Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Baroness Scotland of Asthal Excerpts

Monday 28th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, I have not proposed any amendments to Clause 65, but I fully support what the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has said in seeking to implement the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, on which I sit, which recommended that rules of court that sought to implement the proposals of Clause 65 should be made by affirmative resolution.

On the general thrust of this clause, I regard it as entirely unjust for information to be required from any possible supporter of a judicial review application before the permission stage. It is that that Clause 65 would require. It would impose, in public law cases brought by the citizen to hold the Executive to account, a deterrent requirement that applies to no other English litigation. It has never been thought right to restrict access to the courts in this way, and I would suggest that it is particularly wrong to do so in public law cases.

I regret that I see this clause as no more than a threat. It seems to me to be calculated, whether intentionally or not, to have the effect of stifling applications for judicial review. Any supporter of such an application is to be subjected, before the application is brought, to a requirement to disclose all his financial resources, their nature and extent. That requirement is bound to be a significant deterrent to anyone with any means who is minded to support an application for judicial review. That so-called chilling effect I regard as reason enough for the Government to withdraw this clause.

I take as an example the relatively commonplace scenario of a group of residents in a village or a group of parents at a school who wish to challenge a decision of the local authority concerning services in their village or the closure of their school. Inevitably, some residents and some parents will be wealthier than others. The combined effect of Clauses 65 and 66 is likely to be to prevent the wealthier residents or parents from supporting the application for fear that they will be doomed to meet the lion’s share of any costs order made against the applicants if the judicial review application is not successful. That is likely to mean, in turn, that many meritorious applications for judicial review will not even reach the permission stage, let alone secure a determination, for want of financial support.

For that reason, Clause 65 is wrong in principle and, together with Clause 66, it represents a real fetter on the judicial review process. Clause 66 needs wholesale amendment, to which I will return in the next group. It is the case that the courts already have power to require information as to who is funding applications at the stage at which a costs application is made. That is the appropriate stage for that inquiry. Clause 66 needs amendment to see that that principle is preserved. But confining myself to Clause 65, I suggest that the idea that judicial applications should be choked off before the permission stage is entirely wrong.

[Baroness Scotland of Asthal (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)]

My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, might wish to speak.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Baroness Scotland of Asthal Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Manzoor (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, had not intended to speak, but I feel moved to do so on this occasion. We have judges for a reason, and if we set a precedent in relation to this particular issue, I think that we will put ourselves on a slippery path of setting other mandatory sentences in the future.

[Baroness Scotland of Asthal (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, was not going to add my voice to this debate, but I feel compelled to do so for two reasons. The first is because this is an issue which has been troubling the House for quite some time and we have had a number of debates about it over the years. There is an issue about whether we believe that judges, when they issue sentencing guidelines, are able to do that which a number of Members of this House want in terms of deterrence. A judge’s guideline which indicates that for a second offence the expectation will be imprisonment does have a profound effect.

Secondly, I refer to the period of imprisonment, which is to be four to six months. Those of us who have been burdened with the joy of helping to deliver the criminal justice system know that a period of imprisonment of four to six months is the least effective term there is. Very little opportunity arises in which to do a needs-based assessment with the offender, to do a skills analysis, and then to be able to ascertain how best to intervene and interrupt the pattern of criminality, if one has already been established. If we are thinking about the efficacy of a sentence, this, I must respectfully say to the Committee, seems to be the least efficacious. I would hope that we can trust the judgment of our judges and invite them, if there is not now a strong guideline in relation to sentencing, to provide us with one.

[Lord Deben]

Will the noble and learned Baroness confirm for the Committee that neither she nor I have any intention of supporting a Liberal Democrat plot on this subject?

[Baroness Scotland of Asthal]

My Lords, I can assure the Committee that this has been a sober debate on the issues and that it is clear that there is no unanimity of view on any Bench. I believe that the House of Lords is demonstrating its independence and doing what it does best, which is to argue and disagree, and then, it is hoped, to come to a consensus.

[Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (LD)]

My Lords, amen to that. Like the last several speakers, I had not intended to intervene in the debate—this could go on all night, I suppose—but I want to make two points. First, it was my experience, not only as chief prosecutor but also over very many years of practising criminal law, that sentences of between four and six months are not just pointless, as many speakers have indicated, they are positively damaging. Young people who are sent into young offender institutions for four to six months do not come out with nothing, they come out with worse than nothing. I have always thought that it was a preposterous policy to send young people into incarceration for such periods, and yet that is precisely what this Bill mandates, and in that sense it will do serious damage.

The second issue is mandatory sentencing. We have a good example of a jurisdiction that has gone down the route of mandatory sentencing: the United States of America, which has well known federal sentencing guidelines. The prison population in the United States of America stands presently at 3 million.

Senior Judiciary: Women

Baroness Scotland of Asthal Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks]

The noble and learned Baroness is of course right. That is probably a significant reason why more are not applying for the higher judiciary. There is flexible part-time working as a result of the 2013 Act, and I think that more people should be encouraged to sit part-time earlier in their career in order to develop the career pattern that will then make them more inclined to apply, and of course it is important that women who otherwise might not apply do so. I entirely accept that. It is something that the sub-committee on diversity and the judicial diversity task force, which are both concerned with this, are looking at very carefully.

[Baroness Scotland of Asthal (Lab)]

My Lords, has the Minister undertaken any analysis of those who have applied but who have not succeeded? Is there any support for any such applicants to make them better able to make a successful application on the next occasion?

[Lord Faulks]

I think I have already given the answer regarding the percentage of applicants to the High Court Bench. One of the ways of fulfilling what the noble and learned Baroness has said is the system of mentoring. This is one of the suggestions being considered by the judicial diversity task force. The Lord Chief Justice is particularly keen to encourage diversity, and I know that the suggestion that the noble and learned Baroness makes is one that is very much on his mind.

Criminal Legal Aid (General) (Amendment) Regulations 2013

Baroness Scotland of Asthal Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Pannick on bringing his regret Motion before this House. I do not dissent in any way from what he said. He has outlined why this House should regret the restrictions being imposed on legal aid, advice and assistance in prison law cases with his usual clarity and skill. I want to focus instead on the Government’s justification for those restrictions, which I believe to be deeply flawed. I have to admit to serious alarm when I saw that the justification was the internal prisons complaints system, about which, when I was Chief Inspector of Prisons, I had frequent cause to complain. I was equally alarmed when I saw that the tough Mr Grayling had said in his evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights:

“I struggle personally to believe that it is sensible to have a system where we have prisoners able to access the courts, and access public funds, to argue that they should be detained in a different prison”,

to which the Joint Committee responded:

“What is strikingly strange about the Lord Chancellor’s comments about where legal aid will be allowed is that he has … ignored where common-law standards of fairness apply”.

It also said:

“We have not seen any evidence to suggest that legal aid is being abused to enable prisoners to complain about what prison they are put in”—

in other words, both drawing attention to his ignorance of the facts and suggesting that he was on a collision course with Winston Churchill’s conviction that the way in which it treats its crime and criminals is the true test of the civilisation of any country. Ideology appears to dictate his policy-making, rather than reality.

Mr Justice May, when recommending the reformation of the Inspectorate of Prisons after a break of 102 years, following widespread unease about the efficacy of the self-regulation that had been introduced by the first Prison Commissioner in 1877, recommended that the chief inspector be given statutory responsibility for the inspection of efficiency, propriety and the investigation of grievances. In the event, the investigation of grievances was denied. However, when the first prisons ombudsman was appointed in 1994 following similar unease about the internal prisons complaints system, he was not given statutory responsibility for the investigation of grievances—something for which he and his successors have fought, unsuccessfully, ever since, and a fight which I warmly support.

I was therefore interested to note that in his evidence to the Joint Committee, far from having the confidence in the complaints system held by the Lord Chancellor, my successor as chief inspector, Nick Hardwick, confirmed that,

“prisoner confidence in a complaints system was crucial to the safety of a prison”.

He added that,

“two-thirds of people who have had a complaint dealt with through the existing system do not think it has been dealt with fairly”,

and that,

“about one in 10 say they have been prevented in some way from accessing the complaints system”.

So much for advice and assistance that is equal to that being denied.

Like my noble and learned friends Lord Brown and Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, if there is one group of prisoners about whom I am particularly concerned in all this, it is young offenders. For a whole variety of reasons, including immaturity and lack of trust, they tend not to use the complaints system. When I was inspecting, what worried me was that prison staff tended to interpret this lack of use of the formal complaint system as meaning that all was well when the opposite was true.

My final word to the Minister is that, in reflecting on all that has been said by noble Lords in regretting the proposed restrictions, he and the Secretary of State should reflect that this is not a stand-alone measure. Their restrictions come on top of a whole host of other cuts and deliberately tough sanctions against prisoners, and are resulting in mounting unrest. Prisoners are deprived of their liberty for a period by the courts following conviction for an offence but, in the civilised society about which Winston Churchill spoke, they are not deprived of justice. My noble and learned friend Lord Woolf observed that justice was a crucial ingredient of safety in a prison, which confirms that there is no place for ideologically imposed injustice in a civilised prison system.

[Baroness Scotland of Asthal (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, bitterly regret the need for this debate. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, that I feel enormous sympathy for him and bitterly regret that he will have the arduous burden of responding on behalf of the Government. To turn our minds back only a few years, if we had asked any lawyer worth their salt whether it would be likely that any Government, of whatever political complexion, would bring forward regulations such as these, I think that such a suggestion would have been met with incredulity.

I totally endorse what has been said by every Member of the House who has spoken already, particularly the comments made in relation to children, women and the vulnerable. I emphasise the comments made recently by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, about the need to remember the backcloth against which these additional cuts must now be seen.

I shall take a moment to concentrate on the plight of women. Noble Lords will know that legal aid in family matters has been removed almost in its entirety, except in cases of domestic violence. Even there we are hearing reports from solicitors all over the country that access to legal aid for those women and individuals who are victims has been severely constrained. Some solicitors say that the drop has been 96% in some areas and 94% in others, and that there has been a real diminution right across the board. We know that women in our prisons are overrepresented in terms of vulnerability. Certainly it was my experience when I was Minister of State with responsibility for the criminal justice system. I was told in 2004 by the governor of Holloway prison—I have no reason to believe that this has changed—that 89% of women in prison had a history of domestic violence or sexual abuse prior to having offended. We have a highly vulnerable group whose rights already are constrained outside the prison estate and are having them further constrained within it. Two-thirds of children in youth offending institutions come from those same domestic violence homes. We all know that those who graduated from the youth justice estate are overrepresented in the male estate. We are dealing with the most vulnerable in our community.

I add my voice to those who have expressed a degree of shock that the Secretary of State for Justice feels able to phrase these issues in terms of ideology. I commend the Damascene-like conversion of the erstwhile Treasury devil for his change of mind and invite the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, to ask the Lord Chancellor to see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, as an exemplar of what can be done when one really wishes to change, and to say that, from the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Justice, all of us expect more. I cannot but agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, when he says that these provisions are mischievous and misguided.

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, yet again this House appears united against the Government’s proposals for legal aid. Thanks are owed not just by those of us in the House but those outside, too, to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for moving his regret Motion and doing so in so powerful a way. Those who followed him must rank as one of the most impressive lists of dramatis personae of legal luminaries it would be possible to bring together, and we have not heard from my noble friend Lord Beecham yet.

I want to make a couple of fairly short points. At paragraph 161 on page 50 of the JCHR report, there is reference to reforms to the system of prison law that were carried out in July 2010. They were really the work of the previous Government. Indeed, they were from a time when I was privileged to be the Minister with responsibility for legal aid. What we did then was to make comparatively minor changes that we believed were appropriate. We implemented them and, dare I say, they appeared to work fairly satisfactorily. But now, yet again, our successors go much, much too far and take so much out of scope that the balance shifts. Instead of having a system that maintains the essential proposition that prisoners should have reasonable and proportionate access to legal advice and representation, we are now faced with a sort of brave new world where any legal rights prisoners enjoy are granted out of sufferance—the very bare minimum.

The approach is not what is fair and consistent with our legal traditions but rather, “What can we as the Government, the state, get away with?”. There is almost a pride in not taking a balanced view based on judgment and legal reputation. In one of his examples, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, spoke about categorisation. The Ministry of Justice has decided to remove funding for pre-tariff reviews. He explained much better than I can the value of pre-tariff reviews for prisoners.

Recently, I spoke to a recently retired Parole Board member and a retired High Court judge who told me that not only are these reviews immensely significant in the course of a prisoner’s life but that there are huge advantages for the Parole Board and, thus, presumably for society, in having the best possible information about a prisoner so that the right judgment can be made. Such information is gained by the Parole Board having had the advice and representation before it that has been given to the prisoner. Can anything be more ridiculous than the decision to take pre-tariff reviews out of scope? As the JCHR report so rightly said:

“Categorisation engages common law rights to liberty, as it can affect the likelihood of a prisoner being released. There are also clear cost implications of a prisoner remaining in too high a category, which may mean that the Lord Chancellor’s cost-saving rationale may not be satisfied. We recommend that the Government look again at these proposals, and give full consideration to the potential for increased costs, which may affect the justification for its policy”.

Two newly appointed Ministers in the Ministry of Justice were on that JCHR, at least for a large part of its hearing into this matter, and we hope that both those Ministers will follow that paragraph and talk to their Secretary of State in those terms.

Criminal Defence Service (Very High Cost Cases) (Funding) Order 2013

Baroness Scotland of Asthal Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mayhew of Twysden (Con)]

My Lords, I acknowledge that I have something to declare, which is that many years ago I used to conduct criminal cases as a member of the Bar. I recognise very well what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, was saying about the fee of two pounds four shillings and sixpence. The difference between the scenario that he described and my own was that he described people of the highest eminence accepting two pounds four shillings and sixpence as it was their duty. I was at the bottom of the heap—the opposite—and was very glad indeed to have it.

The debate so far has been of the highest quality and I shall be very brief as I do not wish to diminish the impact that it undoubtedly had on my noble friend who is about to reply. The trick that the Government have to fulfil is that they have to make provision to reduce the deficit, and must do so in a way that avoids unintended consequences. I believe that it is a tragic fact that the reduction of 30% that has been described this evening will have an unintended consequence. Fewer people will take the work and the consequence will play over to the task of reducing the deficit. It will increase the deficit for the reasons that high judicial authority has emphasised again tonight.

I want to add one additional circumstance that I can foresee. If you are doing a very long case which, as my noble friend Lord Carlile described, is one of high complexity, you become associated in the minds of instructing solicitors with that case—“Oh Mr Mayhew will not be available; he is tied up in this case which has gone on for months and with many more to come”. When you finish that case, you will find typically that there is no work left and you will have a long gap in your practice before you are instructed again. That will bear on the decision of the advocate as to whether to accept the fee that is offered. That point has not been made tonight, but it is one that is similar in character and perhaps easily overlooked.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, in its 18th report, has drawn attention to what has been said about these measures by three professional bodies. It has called for a more robust defence, and I look forward very much to hearing from my noble friend that the Government believe they have a more robust defence to the many points of criticism of profound weight that have been put before your Lordships this evening.

[Baroness Scotland of Asthal (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been an extraordinary but sad and rather sobering debate. I am grateful that, from the powerful opening by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, until the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, sat down I have found no reason to disagree with one word that has been said, save that I shall make a few comments a little later to help clarify the views of these Benches for those who sit opposite. The reason I say “sad and sobering” is that we should be very clear that this is not a parti pris debate.

So far we have had the benefit of hearing from two former Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, one former Lord Chief Justice, the current regulator and now a very eminent member of the Bar and recorder. I declare my own interest as not only a member of the Bar, a recorder and deputy High Court judge, but someone who is in practice and who, although I have not taken legal aid criminal cases since leaving Government, certainly did in the past. The voices I have just spoken about are joined now by two former Attorneys-General of different complexions politically and, some would say, physically. This is something upon which those who are committed to justice and the rule of law and concerned about the quality of justice in our country have now spoken, and so far we have spoken with one voice.

It is very important to hear the echo of what has been said, because it is an echo of real alarm and concern. I was struck by the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, about the effect of retrospection, an issue I had intended to alight upon. I was struck by the description of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, when he talked about these provisions as “a gangrenous wound”. It is a description with which, regrettably, I wholeheartedly agree.

I was also grateful that mention was made of the Lord Chancellor’s responsibility in terms of his oath. Members of this House will be familiar with it, but I shall repeat it so that the House and others may be reminded of what the oath of the Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain is. The oath that the current Lord Chancellor swore was this:

“I … do swear that in the office of Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain I will respect the rule of law, defend the independence of the judiciary and discharge my duty to ensure the provision of resources for the efficient and effective support of the courts for which I am responsible. So help me God”.

How does the Minister contend, on behalf of the Government, that that oath by the Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain is being discharged?

Let me help the House as to why I am concerned about whether the Lord Chancellor has taken that oath into account in bringing these orders forward. I know that when he gave evidence to the Select Committee he seemed to suggest that it was not possible to grant access to justice to all people at all times. That, if I may respectfully say so, is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Lord Chancellor’s role. It is his duty to ensure that there are sufficient resources so that access to justice for all people at all times can be equally made available. Moreover, the wounds that the changes proposed in these orders will inflict may so damage the availability of good access to justice that the cost will be very difficult to bear. There are those who say that they know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Let us be clear: the value of our justice system is very high indeed.

Legal Aid

Baroness Scotland of Asthal Excerpts

Thursday 11th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scotland of Asthal]

My Lords, I, too, very warmly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for bringing forward this very important debate. I declare my interest as a practising member of the Bar, a recorder, a deputy High Court judge and chair of the All-Party Group on Domestic Violence.

It is with a very heavy heart indeed that I rise to speak in this debate. During the passage of the LASPO Bill, a number of us in this House on all Benches raised serious concerns about the likely impact of the then proposed changes to legal aid, Lord Newton of Braintree being not least among them. I think of him every time we debate these issues. Our experience over the past 30-odd years had shown clearly the importance of having legal aid available to those who need assistance to resolve often emotional and sensitive issues that flowed from the breakdown of their relationships and marriages, particularly where those relationships had produced children and the breakdown affected them adversely. The fear was that those who had been in receipt of help, advice and support would not be able to obtain the assistance they needed, which would be deleterious to their well-being, to the well-being of the children and to justice as a whole. I remember well the Minister assuring us from the Dispatch Box that our fears in this regard were unfounded and that the quality of help and support that would still be available would be capable of meeting the needs. However, your Lordships will also remember that no impact assessment was produced to substantiate those assurances. Indeed, the indications that we had available pointed in the opposite direction. During this very short intervention, I will not reiterate the concerns I raised during the passage of the LASPO Bill. However, we were also assured that the Minister would keep a careful eye on the impact of these provisions so that we could readdress them if necessary, and that assurance gave us some comfort.

However, I have to tell the Minister that the concerns that we had then have all, tragically, proven to be true. Since the passing of the Bill into an Act, the consequences that we feared seem to have come to the fore. In preparing for this debate, I have had the benefit of reading innumerable submissions from practitioners, individuals and organisations who, with heart-breaking clarity, have set out the real consequences for the people for whom they care of what now, regrettably, appear to be quite pernicious changes in the legal aid provision rules. The speed of the downturn has, however, shocked most of us. Many solicitors have indicated that there has been a downturn in new clients of at least 50%. It has had an immediate impact on legal service provision and it is affecting the staffing levels in many firms so that they are simply no longer able to give the service that is needed.

Perhaps I may quickly give a couple of examples. Williamsons, which has offices in Hull, Driffield and Bridlington, has indicated that there has been a dramatic reduction in the number of its private clients, and even those clients are struggling to find the £50 or £100 that is needed for legal referrals. The number of referrals for mediation is down, and the reduction is commensurate with the volume of clients. The downturn in work has been in the region of 50%. The Legal Help scheme is so draconian that the clients are simply unable to show eligibility on the merits test, and the firm is unable to meet its legal help quota for any of its offices. That story is echoed across the piece.

There are instances of baby-snatching cases. In one, a grandmother had care of her grandchildren under a care order but the children were removed. Despite the fact that she had a low income, capital would be taken into account and, as such, she would have to sell her house to fight the case. There are all manner of private law children’s disputes involving contact and residence, and hundreds of such cases are being turned away en masse. The same applies even to domestic violence cases. When litigants come forward and are told about the threshold, as well as the need to get medical advice and the need to pay for the certificate, they do not come back. Where do they go and where do they get their justice?

The stories are heart-breaking. One solicitor talks of secretaries who have worked for his firm for a long time being in tears over the fact that they are unable to assist some clients in difficult situations. They have spoken to clients whose children have been kept by the other party and they have had to deliver the bad news to those clients. They are having to turn away grandparents, concerned mothers and fathers on low pay, domestic violence victims and others. It is truly shocking. The impact on the courts has been dire as well—they have been flooded with cases.

I end by reminding the Minister that costs flow from many different sources and the costs on the courts are dire indeed. It was really concerning to read what was said by the Court of Appeal in a recent case where none of the parties had been represented. The consequences of delay were clear. The judge in the case said this:

“The consequences by way of delay of other appeals which need to be heard are unquantifiable. The appeal would certainly never have occurred if the litigants had been represented. With more and more self-represented litigants, this problem is not going to go away. We may have to accept that we live in austere times, but as I come to the end of 18 years’ service in this court, I shall not refrain from expressing my conviction that justice will be ill served indeed by this emasculation of legal aid”.

That was said by Lord Justice Ward and I agree with him.

Legal Aid

Baroness Scotland of Asthal Excerpts

Wednesday 26th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords—

[Baroness Scotland of Asthal]

My Lords—

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Hill of Oareford)]

It is the Lib Dems and then we will come to the noble and learned Baroness.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

We are certainly looking across the piece and making decisions. Our current thinking is not to compete crown court advocacy and very high-cost crime cases. We have made separate proposals to reduce fees in this area, which are set out in the consultation. However, my noble friend is right. Under the current system, the most expensive single criminal legal aid case in 2010-12 cost the taxpayer £8.5 million. Under our present system, this would reduce to £6 million. The total cost to the taxpayer of just the top three cases in 2011-12 was £21 million.

[Baroness Scotland of Asthal]

My Lords, I understand that the Minister is able to disregard what 70 QCs have said in a newspaper, but will he tell the House whether the Government intend to disregard their current Attorney-General, who has expressed concerns and who remains the guardian of the public interest and the rule of law? Will they disregard him, too?

[Lord McNally]

On the contrary. The Attorney-General’s advice, which is invariably wise and measured, is taken fully into account in this consultation. I say again: we are going through a consultation and 69 QCs and 300 economists are part of this kind of exercise. Of course there is a free press, but in the end I hope that the legal profession will engage with us in a constructive dialogue. This will allow us to meet the realities of the economic situation in which we find ourselves, but also to meet the realities that were referred to about access to justice and the rule of law. These are important issues and sometimes they can be trivialised by wild statements about their implications.

Civil Legal Aid (Procedure) Regulations 2012

Baroness Scotland of Asthal Excerpts

Wednesday 27th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Grey-Thompson]

My Lords, I spoke extensively on the telephone gateway during the passage of the legal aid Bill. I feel a sense of disappointment in tabling this regret Motion as I am left with many concerns about access and operation.

The mandatory telephone gateway will require those seeking legal aid to call a telephone operator service and then be assessed over the telephone to decide whether they can receive advice under the legal aid scheme. It is a great shame and a missed opportunity that the regulations were not open to consultation. However, I thank the Minister for his offer yesterday to visit a gateway operator and to see the system in action. I shall take him up on his kind offer. I also thank him for his willingness to meet and discuss this issue and for the opportunity to speak with his advisers, who clarified a number of points.

For many people the telephone service is welcome and can be a valuable part of the whole picture. For those in scope, those with simple cases and those who find it easy to use the phone it is hard to see any issue. However, because of the massive changes in legal aid, I still have a number of concerns about whether people will even get as far as the operator service; whether the operator service will prove competent to handle complex legal questions around scope and eligibility; and whether face-to-face services will realistically be available to those who are entitled to them.

The Legal Services Research Centre, the independent research division of the Legal Services Commission, found that telephone advice takes on average 14 minutes longer than face-to-face advice and provides a smaller proportion of tangible outcomes. In 2011 it was open to debate whether the economies offered by the lower overhead costs of telephone provision would be sufficient to offset the cost generated by higher advice times. I would like reassurance that the companies which will be undertaking these services will have the appropriate number of staff to deal with the inquiries.

The Ministry of Justice cumulative impact assessment of 21 June 2011, page 24, paragraph 1.7, stated that the overall proposals have the potential to impact a greater proportion of women, black, Asian, minority ethnic people and ill or disabled people. In my opinion, nothing has really changed.

In the three areas that have been selected for telephone gateway—special educational needs, discrimination and debt, although it is perhaps best to describe it as home repossession—the Government have picked some very challenging areas to test out. In certainly the first two groups, SEN and discrimination, cases are often extremely complex and there may be many wider issues at play as well, such as benefit appeals, which may muddy the waters. I am sure the Minister will offer his reassurance that in the case of SEN the Children and Families Bill will sort out many of the existing problems. However, in Wales the education system is different. It has its own tribunal service and so two systems will need to be understood. The cases with which I am being presented by parents show that it is not a simple matter. It is emotive, and local knowledge is essential.

In the area of discrimination, often many disabled people do not even realise that they are being discriminated against because, at a low level, it is such a regular occurrence that it is accepted, wrongly, as the norm. It might be only when other issues are being dealt with that a person could realise that they were also experiencing discrimination. With the telephone gateway this may be missed. Discrimination will not disappear, it will be just be hidden.

I know this because I experience discrimination at least every week of my life. I am talked down to, patted on the head, treated differently and refused access to goods and services that many take for granted. I am in a better position than many and possess the skills to cope with it and the ability to deal with it. Many disabled people are not.

Hate crime figures against disabled people are at their highest level in 10 years of reporting. A joint study by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, the Crown Prosecution Service and the National Probation Service published last week argues that there is underreporting of offences. However, it acknowledges that there is no clear and uncomplicated definition of what constitutes disability hate crime. There is a lack of awareness and inconsistent reporting standards.

The report goes on to say that CPS lawyers display a lack of clarity in identifying and analysing offences. I know that this is slightly at a tangent but, if the CPS lawyers are struggling, how is a newly trained, non-lawyer telephone operator going to cope when there are other issues to deal with as well? It is a huge amount of pressure on those individuals operating the system on the front line.

There are also a number of idiosyncrasies in the proposed system. If someone arrives at citizens advice looking for help—which is a very sensible place to go because citizens advice will have some legal aid capacity—even though the adviser is there, the receptionist would have to direct the person to the telephone gateway. They might use the telephone at the citizens advice office but then the receptionist would have to call the CLA to make an appointment for the client with a person sitting in an office 10 feet away. Does this not seem a little odd and strange?

The Law Society provided a useful example as it applies to mortgage repossession cases. It is not uncommon for a lawyer under the duty scheme to see someone at a court and for the hearing to be adjourned for negotiations to take place between the lender and the borrower. Very often a new hearing date will be set for two to four weeks hence. At present, the adviser will take on the work as a new case under a legal aid contract, undertake those negotiations and hopefully return to court with an agreed position at the adjourned hearing. If the position is not agreed, the adviser will be there to explain the negotiations and the stumbling blocks to the district judge.

From next week, the adviser will not be permitted to do this. Instead the case must go through the mandatory telephone gateway. This will involve duplication of work as the telephone adviser will have to go through all the information that the duty lawyer already has. It is possible that the telephone adviser may sign off the case as needing face-to-face advice and refer it straight back to the duty lawyer, but this is by no means certain. The client may well have to post papers to the telephone adviser as well as dealing with legal aid means forms by post. Once those formalities have been disposed of, the telephone adviser will then have to conduct the negotiations, having lost several days. It may or may not prove possible to conclude negotiations before the adjourned hearing but it is less likely than if the duty lawyer took on the case. The client will then return to court, again, hopefully, with an agreed position. However, if the position is not agreed, the case will have to be picked up once again by a duty adviser, who will then have to duplicate the work done by the telephone adviser to find out what happened in the negotiations. I am not a lawyer, but this seems to be more complicated rather than less.

This scenario has been confirmed by the Ministry of Justice as being possible. People with complex issues could find themselves being directed to a face-to-face for one part of their problem, a phone gateway for another one, then passed to the second tier, which could then direct them back for a face-to-face—and if you want benefit advice as well, good luck to you. Can the Minister clarify that the best way for a person to find out if they are exempt from the gateway, if they do not have access to the internet or may struggle to follow the guidelines issued by some of the charities, is to call the gateway, the one thing they know they have problems with?

Yesterday, the Minister and his team provided some reassurance over the provision of British sign language interpreters or potential webcam interviews. Perhaps the use of technology could be explored to allow more face-to-face contact. It certainly would be useful to have clarity about the number of webcam interviews it is possible to conduct and how people will be informed that it is possible, especially if they do not have direct access to the internet. Perhaps the Minister will offer a reassurance that these services will genuinely be open to those who need them.

On the issue of third parties, I was disappointed that this was not covered in the regulations; however, it is in guidance. Proving the identity of a third party and whether they have an unconflicted relationship will not be easy and I have many unresolved difficulties with this area in particular. Face-to-face interviews would be able to pick up on the nuances of the relationship.

If finally, after going through all these hurdles, someone is granted a face-to-face interview, can the Minister offer reassurance that travelling distances will be reasonable; that services such as British sign language interpreters will be provided if necessary; and that the centres will be accessible. We have seen in work capability assessments that a number of disabled people have been sent to interviews where they cannot even get into the building, park within a reasonable distance or even use the toilets. I cannot imagine anything worse than beating down all these barriers to get to a face-to-face interview and then find that it is not accessible.

The monthly data that will be collected are vital to improving the system but a more in-depth analysis is essential. On closer thought, comparing it to the per capita rate of disabled people in the population is a little crude. Currently data on disability, if held, are held only if the client wishes them to be supplied and included on the form. It is very difficult to compare what is happening now to what will happen in the future.

Last year, the Royal Mail launched a report, which I worked on, showing that 4 million disabled people had never used the internet. That is a worrying figure. Even if it is dropping, it highlights a major concern that I have about how people are going to be signposted to some of these areas.

Trust is important in building up the success of this service. At a time when the welfare system is going through big changes, signposting has to be effective. Many people are worried about explaining themselves on the phone. The same group might be reluctant to send off their paperwork, regardless of the free postage. Indeed, what if they do not even have the paperwork that is required? How does the operator know that the person has understood what they are being asked to provide? I have spoken to a number of solicitors working in this area and they all say that many people do not present in a coherent manner. Measuring the length of a phone call is one way to assess the service, but would it not be easier to look someone in the face? While the previous system might not have been perfect, it was straightforward and people knew what they had to do. The rules for the new system are more complex. Operators might ask some or all of the right questions, but so much is being left to the judgment of the individual operator.

I want to talk about exceptional funding only briefly because it is very complicated. Can the Minister provide a reassurance that the operator will inform people of when they have the right to apply for exceptional funding? Equally important, will they be told that they have the right to have their information checked or to be able to speak to a supervisor if they are turned down for access to legal aid in the first phone call? The Ministry of Justice is expecting around 6,000 people to apply for exceptional funding, and I would be interested to know what analysis has been made on the current thinking behind this.

I realise that I have asked a lot of questions but, ultimately, I believe that the current definition is too narrow. I would like to ask the Minister to amend the definition of those exempt to include disabled and vulnerable people. We could be in danger of not providing people with the help they need. These are some of the most vulnerable people in society and they will not even get to the first phone call. Instead of making the system easier, we could just be pushing the costs somewhere else and making the lives of disabled people infinitely harder. I beg to move.

[Baroness Scotland of Asthal]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my Motion, which regrets that,

“the Civil Legal Aid (Procedure) Regulations 2012 … fail to deliver on Her Majesty’s Government’s expressed promise to provide adequate legal aid provision for victims of domestic violence; that significant numbers of victims will not be able to satisfy the evidential criteria, contrary to Her Majesty’s Government’s expressed intent, resulting in a diminution of access to justice; and that, as a result, domestic violence victims will be exposed to an increased risk of injury and death”.

I should say straightaway how much I regret the necessity for this regret Motion. I thank all those who battled so hard on all sides of the House to make the regulations and, indeed, the Act more palatable in relation to the victims of domestic violence, and I would particularly like to remember Lord Newton of Braintree. He was not with us when we debated the amendment on the Tuesday before this matter went back to the Commons. Had he been in the House, the tied vote of 231 to 231 would, I hazard to say, have gone the other way.

I accept entirely that the regulations pursuant to the Act purport to implement that which was decided during the debates, but we need to be very clear indeed that Regulation 33 of the Civil Legal Aid (Procedure) Regulations 2012 is now to be the gateway through which the victims of domestic violence must pass if they wish to receive legal aid, but it is a very narrow and treacherous gate. It will exclude many victims who have hitherto benefited from the legal support and assistance necessary to free themselves and often their children from the worst excesses of domestic violence.

Defamation Bill

Baroness Scotland of Asthal Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jay of Paddington]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Black, who did not take part in our debate on Lord Justice Leveson’s report because he was abroad. I spoke in that debate and remind the House, and the noble Lord, Lord Black, that my main point was about the system that has existed very successfully for some years in Ireland, where many of the recommendations made by Lord Justice Leveson for the United Kingdom have been implemented simply and with no regulatory competition. That was done in the session of the Dáil in 2008-09 by inserting a clause into the Irish defamation Bill—a process that is very similar to the one being proposed by my noble friend Lord Puttnam this afternoon. I explained it on the occasion of the previous Bill and, like the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, I shall not weary the House by going over all the details of the Irish situation again as those interested in this topic are already very familiar with them. Let it be said that the regulations are very similar to those proposed by Lord Justice Leveson and, indeed, the most important thing from the point of view of those seeking redress for press complaint is that the guiding notes say that the system is open and free to any citizen, dependent simply on the price of a letter or sending an e-mail. I am very happy to support the amendment.

[Baroness Scotland of Asthal]

My Lords, how fascinated I have been by this debate. As one of the proposers of the amendment, it is only appropriate that I speak now. I very much regret that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, is unable to be in his place. I had the advantage of speaking to him this morning and he is clear that he wholeheartedly supports the amendment. I had intended, after his erudite and elucidating speech, to simply say that I agree.

However, the importance of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Black, cannot be understated. He said that the amendments were unnecessary because we would have a system in due course that would suffice. That is a bit like one of the saints saying, “Make me chaste, Lord, but not yet”. We have been waiting for some 65 years for redress. One of the reasons why the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, is so concerned about taking this opportunity is because, as many of your Lordships will know, in 1993, when he gave evidence before the Select Committee, he suggested that we should have an arbitration system to give redress to the poor, to the needy and to those who would have no redress but for the creation of such a service. We have lived with inequality and inequity for a great number of years. Our House and the other place have regularly been asked to redress that wrong—that mischief that we have spoken about so clearly today.

We have an opportunity to choose, if we wish, to redress that balance. The noble Lord, Lord Black, said that the matter is not being kicked into the long grass. Well, if this is not long, I do not want to see short. We know that we have to grasp this opportunity if we wish to see change. The amendments in this group are not perfect; none of the noble Lords who tabled them suggests that they are. However, they are a vehicle that we can use with great efficiency and energy to enable the Government to be clear that we wish to see this redress.

The noble Lord, Lord Lester, rightly pointed out a number of issues. I say to him that there are a number of things on which perhaps I do not agree with him. For instance, on the back of the Bill it states that the Bill—Clause 3 et cetera—does not refer to Scotland. There are lots of things that we need to debate.

We are faced with a choice. The people of this country have been thirsting for change. Do we take this opportunity to slake their thirst or do we say, “No, you must wait even longer.”? I urge the House to give the other place and the Government the encouragement they so clearly need. It is an opportunity—and if the noble Lord, Lord McNally, would like to grasp it, there will be no one happier than we on these Benches.

When we debated amendments on the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, as it then was, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, assured us that:

“The Defamation Bill and the procedural reforms that we intend to take forward with it are of course about reducing the complexity and therefore the expense involved. In order for those aims to be achieved, we will look at the rules on costs protection for defamation and privacy proceedings for when the defamation reforms come into effect”.—[Official Report, 27/3/12; col. 1332.]

The vehicle that the noble Lord identified was this Bill.

There is a lacuna because, for one reason or another, the Government have not been able to take advantage of that opportunity. Let us, with the generosity of spirit for which this House is renowned, give them that opportunity today. I will vote in favour of my noble friend’s amendment if he is minded to press it, and I hope that the whole House will join us.

[Baroness Afshar]

My Lords, I will interject on behalf of communities that, for lack of resources, have not been able to resist wholesale defamation. I speak about Islamophobia and the way in which it was fuelled because certain young men did something that was considered evil by the total Islamic community. However, for weeks we had “Muslims” as a category identified as terrorists and potential murderers. I would certainly have been willing to take them to court if I had had the resources. Undermining minority rights is simply not acceptable. Therefore, I support the amendments in this group.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Amendment of Schedule 1) Order 2012

Baroness Scotland of Asthal Excerpts

Tuesday 8th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

Well, it is worth reminding noble Lords that when the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill was published the initial idea was that legal aid was not required in any welfare benefit cases, other than for judicial review or for a small number cases based on the Equality Act 2010. Throughout the course of the LASPO Bill the Government were urged to rethink their position on removing legal aid for onward appeals to the Upper Tribunal, which had to be on a point of law.

The Government listened to these concerns and offered concessions during the passage of the Bill to bring into the scope of legal aid advice and assistance for welfare benefit appeals on a point of law in the Upper Tribunal, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court, and representation for the welfare benefit appeals in the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. These were concessions in which my noble friends played a considerable part in achieving. The idea of an unlistening and unfeeling Government is simply not true. If the House forces through fatal Motions, it must take the consequences.

[Baroness Scotland of Asthal]

Does the noble Lord not understand that the initial position put forward in the LASPO Bill was totally untenable? That is why it was amended. Does he not also accept that after the House has spoken on this fatal Motion, the Government are obliged to listen—and by “listen” I mean do something in response?

[Lord McNally]

The noble and learned Baroness suggests that the Government, as if in some game of poker, have to produce another offer in response to a fatal Motion. A fatal Motion is what it says—it is fatal. As I have pointed out, there was the example of the casino Bill in the previous Parliament. One of the reasons why successive Oppositions have thought long and hard about using fatal Motions is that they have implications about where and when the arguments and discussions about a Bill come to an end and how that relates to the relationship between the two Houses. Such Motions can be very toxic. I warned the House and the noble Lord, Lord Bach, of that, but he pressed ahead. A fatal Motion was passed and it has been fatal.