asked the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's present review of legal aid funding.

asked the Attorney-General if he will publish the results of the legal aid efficiency scrutiny.

The report is expected in about a month's time. It will be published as soon as this can conveniently be arranged.

I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for that promise to publish the report of the Treasury efficiency unit. Will he give an assurance that in their search for savings and extra money for the profession the Government will protect the interests of the consumers of legal services under the legal aid system? Does he acknowledge the now widespread fear that we are getting a second-class service for the most vulnerable sectors of the community?

I do not acknowledge the latter part of the question, nor would the Lord Chancellor. The scrutiny was set up with no preconceived ideas, but it is of concern to everyone, especially taxpayers, that the cost of legal aid in real terms has doubled since 1979.

I welcome the decision to publish the report. Does the Solicitor-General agree that efficiency is only one of several matters of concern about the legal aid system, and that many people believe that a wider ranging review of the scheme would have been of benefit both to the legal profession and to people who depend upon legal aid?

I agree that efficiency is very important, but it is not the whole story.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the great deficiencies of the legal aid system is the fact that if the litigant has an income below a certain level legal aid is forthcoming but that consequently a vast section of the public come into an income category which means that they are not able to obtain legal aid, even though at the same time, because of legal costs, they are unable to prosecute or defend cases?

I think that litigation should generally be avoided. The fact remains that very nearly 80 per cent. of our fellow countrymen who receive legal aid do so free of contribution. That is a substantial preponderance.

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the question he was asked was absolutely right, because there is no justice in this country for the vast Majority of people who do not qualify for legal aid and cannot afford to go to court without it? What will he do to increase legal aid so that ordinary people with ordinary incomes can get ordinary justice from our courts, so that they do not remain like the Waldorf hotel—open to all?

In legal aid, as elsewhere, the more one does, the more one may do. The Lord Chancellor has a very good record in the extension of the availability of legal aid. For example, legal aid has been extended to patients appearing before mental health review tribunals, and there is now the 24-hour duty solicitor scheme for all suspects held at police stations. People have had to wait for a Conservative Government before that has been achieved. Therefore, I do not feel that the implicit criticism of the Lord Chancellor is justified.

Does the Solicitor-General accept that some of those denied access to legal aid are bitter at their inability to go to court and defend themselves? Has he ever considered linking legal aid to the law centre provision so that there is some balance between the two which would enable more people to take part in the legal process?

I expect that it is my fault, but I have not followed the later part of the hon. Gentleman's question. Apart from a few exceptions, law centres are not funded from Government funds, and it is right that they should not be. I quite understand that somebody outside the financial limits for legal aid may wish that he were within them. However, there must be a limit to the amount spent on legal aid. I repeat that twice the sum in real terms is being spent this year than was spent in 1979.

Can the Government do something to protect people who are sued by a legally-aided plaintiff, spend a great deal of time and money defending the case and cannot recover their costs? I have always thought that the provision is unfair. I believe that many people in the legal profession think it is wrong that a non-legally aided person who defends a case and wins can never recover the costs against the legal aid fund. Are the Government looking into that?

I acknowledge the sense of injustice that is apparent, but I cannot hold out any prospect of a change in the rules. Legal aid committees should pay careful attention, as I believe they do, to the merits of a proposed case before granting legal aid certificates.