| Access to Justice Bill [Lords]
|
|
Mr. David Kidney (Stafford): The hon. Gentleman has mentioned his pamphlet several times, and I am truly interested in it. Can we see a copy? Mr. Grieve: I shall send the hon. Gentleman a copy. I am afraid that I do not have one with me. I am sure that there are several copies in my Room in the House and in all sorts of nooks and crannies in my chambers. There are probably several copies mouldering away on my shelves at home. It was produced in 1994 or 1995, but—like most pamphlets—there are a few remaindered copies, and I shall happily distribute them to the hon. Gentleman. Mr. Hoon: Signed, I hope. Mr. Grieve: It might be argued that unsigned copies are more valuable. I welcome the new clause, but it is difficult to understand—I look forward to the Minister's comments—how it can work in competition with other systems, because the problem of cherry picking, which concerned us on conditional fee agreements, will apply. If the CLAF is to work, it is important that the funding mechanism ensures that the capital is built up from successful cases. The proposal could have succeeded on its own but, inserted into a set of rules that provide alternatives for easier cases, it will not do so. I regret that. One benefit, however, may be that the provision will be in statute and if, as I fear, there are problems with legal aid and the operation of conditional fee agreements, perhaps someone—along the lines set out in my pamphlet—will dust down the clause and think creatively about how it could be expanded to replace the edifice created by the Government for legal aid. Mr. John Burnett (Torridge and West Devon): I welcome the new clause, which was introduced at the behest of my noble and learned Friend, Lord Goodhart. We pressed the Government to proceed with a contingency legal aid fund in preference to conditional fees because it does not suffer the same conflicts of interest that are so rife in conditional fees arrangements. Conflicts of interest not only manifest themselves between the solicitor and the client, but between the solicitor, client and the insurer. Unfortunately, for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), I do not hold out great hope that a contingency legal aid fund will be a success because conditional fee agreements will take the best and most winnable cases. As a result of what the hon. Gentleman described as cherry picking, a CLAF will not prosper. It would have been in the interests of justice and of the public if a CLAF had been used in preference to conditional fee agreements. The conditional legal aid fund is in direct conflict with conditional fee agreements and, regrettably, the Government have not sought to promote CLAF over CFAs. Nevertheless, I welcome the fact that the Lord Chancellor has honoured his undertaking, and I also welcome the introduction of the clause. Mr. Hoon: The hon. Member for Beaconsfield described the clause as a golden nugget, but who is supposed to provide the gold? He has always argued that it is for the taxpayer to provide the underpinning for any fund, but the Government are not persuaded that that should be the case. The new clause leaves it open for the Bar Council or any other organisation that wants to fund a CLAF to be able to do so. I have made that offer to the Bar and I repeat it today: if it wishes to run the risk of seeing whether its confidence in such a fund is merited, it has the opportunity to do so—assuming that the new clause is accepted. The hon. Members for Beaconsfield and for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) sounded logical when explaining the benefits of a CLAF, but they are not seeing their logic through. If they are really saying that the only way in which a CLAF could operate successfully is by eliminating the use of conditional fee agreements, they should say so. The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon implied that conditional fees would have to be made illegal, so that everyone would be forced to use a CLAF. Our objection to a CLAF is that good cases will be taken on conditional fees and bad cases will be left to go through a CLAF. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield conceded that point, but why should the taxpayer fund such a scheme when there is a proper way of dealing with cases through CFAs? Mr. Burnett: The point of our putting forward a CLAF as a suitable alternative is that the system should be self-funding. Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman needs to apply his mind a little further and think about the problems that could arise. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield began to spell them out, saying that the good cases would be taken on conditional fee arrangements and the less strong cases would be put through the CLAF. The Government have some doubt as to whether a CLAF would be financially viable. If the Bar or any other organisation, perhaps even the Liberal Democrats, thinks that such a CLAF can be made to work successfully, the clause enables them of doing so. Question put and agreed to. Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 1999 | Prepared 13 May 1999 |
