Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Dominic Raab and John Cryer

Tuesday 5th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

My hon. Friend, as usual, makes a powerful point. We will be able to look at this in the round, but we do still spend £1.6 billion on legal aid, which is a quarter of my Department’s budget. If we want to put more resources in, the money has to be found elsewhere. We will also be looking carefully at making sure we have the right allocation to support those in the greatest need.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Was not the founding principle of legal aid full and free access to justice regardless of ability to pay? Has not that principle been eviscerated and ripped up by the Government, with the able assistance of Nick Clegg and his little Liberals?

[Dominic Raab]

The hon. Gentleman makes his point in his usual punchy way, but I have already detailed the support for early legal help and set out some of the support for litigants in person. The fact is that we provide £1.6 billion in legal aid. If we look at Council of Europe comparisons—I know that we cannot compare like with like exactly—we see that we are providing more legal aid per capita than any other Council of Europe country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Dominic Raab and John Cryer

Tuesday 5th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

In due course.

The cost of employment tribunals last year was £68 million. Only £8 million came from fees; the rest was from taxpayers. It is inherently difficult to balance the contribution required by those who use the justice system against the amount that needs to be borne by the taxpayer, and we recognise that we got that balance wrong. We have ended those fees and are looking at practical arrangements to ensure that those affected are reimbursed.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

In the light of the Court ruling and the Select Committee’s report, was the decision to introduce the fees in the first place a mistake?

[Dominic Raab]

We certainly accept the Supreme Court ruling. We think that we got the balance wrong and we have ended the fees. We are looking to ensure not only that we reimburse those affected, but that we learn lessons for the future.