We carefully considered those points in our consultation response, but we are clear that the proposals put forward by respondents do not, overall, represent a realistic alternative to our programme of reform. We can all agree on the need for greater efficiency. That point was made strongly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), and we already plan to deliver £1 billion of the Ministry's savings through efficiencies. The Justice for All campaign also asked us to improve alternatives to legal processes instead of cutting legal help. The Government seized the point, which is why we are increasing the funding available for mediation by £10 million. Some 50% of the proposals suggested by the Law Society amounted to new taxation, but legal aid is primarily funded out of general taxation, and the Government are seeking to reduce the amount of public spending overall. The deficit is also shared across government, and suggestions of cost shifting will not address the overall financial position.
As the Lord Chancellor said earlier, we have the most expensive legal aid system in the world, except for Northern Ireland. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington said, the Opposition have been quick to criticise but they have offered no viable alternative. They profess to want to cut legal aid without saying what they would do. They propose to spend £65 million more on social welfare. Does the right hon. Member for Tooting mean to say that he would cut criminal legal aid? If so, by how much would he cut it? By the way, we have looked into the proposals of 20 March 2010, and they were on criminal competitive tendering, so where will the right hon. Gentleman get his savings? This is an unsustainable level of expenditure. In some cases the system encourages people to bring issues before courts where other solutions might be better. In others, it enables people to pursue litigation that they would not contemplate were they paying for it from their own pockets.
I firmly believe that the range of cases identified for inclusion within the scope of civil legal aid reflects the desire—
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Jonathan Djanogly
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 29 June 2011.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
530 c1063-4 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 17:11:05 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_754910
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_754910
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_754910