horses for courses argument. I am oversimplifying, but that is the case that has been put. I am not against a review. I have always argued that we must review public services and ensure that we get good value for money and good practice, but there are threats to the quality outcome. Good solicitors in well respected firms have told me that the danger is that quality will suffer because people will do the easy work, they will do work quickly or they will not be able to spend the time required. I know from my surgeries, as the Minister and every hon. Member representing a London constituency will know from theirs, that there are complex people who are depressive, suicidal and have all sorts of issues, and who, to put it bluntly, take a lot of time to deal with. The pressures are such that that firms will not be able to take on people like that because they will not have the time to deal with them and because they will not be able to average things out. Such people will cost firms too much over the average. I want to make two further points, because other colleagues want to add to the argument and, I hope, to the pressure. First, let me repeat the network point that was identified by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald). The Government’s rejoinder to arguments about the network is often, ““People, on average, live no more than five miles from a legal aid provider.”” The question is: what do we want the provision for? That is why I argue that rather than just taking the Carter proposals, as amended, and having the top-down approach, which is the Minister’s and her Government’s response, she should seek to agree what should happen with providers, county by county or region by region. It has been suggested that the responses will simply be, ““I am sorry. We might like to move away from this, but we cannot move from it at all.”” Let me return to the point on which I began. The Minister said that the reforms do not represent a penny being cut from the legal aid budget.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
455 c179WH 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
Westminster Hall
Subjects
Community Legal Service Legal profession Fees and charges Legal aid scheme Legal Services Commission Reform
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk