Civil Legal Aid (Financial Resources and Payment for Services) Regulations 2013
Lord Bach Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bach
That this House regrets that the Civil Legal Aid (Financial Resources and Payment for Services) Regulations 2013, laid before the House on 7 March, will result in a substantial number of vulnerable people not being eligible for legal aid because of the capital in their house. (SI 2013/480)
Lord Bach
My Lords, one way of cutting legal aid is to take areas of law out of scope, which is something that this Government have done with a vengeance. As this House knows very well, social welfare law has been potentially destroyed by Part 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. However, there is another way to do the same thing, and that is to cut the number of people who can obtain legal aid in those areas of civil law—and there are precious few of them—which are still in scope; for example, mortgage possession and eviction cases, community care cases, mental capacity cases and some domestic violence cases as well. By these regulations that we are debating tonight, which my regret Motion deals with, Her Majesty’s Government have excluded many who could claim legal aid previously. Is that a fair or just thing to do, particularly at a time of hardship and austerity for so many people? That is my point.
Before 1 April, any person in receipt of means-tested welfare benefits—for example, income support or guaranteed state pension credit—would qualify for legal aid on both income and capital. They were described as being passported. A quick decision could be made, which was easy to administer for the Legal Services Commission as was, the providers of that legal advice and the clients themselves.
Now the Government have put into place radical changes. The regulations require a capital test as well as an income means test: if a person has more than £8,000 capital, they are denied legal aid. Interestingly, under welfare benefit law, that sum is £16,000 and if they have anything less than £16,000, they would still qualify. My first question to the Minister is: why the difference? The welfare benefit system also ignores the value of a person’s main dwelling but in these regulations the value of their main dwelling is taken into account. Therefore, my second question is: why is it taken into account under these regulations but not under welfare benefit regulations?
Of course, there is a disregard of £100,000 for any equity and £100,000 for any mortgage. Do the Government deny that many people who own homes with mortgages and some equity will not qualify for legal aid? The state has recognised in the benefits system that these people cannot easily, or at all, access their capital because it is tied up in the property that they have. Why will that not apply in these cases too? My case is that this will affect a large number of people’s access to some sort of justice. Her Majesty’s Government estimate 4,000 people will be affected. The belief of many outside is that that is an unbelievably small figure and that there will be many more in practice. This is simply unfair.
There is also a need for a general discretion to disregard income and/or capital where it was or is equitable in all the circumstances. In the 2000 regulations, there was a general discretion to disregard where it was equitable in all the circumstances. There has been no evidence of abuse of those regulations in that way. Why is it not in these regulations? We all know cases, perhaps involving mental capacity or disability, where justice demands legal help by way of legal aid. But because of the inflexibility of these regulations there is, to coin a phrase, no way out. There is certainly no way out with the exceptional funding scheme, which perhaps now should be called the very rarely exceptional funding scheme because it is not relevant to cases that are still in scope. Section 10 of LASPO is there for areas of law now out of scope. I fear the fact that there is no flexibility, and that the £8,000 capital is such a ridiculously low figure, shows that the purpose of these regulations is not to advance justice but to restrict it—not to help people sort out their legal problems but to make absolutely certain that they cannot.
In 2009, when austerity had already begun, the Labour Government did not reduce eligibility for legal aid in social welfare law; they increased it by 5%. We recognised that at a time of economic difficulties, it is crucial to ensure that people get quality and inexpensive legal advice to sort out their legal problems rather than go without any access, with the consequences that everyone knows; namely, that problems multiply and magnify until often in the end the state has to pick up the pieces arising out of problems with debt, welfare benefit mistakes and loss of employment. That decision by that Government was not a soft-hearted decision: it was based on a realisation that not only is access to justice right in principle; in this instance it saves the state money. It is not rocket science; it is just something that this Government do not get.
I look forward to the contributions of other noble Lords in this debate and to the Minister’s reply. I ask him on this occasion please to address the debate itself. When I was a Minister, like him, I had to undergo from time to time debates where the government policies that I was trying to defend were attacked from start to finish by practically everyone who spoke. It is not a comfortable position but I would argue that there is still a duty on Ministers to answer the debate being heard at that time. I do not think that the Minister did himself justice last Thursday in the debate that the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, began, but I know that he can. Anyone who heard him at Question Time today dealing with the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and others will know that he is an experienced and skilful performer in this House. Therefore, I ask him to deal with the issues that are raised in this debate and not just read out his speech.
There are already cases of people not getting legal aid when they should. That is a consequence of so much social welfare law being taken out of scope. There are also cases of people who have legal problems in areas that are still in scope but as a result of the regulations that we are debating tonight they are not able to access justice. That is a bit of a scandal. The Government should think again about these regulations and I hope that the House will agree with me that they are, at the very least, to be regretted. I beg to move.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for moving this Motion. Over the past three years he has played an essential role in identifying with forensic skill and great eloquence the defects in the series of measures that this Government have brought forward to limit legal aid in our society. The noble Lord has repeatedly pointed out, accurately and with some degree of force, that legal aid is a vital cement in our civil society. There is no point whatever in this place conferring rights unless people have the opportunity to vindicate them. It would be a great shame if there were further reductions in the ability of persons other than the wealthy to vindicate their rights by legal process.
The essential defect in these regulations is their treatment of the capital sums owned by persons who are otherwise eligible for legal aid. I cannot understand why the regulations apply different criteria to capital from the criteria that are applicable in welfare law. Regulation 8(2) provides that any person with more than £8,000 in capital will be denied legal aid, even though welfare benefits law provides that persons qualify for means-tested benefits even though they have up to £16,000 of capital.
There is a further discrepancy in that the welfare benefits system ignores the value of a person’s home. These legal aid regulations will disregard only £100,000 of equity in property, under Regulation 39; and £100,000 of any mortgage, under Regulation 37. The inevitable result is that many people who own their own homes will be excluded from legal aid, even though they cannot in practice access the capital.
All this is very unfortunate, given that the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act has already reduced the scope of legal aid so that it is now skeletal. I am very concerned that even within the much reduced scope of legal aid under that Act, people who have no income and who are therefore eligible for welfare benefits will be unable to obtain legal advice and assistance. As the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said, there is a vital need in the regulations for more flexibility.
The Minister will no doubt tell us, as he usually does, that funds are limited and that economies are needed, but to adopt criteria, as the regulations do, which are more onerous than the criteria applied to welfare benefits is simply irrational and fails to understand the vital function of legal aid itself as a welfare benefit for the needy in our society. My essential question for the Minister is this: why are the criteria for capital in these regulations different from, and more onerous than, the criteria for welfare benefit law?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
I think there is a line in TS Eliot that says, “Woe unto me when all men praise me”.
This debate gives me the opportunity to clarify the position in the regulations laid before the House on 7 March concerning the issue of capital in relation to financial eligibility for civil legal aid. I will certainly respond to the debate, as I did last Thursday. In fact, I reread the debate and my reply. I think that I covered most of the points raised by the 14 lawyers and two others who contributed to that debate.
The Civil Legal Aid (Financial Resources and Payment for Services) Regulations 2013 set out the rules that the director must apply to determine whether an applicant’s financial resources are such that the applicant is financially eligible for civil legal services under Part 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. These regulations broadly replicate the effects of Parts 1 and 2 of the Community Legal Service (Financial) Regulations, which were made under the Access to Justice Act 1999. Indeed, a number of the points that were raised tonight were in complaint of parts that replicated that Act.
However, as part of the Government’s consultation in 2010, entitled Reform of Legal Aid in England and Wales, the Government proposed several changes to the rules concerning financial eligibility and contributions for civil legal aid. One of these changes was the removal of capital passporting. Two others were to cap the subject matter of the dispute disregard at £100,000 for all forms of civil legal services, and to increase the levels of income-based contributions to a maximum of 30% of monthly disposable income. Before 1 April, someone receiving certain income-based benefits, such as income support, could have up to £16,000 disposable capital but be automatically passported through the means test and be deemed eligible for legal aid. However, a person not receiving a passporting benefit, and who had more than £8,000 in disposable capital, would be ineligible for legal aid.
It is inequitable that applicants with similar levels of capital may or may not be eligible for legal aid depending on the source of their income. To achieve greater internal alignment and fairness to all applicants for legal aid, the Government proposed that in future people in receipt of passporting benefits should have their capital assessed in the same way as it is assessed for others, although they would still be passported through the income side of the test.
The Government’s response to that consultation in June 2011 confirmed that they would take forward the proposal, and this is reflected in these new regulations. Therefore, under the new rules, all applicants for civil legal aid are subject to the same capital eligibility test. This means that any applicant with disposable capital above £8,000 will be ineligible for civil legal aid, regardless of whether they are in receipt of benefits. If the applicant’s disposable capital is more than £3,000 but does not exceed £8,000, they will be required to make a contribution from that capital towards the costs of the legally aided services.
Ensuring that the capital assets of all applicants are subject to the same eligibility test helps to focus limited public legal aid funds on the most financially vulnerable clients and means that those who can afford to pay, or can contribute towards the costs, do so. It is estimated that assessing all applicants’ disposable capital will result in approximately £10 million a year of savings in steady state. This is not insignificant against a backdrop of continuing pressure on public finances, where we need to continue to bear down on the cost of legal aid to ensure we are getting the best deal for the taxpayer. Disposable capital comprises all capital assets, including equity in land and buildings, money held in a bank, investments, stocks, shares and the monetary value of valuable items. However, there are certain disregards in calculating the amount of an individual’s disposable capital, including for mortgages and for equity in an individual’s home.
It may be helpful if I explain what these are. If an applicant is contesting property with their partner, their share of capital is assessed individually. Any outstanding mortgage, up to the value of £100,000, is subtracted from the value of the property. Where assets are in joint names, they will generally be treated as owned in equal shares. Thus the remaining equity is divided equally between the parties. The first £100,000 of the applicant’s equity is then disregarded under the subject matter of the dispute rule. The applicant then receives a further £100,000 equity disregard if the property is their main dwelling. If the remaining equity exceeds the £8,000 capital limit, the applicant will be financially ineligible for legal aid.
In practice, this means that only those applicants who are contesting large amounts of capital, or homes registered in joint names that are valued in excess of £500,000, and where there is a mortgage of at least £100,000, are excluded on capital grounds. We do not think it unfair or unreasonable that people who are disputing substantial assets fall outside eligibility for civil legal aid.
Where a property is not the subject matter of the dispute, is in an applicant’s sole name and worth more than £208,000, that applicant would not normally be eligible for legal aid. However, a further disregard of up to £100,000 would apply if the applicant was aged 60 or over and had monthly disposable income of less than £315. The financial eligibility criteria for civil legal aid are designed to focus our limited resources on those of moderate means and with moderate amounts of capital. This helps to ensure that we can continue to provide services for vulnerable persons, such as victims of domestic violence, children at risk and those with mental health problems.
For domestic violence and forced marriage cases where the applicant seeks an injunction or other order for protection from harm to the person, or seeks committal for breach of any such order, there is a power to disregard the eligibility limits. In this way, we extend eligibility to legal aid for victims of domestic violence irrespective of the value of any property that the individual may own. A contribution may be required from income or capital.
The eligibility waiver for victims of domestic violence seeking protection from harm is a significant concession. This measure improves access to legal aid for domestic violence victims by extending eligibility beyond the original limit. It means that immediate legal advice and representation is available for those who need it and who otherwise would not qualify under the normal eligibility regulations. For those applicants required to pay a contribution, as legally aided clients they will benefit from the reduced cost of representation under legal aid rates as opposed to private rates.
There is a concession for pensioners who are in receipt of an income of £315 a month or below. Disregards of between £10,000 and £100,000 can be applied to any capital assets that they hold, including both property and savings, depending on the level of their income. For example, a monthly income of £76 to £100 attracts a capital disregard of £70,000. This is in addition to the allowances that normally apply, such as the equity disregard. Pensioners who receive a passporting benefit are entitled to the maximum disregard of £100,000.
The financial eligibility criteria for civil legal aid are designed to focus our limited resources on the poorest people. Bringing the capital rules for those receiving benefit into line with the rules for those who are not will help to do that, and will improve the fairness of the system. The substantial provision for disregards that I have outlined will ensure that an appropriate degree of sensitivity to individual circumstances is maintained, in particular as regards capital in the form of equity in the home. This is a sensible and reasonable measure.
The noble Lord, Lord Bach, made a number of points about the difference in the capital tests. Legal aid is not a welfare benefit and should not necessarily be treated in exactly the same way as universal credit, which is a working-age benefit. This is reflected in the different functions of income support and legal aid. The former is intended to lift people out of poverty over the long term while not penalising people for saving, while the latter is for people required to deal with a short-term legal issue and the associated expense.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said that our LASPO reforms have reduced legal aid to skeletal proportions. I remind the House that we are talking about an exercise that has brought legal aid down from £2.1 billion to £1.5 billion. Neither the noble Lord, Lord Bach, nor the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, do their case any good by pretending that a system that will still spend something like £50 million on welfare legal aid and £1.5 billion in total can be described as “skeletal”. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, said how generous the Labour Government were in 2009. In 2010, we had to take some very tough decisions. Again, I question whether the noble Lord, Lord Bach, has any authority to encourage us to believe that in 2015 a Labour Government would try to restore any of these changes to legal aid.
I hear what was said by the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. However, they do not do the cause that they espouse—desiring to help the poorest and most vulnerable in our society—any good by arguing that these changes, which will affect people with quite substantial assets behind them, are not the right priority in the circumstances in which we find ourselves. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, mentioned litigants in person. We are monitoring the impact of litigants in person. However, as I pointed out to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, in a more recent exchange we had, LASPO has been in practice for just over 100 days. He has been forecasting perfect storms and disaster for at least a year. We are keeping a close eye on these things and will monitor these various issues. However, the constant argument of disaster does not serve anybody. The very first Statement I made from this Dispatch Box was to the effect that if a part of your spending is directed at the vulnerable and the needy and you cut it, of course you will affect the vulnerable and needy. In those circumstances we have tried to make sure that we concentrate the money we have available where it is most needed. I will have a look at the Social Fund disregard and will write to the noble Lord—unless it was in that bit of paper that was passed to me. Even if it was, I will write to him.
This has been an interesting debate. The modest changes that we have made to the financial eligibility rules for civil legal aid are consistent with the fundamental objective of our reforms. We need to continue to think carefully about how taxpayer-funded money is spent and focus legal aid on the highest-priority cases and those most in need, while delivering the savings needed to address the national financial deficit. I hope that I have covered most of the questions raised in the debate, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, will agree to withdraw his Motion.
Lord Bach
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, in particular the Minister for the trouble he has taken to respond to the debate. I am grateful to all noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for his extraordinarily flattering remarks, which were somewhat exaggerated. However, it was very good also to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich; the Government should listen with some care to the remarks that he made. I am grateful, too, as always, to my noble friend Lord Beecham for summing up the Opposition’s view so clearly and crisply.
We should remember that we are discussing areas of law where the Government decided that legal aid should continue, not those areas of law where they thought that legal aid was completely meaningless or was not legal or appropriate. These are areas where people’s need for legal aid is acute: for instance, housing repossession, domestic violence or community care. With these regulations the Government have said on the one hand, “These are the areas where legal aid is appropriate”, but on the other, “Those of you who may be poor in income terms but have a small amount of capital cannot take advantage of where we are keeping legal aid in scope”.
That is not a satisfactory position for the Government to take. To say that what has been taken out of legal aid—particularly out of social welfare law—is skeletal seems to be an overstatement rather than an understatement when we look at what is left in scope compared with what has been taken out, which includes all welfare benefit social welfare law, all employment social welfare law, the vast majority of housing social welfare law and nearly all debt social welfare law. The word “skeletal” is not wrong at all.
Legal aid is part of our welfare system and should be so. It is part of our social security system and a protection for all our citizens, or so it ought to be. That was the idea when it was first formulated—an idea that has grown up with Governments of all persuasions over the past 60 years. It is a great shame to hear the Minister say that it can be completely divorced, as it were, from the rest of the social security system. It cannot be: it remains a protection for all of us.
These regulations make the position more complicated, more costly, more unfair and more inflexible. That is not satisfactory. Of course, I am tempted—as I always am—to divide the House on the issue. Noble Lords have spoken in pretty clear terms of what is felt around the House. However, the House has probably voted quite sufficiently in the early part of this evening. We have had the debate and will be able to read it in Hansard. I have no doubt—I know that the Minister will look forward to this—that we will come back to these issues in due course, but probably after the summer rather than before. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Legal Aid
Lord Bach Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bach
My Lords, not for the first time the House owes a debt of gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. By securing this important debate, she has not only obliged the Government to defend their past conduct and current proposals in Parliament, something that I suspect they are not overkeen on doing, but she has attracted a stellar cast of speakers, and not just great lawyers and judges. I pay special tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, whom it is great to see back in his place in this House again. There are others here who are not lawyers who recognise just how important these matters are to our whole way of life and our status as a civilised country.
The debate takes place in the middle of a lovely summer afternoon, and many who are outside will be more interested in getting some sunshine or finding out how the Ashes are going. But we would be foolish to underrate how many out there are listening one way or another to what we are saying and, in particular, to what the Minister will say in due course. There is a lot at stake here.
The Government’s latest proposals, following on frighteningly fast from the implementation of part 1 of LASPO, have been the subject of sustained and deadly attack during this debate. For example, my noble and learned friend Lord Irvine effectively pulled apart the proposals for judicial review, particularly the residence test, revealing it as a tawdry ideological assault on the rule of law and the Lord Chancellor’s duty to uphold it.
The Lord Chancellor himself let it slip, in his session at the House of Commons Justice Committee last week, that it was not cost savings that underlay these proposals, it was “ideological”: that word was used. Does the Minister agree? Is it part of his ideology too that if there was a case in the future like, for example, the Baba Mousa one, it should be outside the scope of legal aid? Or does the Minister still stick to the line that it is the costs that justify these proposals, though the Dr Armstrong paper referred to earlier demolishes the costs argument pretty conclusively as far as JR is concerned?
Is it the philosophy that the right to legal aid—and thus the ability to make a claim against a state—should be based on the status of the claimant? Is our system, with its grand tradition of protecting the rights of all, to become so diminished that it will not allow justice, where it is necessary, for all those who need it? As far as I am concerned, these proposals are much more dog-whistle politics than they are thought-out legal proposals. The Government sometimes give the impression that they are careless about the importance of ensuring access to justice. They would, perhaps, like us to forget what has already been done in the name of cost-savings or ideology or both.
We are three months into LASPO and the Government intend to have post-legislative scrutiny within three to five years of Royal Assent. What will they find? If the first three months are anything to do with it—and they should have been the easiest months—there will be practically nothing left apart from, perhaps, a few providers dotted around the country with vast deserts of no social welfare law provision at all: a sort of wasteland. Let us look briefly at the evidence. Birmingham Law Centre has closed down and advice is not being given on 2,000 cases of social welfare law each year. Will the Government consider saving Birmingham Law Centre in the same way as the Government of whom I was proud to be a member saved South West London Law Centre when it was in difficulties?
The Mary Ward Centre, which has given 100 years of service to the poor in London, is now turning away 15 people each week. It has no contracts in benefit cases because that is out of scope. It has four debt cases where there were 400 this time last year. What are poor Londoners going to do when the Mary Ward Centre cannot look after them? The Government cannot hide their eyes from this. Social welfare law helped hundreds of thousands of people who were given quality advice on legal issues that affected their everyday lives, for less than one tenth of the whole cost of legal aid. Lawyers did not get rich on it, but poor people got some access to justice.
George Orwell wrote:
“Whether the British ruling class is wicked or merely stupid is one of the most difficult questions of our time”.
Perhaps only an old Etonian could have put it in those terms. Of course Ministers are not wicked—indeed, in my experience, they are pretty nice people who mean well. But Part 1 of LASPO, taking away the possibility of many of our poorest citizens getting some access to justice, is pretty close to the second word that he used.
Ministers should think again before it is too late. I do not hesitate to use the quotation which was used many times in the LASPO argument. It is from the late Lord Bingham who said that,
“the denial of legal protection to the poor litigant who cannot afford to pay is one enemy of the rule of law”.
That is what this debate has been arguing.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012: Part 1
Lord Bach Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, post-legislative scrutiny of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 will take place, as is normal, three to five years after Royal Assent. However, the Ministry of Justice will carry out a variety of exercises to monitor the impact of the Act from now on.
Lord Bach
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. However, does the evidence available not point clearly to a world where not-for-profit organisations will be decimated, and their clients—often the poor, disadvantaged and sometimes disabled—will no longer have access to legal advice? Just look at what is happening already. Birmingham Law Centre is closing, the well renowned Mary Ward Centre in London, which had 800 welfare benefit cases last year, has precisely nought at the moment, and Coventry Law Centre—I declare my interest as patron of that organisation, which has a superb reputation—has had to turn away from reception at least 350 people who had housing, immigration, debt, employment and family legal issues. I put it to the Minister that this is not good enough for a country that, until this legislation, could pride itself that its legal system tried to be fair to everyone. What are the Government going to do about it?
Lord McNally
My Lords, the Act has been in force for 99 days. It is difficult to get an accurate picture of what is happening in this sector because of a surge of applications before 1 April. However, as I said, the department is carrying out a variety of checks and researches on the impact and we will keep a careful study of what happens.
Legal Aid
Lord Bach Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, the reasoning behind the proposed changes is that they will ensure that contract holders have enough certainty about work volumes so that efficiencies and economies of scale are achievable. However, we are carefully considering the consultation responses to this proposal.
Lord Bach
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer and confess to being somewhat—a little—encouraged by it. The choice of lawyer is an essential part of our criminal justice system, as of course is the presumption of innocence. Does the Minister agree with his right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor’s justification of the proposal to abolish choice of lawyer, given in a recent interview in the Law Society Gazette? That seemed to be based on the absurd principle of “too thick to pick”. Or, does he agree with his right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister and leader of his own party, who is quoted as saying last weekend that it would be “perverse” to go ahead with this proposal? He cannot agree with both. What is the Government’s position?
Lord McNally
The Government’s position is that we put forward a model for competition, as proposed in our transformed legal aid consultation. That said that the client would generally have no choice in the provider allocated to them but that, in exceptional circumstances, a client might be permitted to change their provider. We put that matter out for consultation. As I indicated in my Answer, we are now considering the responses to the consultation and will come forward with further proposals.
British Bill of Rights
Lord Bach Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bach
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, particularly, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for securing the debate and for attracting a stellar cast to speak, even rather late on a Thursday afternoon in the middle of June. I am certainly not one of those stars. I have comparatively little history, either as lawyer or politician, with regard to the Human Rights Act or the convention. However, it is an honour for me to speak from the opposition Front Bench on this occasion and I, too, pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for his well deserved reputation, mentioned by many noble Lords, in this field.
I start with a quotation from another memorable debate in your Lordships’ House, held exactly 25 months ago on 19 May 2011, when my noble and learned friend Lord Irvine of Lairg led a debate on the ECHR, with many of the same cast as today, and answered, as today, by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, ended his contribution with these words:
“I consider the Human Rights Act 1998 to be the outstanding piece of legislation of the previous Labour Government”.
He went on to say, and we must give him allowance for this,
“next to the Government of Wales Act 1998. I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, not simply on introducing the debate but on being the architect of an important piece in the structure of justice in our country”.—[Official Report, 19/5/11; col. 1501.]
That was a generous but well merited comment from the noble Lord, and a well merited compliment to my noble and learned friend as well.
This year marks the 25th anniversary of the establishment of Charter 88, many of the aspirations of which were adopted by my party in the early 1990s and then put into effect by the Government from 1997 on. Who says that pressure groups cannot achieve results? According to Professor Bogdanor the constitutional achievements of the Labour Government, ranging from the Human Rights Act to devolution, freedom of information, the creation of the Supreme Court, and much more, represent a formidable list. He may go too far when he says that it was an era of constitutional reform comparable to that of the years of the Great Reform Act 1832 or the Parliament Act 1911. However, even more impressive is the amount of power that was given away by some of these measures by that Labour Government. For example, the Human Rights Act gave power to individuals, the national states were given power by devolution and the judiciary was given power by the difference between the role of the Lord Chief Justice and that of the Lord Chancellor and by the creation of the Supreme Court. Professor Bogdanor went on to say that no British Government since World War II had dispersed power to the same extent.
Speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, I am proud of that record. It made our country a fairer, more open and better place to live. We were supported in all this—certainly for the most part—both in argument and votes by the Minister’s party, the Liberal Democrats. Both party manifestos for the 2010 general election talked about support for the Human Rights Act; the Liberal Democrats’ manifesto talked about protecting the Human Rights Act. It is therefore hardly surprising that when the Liberal Democrats found themselves in a coalition Government they had to think hard and quickly about how to prevent the Human Rights Act and the ECHR behind it being savaged by their coalition partner during the course of this Parliament.
Make no mistake: both before 2010 and since being in power, of course not all Conservatives but many of their leaders have regularly and systematically tried to trash both the convention and the Human Rights Act. They have often used language—perhaps sometimes to placate their anti-European supporters—that has sometimes, though not always, been a disgrace to a great party.
Rather unusually for me, I will pay a compliment to Liberal Democrat Ministers in this Government, and not least—in fact, probably for the most part—to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for the manner in which he, along with others, has successfully prevented the Conservatives from carrying out constitutional mayhem during this Parliament. I do not know whose idea a commission on the Bill of Rights originally was, and who put together the personnel. However, if the aim was to kick these proposals deep into the long grass, it appears to have succeeded.
I pay tribute to all members and staff of the commission, particularly its chairman, for giving up so much of their valuable time to its work. Many of its members were busy and distinguished Queen’s Counsel, while others had other important obligations. They deserve our thanks; not least the chairman, who has already been described in Job-like terms and whose distinguished career in public service must have helped him in an almost impossible task. However—and I suspect that the House might have expected a “however” at this stage—it is surely fair to ask whether it was really worth all the time and effort to produce two large volumes of a report in effect to solve a political problem?
Where do the various and myriad conclusions lead us? What is the value of the so-called majority view, when it includes a number who clearly and honestly objected to the terms of reference and want us to be free of the convention? I admit that I do not completely understand the position of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, who is himself one of the architects of the Human Rights Act. When reading the 31—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I am grateful to the noble Lord. I wonder whether he agrees that it is core Labour Party policy since 1993 that a Human Rights Act is the first step, and a Bill of Rights the second. That was agreed by Labour in 1993, and as far as I am aware it is still Labour Party policy.
Lord Bach
As I understand it, the Human Rights Act is considered by some to be a British Bill of Rights in any event. However, I do not want to take issue with the noble Lord. I am here to praise him rather than criticise him. As I was going to say, when reading the 31 pages of the overview of volume 1, one can almost physically feel the strain in the language as it attempts desperately to find consensus where there is none. The majority view has been described as representing,
“a fragile coalition of views united around conceptions of a domestic Bill of Rights so different from one another as to render any consensus wholly illusory”.
These are the words of Mark Elliott, a reader in politics at the University of Cambridge, whose article is entitled, A Damp Squib in the Long Grass. This is perhaps a little harsh, but I think one senses what he is getting at. No wonder Professor Fenwick at the University of Durham described the document, perhaps rather generously, as “odd”. For me, the paper In Defence of Rights, by my noble friend Lady Kennedy and Professor Sands, is more persuasive. It destroys the confused majority view with a pretty well argued, moderate and sensible position.
The commission report has of course effectively stymied any change until after the 2015 general election. It is only when we know the result of that election and what will follow from it that we can realistically move forward. I would expect the Liberal Democrats to be every bit as robust in their defence of the Human Rights Act as I hope my party will also be.
I want to end on a perhaps rather less consensual note. I am afraid that the Liberal Democrats’ effective defence of the Human Rights Act and the convention is in marked contrast to the feebleness and lack of concern for the individual citizen evident in their acquiescence to—and sometimes even welcome for—some of the more reactionary measures that Her Majesty’s Government have recently taken. I of course refer to the restrictions either passed or proposed on judicial review, the no-win no-fee policy, and the position that private firms doing public work on public contracts may be exempt from freedom of information. Above all, I must say, it is evident in the decimation of social welfare law by taking it outside the scope of legal aid. It is no answer to say that citizens are still able in theory to go to law, because the reality is that without free legal advice, the poor and the marginalised in practice cannot go to law. Human rights exist outside the Human Rights Act. By limiting and restricting the ability of the citizen to take on the state, the Liberal Democrats are colluding in particularly anti-liberal acts.
I conclude by saying to the Minister that he has nobly protected the Human Rights Act in very difficult circumstances and that his part of the Government deserves great credit for that. Now is the time to protect the interests of individual citizens who need to take on the state. They, too, like those protected by the Human Rights Act, are an essential part of those who live in a free society.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Amendment of Schedule 1) Order 2013
Lord Bach Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bach
To move, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end to insert, “but this House regrets that Her Majesty’s Government have responded to the opinion of this House, as expressed in a vote on 3 December 2012 on a fatal motion in respect of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Amendment of Schedule 1) Order 2012 on inadequate provision for legal aid in first tier tribunal cases, by bringing forward this order which excludes even that limited provision.”
Lord Bach
My Lords, I hope to move this regret Motion in an entirely non-partisan manner, because this matter in my view affects the whole House and its reputation and it is not meant in any sense as an attack on the Minister, who has been on the side of the good within the department in trying to make sure that this ghastly Act of Parliament was modified.
Some noble Lords may remember the background to this state of affairs and others will not, so I hope that the House will forgive me if I set out as briefly as I can what has happened and why I believe that, in this case, the Government have behaved in a manner that has offended both against the constitutional arrangements that bind our country together and, importantly, against a small group of our fellow citizens who have been deprived of a legal right that they were promised by the Government.
The story begins on 17 April last year, when, in another place at the ping-pong stage, the then Lord Chancellor made an important concession to ensure that the LASPO Bill got through. An amendment had been put forward there to allow legal aid for welfare benefit reviews and hearings, supporting an amendment already agreed in this House and moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. To prevent that amendment succeeding, the Lord Chancellor made it clear that Her Majesty’s Government would compromise and allow legal aid for legal advice at First-tier Tribunals in cases where a point of law arose. He wanted time to ask his department about the best way of implementing the pledge. He was given that time, in due course the Bill became law, and we waited for the pledge to be implemented.
A Written Ministerial Statement appeared on 18 September last year. Surprisingly, this Statement did not announce how the major concession, which had been pledged by the Lord Chancellor, had been put into effect. Instead, in its place, a new—I would say minor—concession was announced that would affect many fewer people but would arise in a limited number of cases before the First-tier Tribunal. These were called errors of law cases, and according to a parliamentary Written Answer given to me by the Minister on 23 November last year, there were 692 errors of law cases in the year 2011-12, and 173 between April and June 2012. Of course, not every case would involve legal aid being granted, but—this is important in my submission—some would. If no one was to benefit, why would the Government have put forward this minor concession at all?
As the Minister just told us, on 3 December last year, the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (Amendment of Schedule 1) Order 2012, which included the minor concession, was debated in your Lordships’ House. I tabled an amendment that declined to support the regulation because, first, it did not fulfil the Government’s undertaking in the Commons on 17 April and, secondly, it would mean that claimants would not receive legal help on a point of law. The debate followed. It was crystal clear that all those who spoke in favour wanted the Government to withdraw the regulation and come back with something a little more generous. They were definitely not arguing for there to be no concession of any kind, which would have been an absurd position for them to have taken. We were saying to the Government, “Keep your word, and if you can’t do that, come back with something a bit more generous”. My amendment was supported by speeches from around the House, including those of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Woolf and Lord Goldsmith, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick; and, from the Liberal Democrat Benches, those of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and other noble Lords. In the event, the Government refused to do what was asked, and the regulation was defeated, by 2,001 votes to 191.
Lord Bach
My Lords, I apologise—it is nearly the end of term. I meant 201 votes to 191. I was about to say, that in the somewhat heightened minutes before the vote was held, which were a good deal more heightened than they are at present, the Minister warned—or, to use another expression, threatened—that a vote against the regulation would not necessarily result in a better offer. He did so in such a way, if I may say so, that some noble Lords may even have been swayed to vote for my amendment and against the regulation.
The Government did not decide there and then not to come back with a further regulation. Indeed, on 18 December, 15 days after our debate and just before the Christmas Recess, the Minister’s Secretary of State—now the Lord Chancellor—the right honourable Chris Grayling, was asked in the Commons at Justice Questions about this very point. My honourable friend Andrew Slaughter MP said:
“The proposals finally brought forward were so inadequate that two weeks ago their lordships voted them down and told him to come up with something better. Now we hear that the Secretary of State, in a fit of pique, intends to do nothing at all. Why is he breaking a promise to Parliament and to some of the most destitute and vulnerable people in the country?”.
The Lord Chancellor replied:
“As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we have promised to consider the decision by the Lords. I was a little surprised to see the rather unusual step taken in the other place of voting down a statutory instrument that was granting a concession, but we will of course review the issue and decide how to proceed”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/12/12; col. 694.]
In the new year, on 8 January in this House, the Minister, in reply to an Oral Question, said that the Government would not be putting forward another regulation.
As so often in this House, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who cannot be in his place today, put the killer question that, in my view, the Minister cannot answer. He asked:
“Given that the House rejected as inadequate the limited concession on legal aid in First-tier Tribunals, is it not truly perverse for the Government to respond by withdrawing even that?”.—[Official Report, 8/1/13; col. 13.]
Why is the Government’s behaviour so perverse? Why am I arguing that their line, not to put forward another regulation, is so wrong? It is for two reasons. The first is the constitutional offence that has been caused to Parliament. The Executive are supposed to be subject to Parliament. Parliament’s wish that a more generous concession was required was clearly expressed on 3 December; it cannot be more clearly expressed than by a vote of a House of Parliament. The House voted for this.
The Government could have brought back their minor concession if they had wanted to. For them to refuse to bring back anything else is—I choose my words with some care—treating Parliament with contempt. It is saying to Parliament, “We are the masters, not you. We don’t care what you say, we will do what we want”. I liken it to the behaviour of a spoilt child who cannot get his way. The conduct is more that of a playground bully than a mature, grown-up, confident, democratic Government. What has happened here is dishonourable, and my amendment rejects this behaviour.
The second reason, which is perhaps as serious, is that two groups of people who were led to believe that they might get legal aid for advice for First-tier Tribunals—those with a point of law and those in error-of-law cases—have had their legitimate expectations removed by Her Majesty’s Government without any consultation. Why? For the first group, the Government would cite the cost and say that they could not afford the major concession offered by the right honourable Kenneth Clarke in April last year, but what is the reason for this second group? It is not a big group, but it undoubtedly includes some people. Is cost the reason? We have never been told the cost of this minor concession. Or is it—I am afraid to say—just plain spite? That is unattractive in an individual and just not acceptable in a Government. This meanness of spirit is and should be offensive to this House and to the wider world.
I feel strongly that the civil legal aid cuts that will come in on 1 April, in a few days’ time, will demean the reputation of our legal system. I feel even more strongly that in this limited case—I do not want to claim more for it than actually exists—the behaviour of the Government towards Parliament, towards this House in particular and towards its citizens is unacceptable. I beg to move.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I am sorry to intervene again on my noble friend, but it is not fair to say that the tribunals introduced a lawyer-free zone. The point of this debate is that it is in respect of issues of law in relation to tribunals that advice is plainly needed from lawyers. That is ineluctable.
Lord Bach
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I thank in particular the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, for his remarks. If the word “spite” offends him because it is rather overblown—rather like the number I claimed for a previous amendment—I apologise. I do not want to overblow this but I want to make the point. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Beecham for his remarks on the general issue around legal aid that this House discussed over many months. He is absolutely right. When Part 1 of this Act comes into force next Monday, it will be a day of shame for our legal system because—I am sorry to use this phrase again—access to justice for the poor, disabled and marginalised will, in many cases, effectively disappear because they will lack the ability to get the advice—
Lord McNally
Will the noble Lord give way to allow me to make one point? I know that he wants to make a political point.
Lord McNally
Well, all right, he wants to make a point. I was at a call centre on aid the other day. I listened to one call in which a lady said, “I know that they are bringing this legal aid to an end”. That is what worries me. I know that criticisms have to be strongly put but we must not make people think that we are ending legal aid. At the end of this process, we will be spending £1.7 billion on legal aid. We will still have a substantial amount of taxpayers’ money going into welfare legal aid. By all means attack the decisions but do not leave people with the idea that legal aid is not available, because it is.
Lord Bach
I am grateful to the Minister, and I am grateful for what he said earlier. There is £1.7 billion left, of which approximately £1.2 billion is spent on criminal legal aid, which leaves for civil legal aid—including public family law and asylum law, which remain in scope—precisely £500 million. Social welfare law was always a small part of the legal aid budget. It is now going to be a tiny part of it. That is my criticism of the measure. It is bad for the high reputation of our legal system.
For the moment, that battle has been lost, but only for the time being. I do not share the Minister’s pessimism that no future Government, perhaps even a Liberal Democrat Government, will bring back some sort of proper legal aid in social welfare law. That may well happen. I know that this House, in its heart of hearts, regrets what is happening on 1 April. However, my amendment to the Motion does not seek to turn back that clock but to point out a particular act of what I consider to be meanness by the Government towards that very small group of people that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, mentioned. It is also, if I may say so, an insult to Parliament.
The Minister is absolutely right about fatal Motions. They should be used sparingly. But when such a Motion is passed by a House of Parliament, as was the case on 3 December last year, it is incumbent on a democratic Government to take some notice of it rather than just dismiss it. I pray in aid the last time it happened in this House on 28 March 2007, almost exactly six years ago, when the Labour Government’s gambling order was defeated in this House. How did the Government respond? They responded effectively by changing their policy as a consequence of that decision. I do not ask the Government to change their policy. I just ask them not to take—
Lord McNally
I am sorry to intervene and I do not want to prolong the debate. However, as the noble Lord knows, I was intimately involved in the passing of that fatal Motion, which stopped the super-casino going to Manchester. The outcome of that Motion was that the Government did not bring back their proposal. That is exactly what has happened again.
Lord McNally
Oh yes; it is four-square. The House took a decision and the decision stood. That was the case with the decision made on legal aid.
Lord Bach
I do not think that the Minister can really get away with that. The Government changed their policy as a consequence of the House of Lords vote. On this occasion, the Government have said, “We don’t like what the House of Lords have said. Therefore, we’ll do quite the opposite of what they wanted to happen”. However, let us not retreat into history; let us talk about today.
If my amendment is agreed, the regulations presented by the noble Lord will go through, of course, and the Act will come into force on 1 April in any event. However, if the House agrees to the amendment, it will show that it has some distaste for the way in which the Government have behaved in this instance. In my view, the Government have not behaved well here and the House should, in its gentle way by a Motion of Regret, just say that.
Justice: Legal Advice
Lord Bach Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, these matters were assessed as part of the impact assessments, which were published alongside the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.
Lord Bach
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply as far as it goes but I do not think it is very full on detail. It is now only 21 days until civil legal aid effectively disappears, affecting access to justice for perhaps hundreds of thousands of people every year. What do Her Majesty’s Government think will happen to the disabled person, for example, who wants to appeal his or her Atos decision, or the person who needs housing advice but cannot get it because the local Shelter housing advice centre has been forced to close, as today’s newspapers report? What are the Government’s contingency plans when unadvised and unrepresented clients flood courts and tribunals? No one can say the Government have not been warned, all the way from the very top of the legal system to small charities that are at breaking point. What will the Government do when it all goes wrong?
Lord McNally
My Lords, we are working on some of these issues. We are working with the judiciary to improve guidelines for people representing themselves in court. We are developing a new online information service to help people find out if they are eligible for legal aid or signpost them to other services. We are giving £65 million of funding to help not-for-profit social welfare advice providers to adapt and transition over the next two years. We are also encouraging innovations in the legal services market, such as the provision of lower-cost advice services to help people in resolving their problems.
Legal Services Commission
Lord Bach Excerpts(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, the Legal Services Commission decided to cease the Community Legal Service grants programme following careful consideration of all the issues involved and a public consultation exercise. These grant-funded projects and activities do not necessarily provide direct advice to the individuals eligible for legal aid. Following the Government’s legal aid reforms, the commission’s focus must be on providing advice to clients who qualify for legal aid through its contracted providers.
Lord Bach
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer, but is it not rather depressing that these three highly respected and proven organisations are no longer to receive any public funding and are being put at some risk, and all for £650,000 per year? I am sure the Minister will agree that they all have a superb record over many years of helping often poor and disadvantaged people to obtain access to justice. Is it just coincidence that these changes to legal aid are coming at precisely the same time as radical reform of the welfare system is about to begin or is it, as seems much more likely to some of us, deliberate government policy to link these two things together so that if mistakes are made as a result of welfare reform—as they will be—there will cease to be any effective legal remedy for many people?
Lord McNally
My Lords, I am always fascinated by the way in which the noble Lord dismisses £650,000 as a mere bagatelle, but let us also look at the facts. This scheme for funding such bodies was introduced in 2000 and the three bodies in this consultation were awarded three-year contracts at the end of the previous Administration. Since then, we have twice extended their contracts by one year so that what was originally a three-year contract became a five-year contract. However, as I have explained to the House before, I am afraid that we have to concentrate limited funds on bodies that are giving sharp-end legal aid advice. These three bodies, particularly the Advice Services Alliance and the local Law Centres Network, are umbrella bodies that do not give such advice. Therefore, although in happier days they could win such contracts and do such work, there is simply no money.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Amendment of Schedule 1) Order 2012
Lord Bach Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, as I made clear before the House voted on 3 December, if the fatal Motion was carried, the LASPO Act would not provide legal aid in the cases specified in the rejected statutory instrument. That remains the case.
Lord Bach
Does the Minister understand that that Answer is entirely unsatisfactory and does no credit to the Government? This House declined to accept the order because it represented a breach of a government undertaking given to another place to get the legal aid Bill through and because what it offered was too mean. Why are the Government taking absolutely no notice of the will of this House of Parliament? Are they not behaving more like a spoilt child than a mature, responsible Government, protecting the legal rights of some of the poorest citizens under their care, including many with disabilities?
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
Lord Bach Excerpts(11 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, I, too, support this amendment. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, has underlined what is critical on this amendment, which I very much hope the Government will consider. It is right that they will be considering this amendment between now and Third Reading.
There are two points. One is the practicality of the arrangements which the amendment proposes: they cannot be doubted. Arrangements for the appointment of the chief executive which include the president of our Supreme Court and the arrangements provided by the Civil Service rules seems to me undoubtedly to be a very proper way of proceeding. One cannot doubt that it will be effective. Certainly, the ad hoc way that the present chief executive was appointed was very successful. I had the privilege to have Miss Jenny Rowe working in my office for some time while I was Attorney-General; they could not have hoped for a better first chief executive.
So there can be no objection in principle by the Government to this proposal; and there is every reason in principle why they should want to see this amendment accepted. It is this worrying question of perception—is the Supreme Court really independent? I recall, in one of your Lordships’ committee rooms a long time ago, explaining to a group of Argentinian politicians, I think, how it came about that a decision had been made in relation to General Pinochet by the Judicial Committee of your Lordships’ House. I explained that the committee was entirely independent and that it was called a Judicial Committee, of professional judges, appointed to that role, who had no political affiliation. They nodded wisely and at the end of it all and said, “So why did the Government let it happen?”.
And that is the problem. If we have these apparent connections between Parliament, judges, the Lord Chancellor who is a serving Minister and now is really only a political Minister, and the court, people will think, “Ah, well, there must be some string-pulling going on”. We must remove all of those suggestions, and therefore I strongly support this amendment. I understand that it will not be moved to a vote this evening, but I very much hope that it will not be necessary to move it to a vote on a future occasion, because the Government will accept it.
Lord Bach
My Lords, in bringing up the rear, as it were, on this point, I will be very brief. I was the junior Minister with some responsibility for the Supreme Court while the building was being refurbished and finished. It was exciting to see noble and learned Lords in their hard hats going around the building as it was being refurbished. It has developed into an extraordinarily effective court which is a great credit to all those involved in it and is now a natural part of our constitutional settlement. I was also a Minister when the Supreme Court was actually opened. That, too, was an exciting time. I have a lasting interest in how the Supreme Court functions. I strongly support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, as it seems to me to go to an issue of independence. The independence of that court is of supreme importance, if I may use the expression. It is very important that the general public and the world outside understand that that court is at the very top of the British judicial system and is independent of the Executive in every way. That is why I support the amendment.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I rise briefly to place on record the full support of the Opposition for this amendment. I hope that the Government will accept its spirit, if not the precise wording, today. It seems to set the final stone in the arch, as it were, of the construction of the Supreme Court. It clearly makes sense and I endorse entirely the observations of noble and learned Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and my noble friend Lord Bach.