Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2013

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2014 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishes the criteria and mechanisms for determining the member state responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the member states by a third-country national or a stateless person, known as the Dublin III arrangements. Under these arrangements, the United Kingdom can apply for another member state to consider an asylum application, and provide appropriate protection if that application is successful, where an individual’s first point of entry to the European Union is that other member state but an application for asylum is made in the United Kingdom.

Under these arrangements, a member state is required, if the financial means of the individual and merits of the case justify it, to provide free legal assistance and representation in relation to an appeal or review of certain decisions made under Dublin III. The Dublin III arrangements replace those set out in Council Regulations (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003, known as Dublin II. We have in this country routinely provided legal aid in relation to Dublin II matters.

The key difference between the old and the new arrangements, from the Ministry of Justice’s perspective, is that the requirement to provide free legal assistance for certain appeals, which in the UK is met through judicial review, is made explicit. The explicit provision in Dublin III for legal aid also prescribes a merits test, particular to it, that is to be applied. These regulations amend the Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) Regulations 2013 to give effect to the particular merits test. The merits criteria are tests which the Director of Legal Aid Casework must apply in deciding whether an individual qualifies for civil legal services.

The amendment before us today allows for the merits test set out in Dublin III to apply—namely that the prospects of success of an individual case must be judged to be greater than,

“no tangible prospect of success”.

The instrument therefore makes provision to ensure that we meet our international obligations but changes nothing else. Noble Lords will be aware that the Ministry of Justice laid an urgency statement alongside this instrument, in order that it could come into force without delay, as per the procedures set out in Section 41(9) of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.

Due to an administrative oversight, my officials at the Ministry of Justice failed to recognise that there was a subtle difference between the merits test prescribed in Dublin III and the existing tests more generally applied to applications for judicial review. In the case of judicial review, the prospects of success must be at least moderate. By the time this oversight was recognised, insufficient time remained to make the necessary changes via the standard draft affirmative procedure. The urgency procedure was used to ensure that the appropriate test applied from the point when the Dublin III arrangements came into effect, on 1 January this year. This means that there was no risk of an individual being unfairly disadvantaged by having the incorrect test applied to their application for legal aid, hence the urgency. I hope that my explanation has been of assistance to noble Lords. I commend this instrument to the Committee and beg to move.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a rare opportunity for me to congratulate the Government on breaking the habits of this Parliament’s lifetime on access to legal aid. It is only 12 days since we had a debate about prison law and entered into a discussion about borderline cases for legal aid, when the noble Lord was vigorously supported by precisely no members of the Government—nor, indeed, anybody else—in a debate in which 15 Members were exercised about the restrictions on legal aid and the merits criteria under which these decisions will be taken.

However, on this occasion, the Government have not only done better than that, they have also refrained from stigmatising European legislation as an outrage to our constitution which should not be implemented if at all possible. For that small mercy, I am sure that we are grateful. Perhaps the noble Lord would like to convey to his Secretary of State the fact that a move towards something less stringent than the previous formulation about “no tangible prospect of success”, which is effectively what we are ending up with in other areas, would also be better applied to the remaining legal aid jurisdiction and not just that which is invoked by the European treaty and Dublin III. Having said that, we very much welcome the regulations.

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, congratulations being in short supply in the context of legal aid, I gratefully accept them from the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. I will pass on his comments on the lack of stigmatisation of European legislation and his suggestion to amend the merits test. I am sure that the Secretary of State will read carefully his comments in Hansard.

There is little more for me to add, except that this should enable no injustice to be done. Legal aid should be available. The urgency, while regrettable, has been explained to the Committee. In those circumstances, I commend this instrument.

Tribunal Security Order 2014

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2014 Grand Committee

Ensuring the smooth running of the administration of justice in tribunal venues is important. The Government, therefore, seek to expand the powers of the present court security contingent to cover tribunal venues and hearing centres throughout England and Wales. I commend the draft order to the Committee and I beg to move.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a perfectly sensible change to the rules to provide for security on tribunal premises. I do not expect the Minister to be able to answer the one or two questions I have immediately, but it would be interesting to know whether there is a record of any significant incidents in which the presence of a security officer with these powers would have made a difference. It would be interesting to know how many problems have arisen or are arising, and how that compares with the other courts. That said, it is clearly sensible to have these provisions. However, can the Minister say how the Government intend to proceed in terms of the employment of such staff? Will they be seeking to contract this operation out, like so much else of the administration of justice, to contractors such as G4S and Serco? Or will it be done, as it were, in-house?

Secondly, will they, in any event, ensure that staff employed on this important task are paid at least a living wage? I fear that people may be employed on part-time, minimum-wage conditions. Given the nature of the job, that would be entirely unjustified. It would be helpful to know, if not now then subsequently, what the Government’s attitude would be, whether it is providing the services directly or contracting them out. Subject to these observations, I very much endorse the regulations.

[Lord Faulks]

Contrary to his expectation, I think I can answer some of the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham.

In the reporting period from April 2013 to 31 December 2013, a total of 75 security incidents were reported from tribunal venues and hearing centres. Those incidents are classified in a number of ways. Examples include verbal abuse, verbal threats and unauthorised access through to security systems or loss of ID. I do not have any further breakdown, but I hope that gives the noble Lord at least some idea of the scale. I also do not have information comparing that with security incidents at courts, but it can be seen that it is a substantial potential threat, and the noble Lord has been good enough to acknowledge that it is appropriate to make this change. Of course, it was not possible under the 2003 Act until the Tribunals Service was brought within the overall control of the Courts Service.

I turn to the questions around employment. Important pre-employment checks will be made on contractors—and there will be independent contractors—to assess their suitability to work within the organisation. I am instructed that the guards will be provided by G4S and Mitie. Some tribunal venues and hearing centres are covered by the PRIME contract. The contract has input from the Department for Work and Pensions and is managed by a private organisation, Telereal Trillium. The guards will be supplied to these sites by G4S or Mitie depending on their geographical location, and the template seen across the court sites will be used to manage security within tribunal venues and hearing centres.

As part of the employment process, the relevant contractor will undertake pre-employment checks to assess applicants’ suitability to work within their organisation, including obtaining references, interviews and so on. Before designation—the word apparently used in this context—HMCTS undertakes further suitability checks to confirm the identity of the individual. Checks are made of disclosure and barring service certificates, and an assessment is made of the appropriate level of training required. The assessment of this suitability is part of the designation process, with assurances going to the Lord Chancellor. As part of the application process, all potential designates must hold a current Security Industry Authority licence and have completed training on conflict management and physical intervention. There is also continuing monitoring of employees’ ability, but I will not provide all the details now.

I noticed that the noble Lord’s eyebrows were raised slightly by the reference to G4S. He may be thinking back to the question of electronic monitoring and tagging. The tagging contract is not linked to the provision of security on court sites; rather, it is managed by a separate department within G4S. I hope that that provides some assurance for the noble Lord.

[Lord Beecham]

Will the noble Lord respond to the questions about the conditions of the staff in terms of earnings, zero hour contracts and so on?

[Lord Faulks]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for reminding me about the question of the living wage. I do not have any details on the precise wages, but I will write to him.

Prisons: Deaths of Young People

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, the noble Baroness identifies a matter of great concern to the Government. Under-18s are considered in various ways, through the work of the Youth Justice Board and the NOMS review of the assessment, care in custody and teamwork process—the acronym ACCT will be familiar to the noble Baroness and to the House. However, we intend to learn from this review as applied to this age group.

I entirely accept that suicide in any circumstances is a tragedy. We are concerned to focus on the early days in custody, when young offenders are particularly vulnerable. All prisoners will receive an initial health screening within 24 hours of reception and there will be an initial assessment of their risk of self-harm. If the prisoner is identified as being at particular risk, the assessment will take place within 24 hours and governors must ensure that arrangements are in place for staff to monitor prisoner safety and well-being throughout the first night in the prison. It is right to say that there is a disproportionate occurrence of suicide during the early stages of custody, so the suicide prevention strategy will be specifically targeted at that stage.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government have drawn attention to the problem of the deaths of young people in custody. I welcome the Minister’s announcement today, although I continue to share some of the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. There is continuing concern about the incidence of self-harm and suicide among women prisoners, who form 5% of the prison population but account for one-third of the incidence of self-harm and four times the number of suicides as men. They are 36 times more likely to commit suicide or die of an accidental overdose of drugs in the first two weeks after release. It is time for a radical change of policy in relation to the imprisonment of women and especially in the practice of segregation.

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, we have been working hard to improve support for women in prison. We have issued gender-specific standards in all areas of prison regimes, including training for staff working with female offenders in prisons, which has now been extended to service providers in the community. New search arrangements ending routine full searching for women prisoners have also been introduced. The House will know that there are six mother and baby units in England and Wales which provide an overall capacity of 64 places.

I am slightly surprised at the noble Lord’s statistics. He is right that my research into this matter shows that women are disproportionately more likely to self-harm than men, relative to their occupation of prisons. Fortunately, the self-harm, compared with men’s self-harm, does not tend to be as serious, and does not usually require hospitalisation, although I do not suggest for a moment that any self-harm is not a significant factor. The statistics that I have been given do not indicate that women form a large part of those who have been responsible for self-inflicted deaths. I will write to the noble Lord with statistics. I hesitate to bandy them across the Dispatch Box but I do not think he is quite right.

Inheritance and Trustees’ Powers Bill [HL]

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I will not be the only person in the Chamber this evening who remembers when mortgage interest rates were 15%, and very painful they were too. I have one question for the Minister, relating to the term “available” in proposed new paragraph 3A(1)(a). When does the figure become “available” within the meaning of the provision? Does it mean published or “available” to the public? The figure must be available to others privately before it is published. I do not know whether it means published in the sense that the consumer prices index uses the word “published”, but we need to be clear about how one identifies when a figure becomes available.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, in Committee, I raised a number of issues and said that I would consider the position further before Report. I took advantage of seeking advice from leading counsel, Mr Nugee, who gave evidence to the Committee. I have to say that he received the same fee for his services as the Minister receives for his in his present capacity, and I am obliged to Mr Nugee for his advice. Having considered it, I am not proposing any further amendments today. He would perhaps be inclined to support such amendments but, taking things in the round, thought that the position that had been reached in Committee was reasonable.

We are discussing an amendment stemming effectively—I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd—from the contribution of my noble friend Lord Hanworth. As I said to him just before we entered the Chamber, he has the law in his genes because his grandfather, the first Viscount Hanworth, was Attorney-General in the coalition and subsequent Conservative Governments in the early 1920s. Clearly, he has inherited that gene and deployed it to some effect. I have no difficulty with the amendment that the Minister has moved, but I have one query.

In Committee, I moved an amendment to Clause 1 which did not succeed because it referred to simple interest. Are the amendments now being proposed compatible with Clause 1 as it now stands, which appears to provide for the interest rate referred to in paragraph (B) of case (2) of the table to be the Bank of England rate? I may have misunderstood the original effect of Clause 1 and the amendment. I assume, but perhaps wrongly, that Clause 1 deals with the situation that the amendments now seek to modify. I just hope that the provisions are compatible but that, if they are not, perhaps by Third Reading we might have the necessary change. On the face of it—again, I may have misunderstood the position—the two are to some degree in conflict.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, before the Minister finishes, I will test the patience of the House and say that I understand his common-sense answer, which was what I expected. However, I am not completely convinced that the Bill, incorporating this amendment, actually says that. I will leave that with him, as it is not very sensible for the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, to go to and from the Box to answer a rather technical question. However, we are all such pedants in this Chamber that I know we all want it to be correct.

[Lord Beecham]

I follow the noble Baroness to take a little further our discussion on the impact of Clause 1 and the amendments. If I understand the noble Lord correctly, there are two situations. One will be governed by one rate of interest, as specified in Clause 1, and the other will be covered by these amendments. This raises a further question of why there should not be consistency, in terms of the interest to be calculated, in respect of what appear to be two separate situations. If they are not separate situations, there is a degree of confusion; if they are separate, there needs to be a rationale for having two different rates of interests. I invite the noble Lord to consider that before Third Reading. It may or may not need tidying up. On the face of it, there seems to be something slightly awry with the position we will be in when the amendment is passed.

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, I accept the invitations from both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord to consider their points and come back, if necessary, at Third Reading.

Criminal Legal Aid (General) (Amendment) Regulations 2013

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, it is once again necessary for me to thank the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for putting down a Motion of Regret about a set of regulations on legal aid. I also express my gratitude to all noble Lords who have spoken so powerfully tonight about the regulations and the potential damage that they will do.

I begin by citing three examples of successful cases for which legal aid was, but will no longer be, available. I am indebted to the Howard League for supplying the relevant information. The first was a mother and baby case of the kind referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. A Spanish mother, who spoke no English, was informed after sentence that her baby would be removed and placed into care because it was not known whether she would be allowed to remain with the child when she returned to Spain. Her lawyers ascertained that she would, and the decision was reversed.

In the second case, a prisoner with severe learning disabilities could not do offending behaviour courses. Experts in the prison recommended he be transferred to hospital for treatment, but nothing happened until his lawyer commissioned an independent report and persuaded the authorities to transfer him to hospital. Such a sentence case will now be out of scope.

In the third case, a 17 year-old suffering from ADHD and learning difficulties underwent psychiatric therapy in a secure training centre, but the local authority refused to respond to a request for a needs assessment under Section 17 of the Children Act until legal intervention by the Howard League. Resettlement cases of this kind will also be out of scope. I remind your Lordships that the cost of keeping such an offender in custody could be as much as £200,000 a year.

Those are but a few sample cases. The regulations which are the subject of this regret Motion are merely the latest example of this Government’s repeated assaults on the legal aid system and access to justice, pushed through by a Lord Chancellor indifferent to their effects and unheeding of the warnings from the judiciary, practitioners, and charities and voluntary organisations. Time after time the criticisms of bodies such as the Justice Select Committee, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights are brushed aside. Impact analyses are vestigial in many cases, and imperfect in most.

Such is clearly the case with the proposals we are debating tonight. Not only are the measures deeply flawed but the process is tainted. Paragraph after paragraph of the Joint Committee on Human Rights report highlights these systemic failures. After their initial consultation, the Government abandoned proposals to exclude two areas from legal aid, namely where the Parole Board considers whether to order release and in relation to the calculation of sentence when the release date is in dispute. That is welcome, but as paragraph 154 of the report sets out, two new matters were excluded from legal aid—contrary to the express intention set out in the consultation that legal aid would continue to be available—namely, the areas of sentence planning and pre-tariff reviews. There was no subsequent consultation on these changes.

At paragraph 163, the committee dismissed the Lord Chancellor’s assertion that legal aid was being abused by prisoners complaining about what prison they were confined in, or about prison conditions, saying, damningly and accurately,

“legal aid is already unavailable for such claims”.

At paragraph 168, it pointed up the hollowness of the Government’s claim that judicial review would be available given the restrictions being imposed on the number of cases firms might bring and the limitations of the exceptional funding regime. At paragraph 169, it asked the Government to consider the combined effect of the residence test and the exceptional funding criteria and invited them to explain,

“how access to justice rights will be maintained where both policies are in operation”.

What is the Government’s response to that very significant question?

The Government airily dismissed the concerns on internal prison complaints but, as we have heard, the Chief Inspector of Prisons is quoted at paragraph 174 as finding the response “disappointing”. He emphasised the problems of prisoners with disabilities, especially mental health problems, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, pointed out, warned that prisoner confidence in the complaints system was crucial to prison safety. As recent events have demonstrated, prison safety is a real concern. Similarly, at paragraph 174, the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman voiced concerns, especially about his lack of statutory independence that the Lord Chancellor has promised to rectify. I must ask the Minister when the legislation, urgently pressed for by the committee at paragraph 177, will be enacted.

At paragraph 181 the committee identified the need for public funding,

“to prevent infringements of prisoners’ right of access to court arising in practice”.

From paragraphs 182 to 188, it identified serious issues for prisoners with mental health problems, the vast majority exemplified by the chief inspector’s remarks in the case mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, about segregation, in particular of women prisoners. In parenthesis, when I asked a question about women prisoners being held in segregation the reply that I received from the Ministry of Justice was that it was too costly to obtain the details of the numbers and length of time such women had been so confined. To his credit, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, agreed that the answer was ridiculous and procured the relevant information.

At paragraph 188, the Joint Committee noted that since 2010 the majority of treatment cases were mental health cases and it was not satisfied that these prisoners would be able to use the complaints procedure effectively. It recommended that the LAA retain the ability to grant funding for these cases where the implications for access to justice are clear. Noble Lords will not need reminding that the majority of prisoners suffer from mental health disorders: 70% of one or more mental health disorders for adults, 90% for young offenders. Again, what is the Government’s response to the case of prisoners suffering from these disorders? In relation to mother and baby cases, of which there are mercifully few, the committee called for an exemption in cases where legal representation would be desirable. Will the Government not accede to this request?

The concerns are echoed in relation to young offenders, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, where, as the committee pointed out at paragraph 205, such matters, including in particular resettlement cases, are being removed even before the Government respond to their consultation paper, Transforming Youth Custody. Trenchantly at paragraph 206 the committee disagreed that advocacy services and internal complaints systems would be effective and asserted that:

“This could leave young people vulnerable and deny them their rights”.

This would be not least in key areas such as,

“housing law, social care law and public law”.

Moreover, it dismissed the young offender’s right to judicial review, which was raised by the Government, since a young offender would require a litigation friend to pursue the action; it cannot be brought by a minor on his own initiative. It urged the retention of young offender cases within scope, specifically resettlement cases. Finally, at paragraphs 213 and 218, as referred to by my noble friend Lord Bach, it recommended reconsideration of the position in relation to Parole Board hearings and categorisation cases. This is a formidable catalogue of concerns about, and in many cases outright opposition to, what the Government are doing.

Once again, the Minister will shortly stand at the Dispatch Box, like Horatius on the bridge, with no troops behind him. There is not a single voice that has been raised in this Chamber tonight in support of the Government’s position. It would be unfair to suggest that the Minister, who was a member of the JCHR and presumably agreed with its report, has changed his mind now that he has taken if not the Queen’s shilling, then at least the Lord Chancellor’s shilling, if only because he is not being paid a shilling or indeed anything else for the job that he has undertaken. But I hope that he can prevail upon the Government to think again, and quickly, about the direction and extent of travel reflected in these regulations.

I commend to him in particular the response of the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law to these issues. The centre does not,

“share the Government’s view that treatment cases will never be of sufficient priority to justify the use of public funds, or that sentencing matters such as categorisation and segregation are considered incapable of warranting legal aid”.

Importantly, it dismisses the so-called “adequate alternatives” to which the Government refer—for example, the complaints system and the ombudsman—as “first ports of call”, in the MoJ’s phrase, for four substantial reasons.

First, as per the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, whom I welcome back to the side of the angels after his digression over the issues of miscarriages of justice and compensation, the courts require alternative remedies to be exhausted before seeking judicial review, so legal aid would not be the first port of call. Secondly, under the regulations, the non-judicial remedies would be the only point of call. Thirdly,

“the rule of law requires the possibility, at least as a last resort, of recourse to independent courts”,

and, fourthly,

“rule-of-law imperative is particularly compelling in settings—of which prisons are a paradigm example—in which individuals are subject to the exercise of highly coercive public law powers”.

The centre concluded by affirming that,

“judicial review has exerted a profound and positive influence upon the prison system in recent decades … the nature of any state’s prison system … is a key barometer of the rule of law”.

Tellingly, it adds:

“It is inevitable that the proposals, if implemented, would substantially undermine the valuable role played by courts in this area. If one of public law’s core functions is to safeguard vulnerable individuals against misuses of state authority, then it is hard to think of a more fundamental assault upon the capacity of public law to perform such a role”—

and all the more so when the custodial services are contracted out to oligopolies such as G4S and Serco.

What answer does the Minister have to this critique? Does he agree with the words uttered by Winston Churchill—who has already been quoted here tonight—as Home Secretary in 1910, when he said:

“A calm and dispassionate recognition of the rights … even of convicted criminals against the State … tireless efforts towards the discovery of curative and regenerating processes … are the symbols which in the treatment of crime and criminals mark and measure the stored-up strength of a nation, and are the sign and proof of the living virtue in it”?—[Official Report, Commons, 20/7/1910; col. 1354.]

Is the Minister, and are the Government, willing to disavow Churchill’s characteristically eloquent formulation of principle for the sake of a possible, but actually unlikely, saving of £4 million a year?

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

My Lords, I hope that I can rise to the challenge of the “calm and dispassionate” response to which the noble Lord referred in his closing remarks. This has been a wide-ranging debate, involving very distinguished speakers with great knowledge and awareness of many of the issues which these regulations raise. I hope that the House will forgive me if, in the course of this dinner-hour debate, I do not respond to all the many criticisms that have been made but try to focus on the effect of the regulations and on why the Government have seen fit to bring them into effect.

I will begin by saying something about the wider context of the instrument. It is worth noting that spending on criminal legal aid for prison law in England and Wales has increased markedly in recent years, from around £1 million in 2001-02 to around £22 million in 2012-13.

Legal aid is a vital part of our justice system. However, limited public resources need to be targeted at those who need them most. With departments across government being asked to reduce their expenditure, legal aid cannot be immune. The legal aid scheme is paid for by the taxpayer, and we have to demonstrate to the public and hard-working families that we have scrutinised every aspect of legal aid spending to ensure that it can be justified. Unless the legal aid scheme is targeted at the people and cases where funding is most needed, it will not command public confidence. It was with this aim in mind that the Government proposed a number of changes to legal aid in England and Wales in April 2013. Following public consultation and careful consideration of the responses, the decision was taken to restrict the scope of criminal legal aid for prison law, among other reforms.

--- Later in debate ---

There was also a suggestion that the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman did not have the resources to deal with its role. We expect that the majority of cases that are removed from scope will be resolved via the prisoner complaints system, prisoner discipline proceedings or the probation complaints systems. These are, we suggest, robust systems designed to deal with serious issues of concern for prisoners or those released on licence. Only those cases that cannot be satisfactorily resolved via these processes, which we expect to be a small number, will be referred to the ombudsman. Prisoners may also refer their case to the independent monitoring board.

[Lord Beecham]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but at paragraph 175 of its report the committee says specifically:

“the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman … told us about his concerns with the Government’s proposal, particularly in relation to his lack of statutory independence and his office’s ability to deal with any increased workload”.

How does the Minister square that with the assurance that he has just given?

[Lord Faulks]

The assurance that I have just given is that the Government take the view that it will be rare that there will be any need to refer to the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman. However, the Ministry of Justice intends to put the PPO on a statutory footing as soon as legislative time permits. I note that the Joint Committee on Human Rights noted—and this must be in the same section to which the noble Lord referred—that the PPO has himself “acknowledged that his recommendations”, while not binding, are in fact “always accepted”.

There was understandable anxiety about mental health issues and learning difficulties for young offenders. The Government are of course extremely concerned with young offenders and their rehabilitation. I could give a detailed response, but that would be outside the scope of this debate, which is concerned with legal aid. That issue is a matter of continuing concern to the House, and indeed to the Government, just as the position with mental health issues is also a concern. I accept that many prisoners have a background with mental health issues.

Noble Lords may ask what is done to screen prisoners for mental health problems. As part of the early days in custody process, all prisoners are risk-assessed for potential harm to themselves and to others and from others. All incoming prisoners are given a medical examination to identify any short-term or long-term physical or mental health needs, including disability, drug or alcohol issues, and to ensure that follow-up action is taken.

--- Later in debate ---

That is the Government’s response to the Motion of Regret. I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have illuminated this debate with their many and widespread concerns for prisoners, but I respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw his Motion.

[Lord Beecham]

Before the Minister sits down, can he tell the House if and when the Government will be publishing their response to the Joint Committee report of 13 December?

[Lord Faulks]

I cannot I am afraid give an exact date for that, but I shall take back the noble Lord’s concern and I will write to him when I have information. Of course, it is a matter that will be taken very seriously at the Ministry of Justice.

County Court Jurisdiction Order 2014

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2014 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

My Lords, this statutory instrument revokes and replaces the County Courts Jurisdiction Order 1981. A draft was laid before Parliament on 18 December 2013. Subject to your Lordships’ approval, the substantive change made by this instrument concerns the county court’s jurisdiction in respect of equity proceedings. Equity proceedings, which are specified in Section 23 of the County Courts Act 1984, include the administration of the estate of a deceased person, the execution or declaration of a trust, the dissolution or winding up of a partnership and the foreclosure or redemption of mortgages.

The purpose of this instrument is to increase the relevant financial limit in the 1981 order from £30,000 to £350,000 to extend the equity jurisdiction of the county court. This will mean that the county court may hear and determine equity proceedings up to a value of £350,000. We do not intend to change the current financial limits with regard to the county court’s jurisdiction in respect of other proceedings which are also specified in the 1981 order.

There are two objectives underlying this reform. The first is to optimise the use of judicial resources by ensuring that, where appropriate, cases are determined at the most appropriate level of the court system, commensurate with value and complexity. This will contribute to rebalancing jurisdiction between the High Court and the county court, where they both have concurrent jurisdiction, enabling the High Court to focus on those complex matters that genuinely require its expertise. The second objective is to reduce the number of equity proceedings that are transferred from the High Court to the county courts, and therefore reduce waiting times so that disputes are resolved expeditiously and with proportionate costs and procedures for court users. This, in turn, will contribute to promoting public confidence in the operation of our courts.

Before setting out further details about this instrument and why the Government are taking this action, I will briefly explain some background to the reform. The Government are committed to providing an effective and efficient civil justice system with a flexible judiciary that is deployed in the most appropriate way. As part of this, we set out our policy to reform the structure of the civil courts in a series of proposals in the public consultation document, Solving Disputes in the County Courts: Creating a Simpler, Quicker and More Proportionate System, published by the Government in March 2011.

Those proposals were based on some of the recommendations made by Sir Henry Brooke, a retired Lord Justice of Appeal, in his report, Should the Civil Courts be Unified?, published in August 2008. His recommendations were aimed at improving the administration of civil justice and providing a more efficient use of judicial resources. The Brooke recommendations included the establishment of a single county court for England and Wales and the repeal of the requirement for the Lord Chief Justice to seek the Lord Chancellor’s agreement in deploying High Court judiciary to the county court. Both of these recommendations were approved by Parliament in the Crime and Courts Act 2013 and will be implemented by the Government in April 2014.

By statutory instruments shortly to be brought before Parliament, the Government also propose, subject to approval of the House, to implement three more Brooke recommendations, which are: extending the jurisdiction to grant freezing orders to the county court; bringing certain specialist proceedings under the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court; and increasing the financial limit below which non-personal injury claims and certain Chancery proceedings may not be commenced in the High Court from £25,000 to £100,000. Finally, of course, subject to the approval of the House, we also intend to implement in April 2014 the Brooke recommendation on equity jurisdiction that is before your Lordships today.

With that background in mind, I will set out the problem with the current financial limit of the equity jurisdiction and why the Government are taking this action. Section 23 of the County Courts Act 1984 gives the county court concurrent jurisdiction with the High Court to hear and determine those equity proceedings specified in that section, subject to the “county court limit”. Proceedings may be transferred between the county court and High Court, subject to provisions in Sections 40 and 42 of the County Courts Act 1984 and criteria set out in Part 30 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.

The county court limit, set by the 1981 order, requires that equity proceedings above a value of £30,000 be commenced in the High Court. The rationale for the financial limit is to provide a benchmark which will ensure that only appropriate cases, mainly those with relatively high financial value and complexity, are heard in the High Court, thereby limiting the volume of cases issued there. Over time, however, the value of the £30,000 financial limit has fallen in real terms, as the rising cost of properties has rendered it far less effective than was originally envisaged.

In 1981, when the limit was set, average house prices were only around £25,000, which meant that the county courts were able to hear the majority of property disputes involving equity. However, since 1981, house prices in the UK have increased by more than 600% in nominal terms, so that, by 2013, average house prices in the UK had risen to more than £175,000, which is seven times their value in 1981, and to around £345,000 in London. The financial limit, therefore, has not kept pace with the rising cost of house prices and has become detached from contemporary property values, which have risen dramatically since the £30,000 limit was set. This has resulted in many cases of relatively low complexity being heard unnecessarily in the High Court. In some instances, cases are issued in the High Court only to be transferred to the county court because the issues are straightforward. In view of the administrative and judicial time taken to allocate these cases in the High Court and the time taken to reconsider them for transfer and the transfer itself, these transfers often result in delays in dealing not only with that particular case but with other cases.

Following the Brooke recommendations, the Judicial Executive Board, chaired by the then Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, considered the evidence and concluded that the financial limit of the equity jurisdiction of the county court should be raised from £30,000 to £350,000. The report was then presented to the Government for consideration and implementation. On the strength of the evidence and of further engagement with the judiciary, the Government consulted on the proposal in their Solving Disputes consultation paper. A majority of respondents, who included legal practitioners, members of the judiciary, judicial bodies and regulatory bodies, was in support of an increase to £350,000. In view of the overwhelming support from consultees, the Government announced their intention to increase the financial limit to £350,000.

This statutory instrument seeks to give effect to that commitment. The changes introduced by it support the Government’s commitment to an effective and efficient civil justice and courts system. We consider that the £30,000 financial limit set by the 1981 order is too low. Consequently, with your Lordships’ approval, we will increase the financial limit which divides the equity jurisdiction between the High Court and the county courts from £30,000 to £350,000. The increase would mean that more equity proceedings are issued and dealt with in the county courts and may be transferred to the High Court only if they are complex. It could potentially reduce the volume of transfers from the High Court to the county courts, thereby providing efficiency benefits for the courts as less time and fewer administrative and judicial resources will be needed to allocate and transfer these cases to the appropriate court.

Court users, on the other hand, could experience a more streamlined service and a reduction in hand-offs between jurisdictions. This is because more equity proceedings will be issued in the county courts rather than the High Court, which would lead to fewer cases being transferred from the High Court to the county court, and the time taken to consider cases for transfer—and the transfer itself—would be reduced. I therefore commend this instrument to the Committee. I beg to move.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, try as I might—and I have tried—I cannot really find anything to object to in this order. However, there are one or two points to make.

I entirely agree that the consultation shows, and it is right that the Government have acted on it, that the equity jurisdiction should be increased. I have not practised much in the field of equity in my time as a solicitor, and I refer to my entry in the register of interests in that respect, although I studied equity at university with the then editor of Snell’s Equity, Mr Paul Baker, as he then was, later Judge Baker. It was therefore a subject with which I engaged at an earlier, though unpaid, stage of my legal career.

While there is nothing wrong with the order, the process by which we have received it seems inordinately long. The Minister referred to the fact that it stems from a report from 2008. The Government’s first consultation paper was issued in March 2011. It was a 12-week consultation period. The Government’s response was in February 2012, and it has taken them a year since publishing the response to produce this fairly straightforward order. This is not a political matter. It does, however, suggest either that the department is overworked and understaffed, or that it is congenitally incapable of producing fairly simple material in a reasonable time. Either way, there is a bit more to concern us about the process than there is about the change.

I was slightly amused by the notion that the real objective of this was to enhance public confidence in the system. I cannot speak for the noble Lord’s experience, which is of a different level from mine but, in my 45 years of practice, I do not recall anybody expressing their lack of confidence in the system—particularly in the procedures in the county court. That seems rather an ephemeral reason for a sensible change.

I will make two more constructive points, thereby briefly breaking the habit of a parliamentary lifetime. First, I suggest there should be some mechanism by which the level could be periodically inflated without the necessity for prolonged consultations and a ritualistic procedure such as we are going through today. Why should not the Government say that, every five years, the limit would be increased by the rate of inflation or something of that kind—there might be a simpler way of going about things—unless they concluded that it would not be sensible to do that, in which case they would at that point come back?

The second issue is of a different order, about the system as a whole and how it might be made more efficient. Here I declare a paternal interest, because my question is about the role of deputy part-time district judges who sit in the county court dealing with a wide range of matters. Have the Government looked, or are they looking, at the distribution of cases between the full-time county court judiciary and the part-time judiciary, and at whether one or the other might be augmented in order to facilitate the kind of access and quicker turnaround of cases, which the order should help in one, admittedly fairly narrow, field? I do not expect the Minister to give an answer off the cuff to that, but perhaps the department could look at it—and perhaps the Minister could look at it personally, with his obviously rich experience of the courts. It might be a way of improving the system and possibly even saving some taxpayers’ money as well. Having said that, I have no objection to the order and trust that it will prove effective in assisting litigants, containing costs and helping the system work more efficiently.

Justice: Non-custodial Sentences

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks]

I believe that there will be an announcement shortly on that but I am unable to give the noble Baroness precise details at this moment. When information is available, I will write to her.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, given the risks to the public, highlighted by my noble friend’s supplementary question, and the potential difficulties in managing offenders whose risk category may change, why are the Government not properly piloting their controversial changes to the probation service, as urged by the most recent report of the Justice Select Committee? Is there not a real risk of the Lord Chancellor proceeding in haste and the community and victims of crime repenting at leisure?

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, the Government believe that it would not be desirable to introduce a sentencing reform in one part of the country but not another. To do so would risk postcode justice, with some offenders getting different sentences to others. Similarly, having competing services in any one area of the country is not a viable approach if we want to extend supervision to short-sentenced offenders. In every other respect we are carrying out extensive local testing of the reforms in no fewer than 14 probation trusts. The 21 CRCs—community rehabilitation companies—that we are creating will remain in public sector ownership until the conclusion of the competition. This gives us further opportunities to carry on testing and refine the system.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cullen of Whitekirk (CB)]

My Lords, I shall say something briefly about the reasons put forward by the Government in the past for the amendment to the law which is sought to be effected by Clause 161. In fact, as far as I can see, they have put forward two different explanations for this change in the law. The first is that there is said to be a doubt as to how the category of cases recognised in Adams should be formulated. I mention that in case the point is renewed again today. In his letter to the chairman of the Constitution Committee of this House, dated 11 November 2013, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, said that there was a doubt created by the later decision of the Divisional Court in the case of Ali in explaining the effect of Adams. However, the formulation adopted by the court in Ali was rightly criticised at the Committee stage of this Bill. In any event, if there were a doubt as to how the category should be formulated, it is odd, if not extravagant, to deal with that doubt by getting rid of the category altogether, which is the effect of this proposed amendment to the law.

The second explanation, to which all the speeches today have been directed, is to do with whether one course or the other should be taken, with the Government preferring the narrow approach. As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said in Committee:

“We do not believe that it is necessary to pay compensation more broadly than this”.—[Official Report, 12/11/13; col. 704.]

No doubt, Parliament can overrule a decision of the Supreme Court, but the question is whether it is appropriate that it should do so. I entirely agree with the eloquent speeches made today in support of the amendment.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, the whole House, and perhaps more importantly, our whole system of justice, is deeply indebted to the leading lawyers who have addressed us today, noble and learned Lords who have served in the highest judicial offices and others who have practised the law in the areas that we are concerned about. We are equally indebted to the one non-lawyer who has spoken in this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. The humanity and power of the case that he has put has informed the debate in a slightly different way, and one that I very much welcome.

The rationale for the Government’s proposals on compensation for those who have suffered miscarriages of justice is set out in the impact assessment that they published in May 2013 under the elegant rubric of “Other key non-monetised benefits by main affected groups”, which states that the narrower test—that is, that contained in the Bill—

“is likely to result in fewer unmeritorious claims as a result of the greater clarity of the test”.

This assertion rests on two flawed premises. The first relates to the term “unmeritorious claims”, since the effect of the Bill would be to, and is clearly intended to, render claims unmeritorious by virtue of failing the very test that the Bill imposes—that is to say what may now be justiciable ceases to be so because of the new requirement to prove innocence beyond reasonable doubt. Thus we have, in effect, a circular justification.

The second defect lies in the bland assertion that the test supplies greater clarity. But as I, and others more learned than I could claim to be, pointed out in earlier debates on this issue, the law is clear. It was established by the Supreme Court in the Adams case, albeit by a narrow majority, and encapsulated in the judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, reflected exactly in the wording of this amendment. The Supreme Court is not conducted on the model of Lincoln’s cabinet, in which it may be recalled that a proposition which was opposed by every member save the President passed only on the latter declaring “the Ayes have it”. The decision was a decision of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has clarified the law.

The Adams case was followed by the Ali case in the Court of Appeal in which, quoting Adams, Lord Justice Beaston declared that,

“it is therefore now clear that the concept of miscarriage of justice under s 133 (of the Criminal Justice Act 1988) is broader and does not only cover those who show they are demonstrably innocent”.

I add, in parenthesis, as I said in Committee, and as the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Cormack, said today, that proving a negative will often be impossible. Those words were echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, whose experience, I respectfully suggest, is particularly relevant to the deliberations of today and to the outcome of this debate. It is true that the Ali case offered a somewhat different form of words, which I found seductive enough to adopt in the amendment I moved in Committee, but, of course, the formulation of the Supreme Court takes precedence. Having, as I said I would, given further consideration to the matter, I am content to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, which would enshrine in statute the essence of the Adams judgment. I fear that the Government—before the Minister joined them—have sought to perpetrate the parliamentary offence of attempting to obtain legislation by false pretences. I hope that he will not make himself an accessory to the crime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, I am very pleased that the Minister has responded so positively to the amendment which I tabled in Committee and thank him for it. As he said, prior to 1925, the law contained a presumption that a wife was coerced by her husband. The Minister said that time moves on, but Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, the great 19th century authority on criminal law, described this area of the law as “irrational”. In 1922, the Avory committee recommended abolition of any special rule for wives and so did the Law Commission in its 1977 report. Therefore, it could not sensibly be suggested that law reform in this context has in any way been rushed.

It was of course this area of the law to which Charles Dickens referred in Oliver Twist. When Mr Bumble is told that,

“the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction”,

he replies:

“If the law supposes that … the law is a ass—a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor”.

I am delighted that this truly idiotic provision of English law is at long last to be abolished.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I join in the welcome to the Government’s acceptance of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. It is nice to have a touch of harmony in these proceedings. I entirely support the abolition of what is clearly an archaic and now defective provision.

However, an issue perhaps needs to be addressed. We have now abandoned, rightly, the law of marital coercion, but there is a question about the operation of the law of duress. That of course applies only in limited cases where extreme violence or even death are threatened by one person against another; if that other then conforms with instructions given under such a threat, there may be a defence. Those would be very extreme circumstances, but there is some concern about the position of—usually but not necessarily exclusively—women in a situation of, for example, domestic violence and abuse of that kind. They might be prevailed upon to commit or assist in committing an offence by a threat obviously much less severe than is required by the law of duress. I wonder whether the Government might look at that, or invite the Law Commission to do so, to see whether there is a case for providing a safeguard for those who may be virtually compelled to take action without this rather archaic background.

In addition to or perhaps separately from that, perhaps some consideration might be given to those who have responsibility for deciding whether to charge or to proceed with the prosecution—or, following a prosecution, to impose sentencing—in situations where, as I say, without the extreme requirements of the present law of duress it is nevertheless apparent that pressure and threats of violence or worse have been brought to bear upon the weaker party in that situation. They might not be parties living together; one can envisage other circumstances. Perhaps that matter might be looked at. Having said that, we certainly support the amendment and are glad that this anomaly will be dealt with.

Costs in Criminal Cases (Legal Costs) (Exceptions) Regulations 2013

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I join everybody else in welcoming the noble Lord to his position on the Front Bench—a very public-spirited move on his part, I am sure, but immensely encouraging to others who deeply regret the fact that the Lord Chancellor can be chosen in a way that removes his presence from this House and in a way that does not require him to have had legal experience. We have suffered somewhat from the lack of the sort of experience that the noble Lord can fortunately bring. It is a significant step forward and to be immensely welcomed.

I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for his Motion of Regret, which gives us an opportunity to express our regrets at this measure. I spoke, as did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, in July. One of the things I said was that I hoped we would not have a succession of Motions of Regret because I hoped that these things would come up in the form of public Bills that we could then debate in depth. Unfortunately, that has not happened so I am afraid that we will have a series of Motions of Regret, one after the other.

I shall try not to repeat what others have said but the first point on which I want to comment is the borderline test itself, particularly the use to which it has been put. I have a feeling that it has a sort of arithmetical sense to it. When one talks about a borderline case, people at conferences will ask: is it above or below 50%? That is fair enough; that is what the test really means. If it is 50%, it is on the borderline. However, the problem, as has been explained by so many others, is that these things do not measure themselves arithmetically.

That brings me to a series of questions about how this will work in practice. How will fairness be achieved up and down the country? I understand that decisions are taken by independent funding adjudicators who look at the papers. We are not dealing with a single individual—it is difficult enough for one person—but one can imagine a series of people in different offices applying their minds to this test. Is any guidance to be given on how to approach the question of arriving at the borderline? If there is to be guidance, will it be made public so that we can comment on it and make suggestions, particularly if the system is to be reviewed in the future? There is then the very important point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf: will there be any element of discretion or shading in a situation where it is difficult to say that it is exactly at 50%? Can one, for example, have a margin of error in favour of granting legal aid, as against not doing so? It is that kind of guidance, if the Minister could explain it, that would help to flesh out how this will work in practice.

The problem with the test, as has been said already, is that it introduces an unequal playing field. The state on the one hand, with all its resources, is in a position to apply a different test on whether or not it wishes to contest the claim, whereas the individual is caught by this very exacting test. There is the vital point about the development of case law. I recall a series of cases, which have already been mentioned, but because I was involved I dare to mention them again. There was the case of Purdy, but it was preceded by that of Pretty, who is unfortunately no longer alive. That was the original assisted suicide case. It was a very difficult case in which to say that she had a 50% chance of success. In fact, she lost. She went to the Strasbourg court and lost there again, but the advantage of her case was that it helped us to begin to develop jurisprudence in this immensely difficult subject, which all Members of this House will have to discuss again before too long. It cleared a lot of the ground, which made it easier to grapple with the Purdy case when it came along.

Then there were the succession of cases, to which the noble Lord, Lord Bach, has referred, in the field of social housing, which were also very difficult to predict. I bear a personal responsibility for this because I sat with Lord Bingham and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls, and, I think, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Walker, all of whom took one view. Three judges went one way but I turned the case around. Three others followed me and we were a majority of four to three. Who could have predicted that? Everyone knows—this is a commonplace criticism of the Privy Council jurisdiction in the Caribbean—that you need to know who the judges are and the way cases vary. How can one predict when it depends so much on personalities in cases that are so narrowly balanced, as they so often are in the highest courts?

The last point to which I want to draw attention is one of the difficult areas of our law, which has been repeatedly commented on. What do you do as judges, particularly in the senior courts, when you are applying Section 2 of the Human Rights Act, which refers to having regard to decisions of the Strasbourg court? Some of us have been fairly inclined to follow Strasbourg; others have not, in particular the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who asked the other day in a lecture why we should do that. He said we should take an independent view. Again, one will have to guess what the judges are going to do with that jurisdiction, whether there is to be any change and who will be sitting on the panel. One can predict, looking at the Supreme Court today, who will vote one way or the other. That makes this whole idea of the borderline test extremely difficult to accept unless there is to be some really rigorous guidance, which I hope the noble Lord may be able to comment and guide us on. I would respectfully support the Motion that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, has moved.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to join with others of your Lordships in extending very warm congratulations to the Minister on his first experience at the Dispatch Box. Of course, he demonstrated the reasons for his appointment very fully. The noble Lord is an ornament to the legal profession, just as his brother is an ornament to literature. We look forward on this side to many useful jousts over the next few months before—perhaps—there is a change of Government.

The Minister, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, has undertaken to do this work without remuneration. That is a notable sacrifice on his part. Of course it is consistent with the Government’s policy of acquiring most lawyers to do legal aid work more or less pro bono. I hope that he does not expect too many to follow his example with enthusiasm. However, that is not what we are discussing tonight.

My Lords, these regulations are yet another example of this Government’s apparently incurable propensity to legislate in haste and amend at leisure. It was, appropriately, only on 1 April last year that the Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) Regulations came into force, and after a period of gestation of almost exactly nine months the present amending regulations were laid.

Why was it, we are entitled to ask, that the Government overlooked the apparent necessity to change the arrangements for borderline cases and make them ineligible for legal aid? How did they fail to spot the tidal wave of such cases, amounting—according to the estimate they now give—to all of 100 cases a year? Or the soaring cost to the taxpayer, which equates to as much as just under 0.5% of the legal aid budget?

After all, the noble Lord reminded us that, in the words of his colleague Mr Vara to the Delegated Legislation Committee,

“the motivation for change concerning borderline cases is not simply to save money. The value of our legal aid system cannot just be calculated in pounds and pence. Legal aid is a vital plank of our justice system”.

What a comfort these sentiments must be to the hundreds of thousands of people a year now denied access to legal aid; to the vast majority of practitioners and expert witnesses who are seeing their modest incomes slashed and are turning to other work; to the law centres that have closed, or, like the one in Newcastle which I visited on Friday—the only law centre between Kirklees in the West Riding and the Scottish border—that no longer provide legal aid. The Newcastle centre, which once employed five solicitors and nine staff, is now reduced to one solicitor, one full-time employee and four part-time staff, offering advice only, and only in two areas of law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

Did the noble Lord intend to let the Government off the hook when he said at the beginning of his speech that the cost of these cases was one-half of 1%? Lawyers are not good at maths, but I think I am right in saying that it is not 0.5 of a per cent; it is 0.005 of a per cent. It is a tiny sliver of £2 billion. I just wanted to help the noble Lord, Lord Beecham.

[Lord Beecham]

At this hour of the night, I am quite prepared to accept any correction of the arithmetic. The Government, of course, are never prepared to accept a correction of their arithmetic.

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords and noble and learned Lords for their very generous welcome to me. It is a daunting position to find yourself in. I know that, despite the generosity of the welcome, there will be no lack of rigour in the examination to which I am put as a representative of the Government and I look forward to receiving the many useful contributions characterised by those today, which, I am likely to be advised, will be forthcoming in the next weeks and months.

This debate has ranged far and wide, perhaps rather further than the strict terms of the two Motions envisaged. For example, there have been general laments about the Government’s approach to legal aid from the noble Lord, Lord Bach. There has been reference by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, to the difficult interpretation of Section 2 of the Human Rights Act and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, to the need for high-quality judicial assistance. All these are important points, but I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not deal with all those points but try to concentrate more specifically on the issues that concern these regulations.

One of the main themes of the debate was the fear that the lack of legal aid for these borderline cases will result in some form of ossification of the common law—that it will not develop in the absence of legal aid for such borderline cases. It is worth remembering that the common law develops in a number of different ways, sometimes with cases which one would not expect to result in a change in the law. The Government believe that prospect of success—the test that is applied—remains a useful and sound test and that a 50% prospect of success is a reasonable one and should not result in cases not being brought and the law not developing.

Individual cases were mentioned, including Pinnock, Smith v Ministry of Defence, Purdy, Pretty and Anufrijeva, to name but a few, all of which were important cases. Of course, the Government are not in a position to comment on individual cases, or precisely on the funding arrangements that may have existed in those cases. There may be other cases which have not resulted in success or in the development of the law. The Government remain doubtful that the change which these regulations will bring about will prevent cases being brought in areas where the law will develop and has developed. One of the ways in which the law has developed is through the Human Rights Act, and it shows little sign of standing still in that regard.

The noble Lord, Lord Bach, asked particularly about the impact on housing cases. I recognise the serious consequences that can ensue from housing cases—the potential for someone to lose their home. Indeed, there are all sorts of cases where there may be serious consequences. But there always has to be an assessment of the merits of a case—that has been well established in the granting of legal aid—and it has been a fundamental part of the scheme since its inception.

The noble Lord also questioned the accuracy of the savings which are put forward. The Government’s best estimate is £1 million. An impact assessment estimated that 100 fewer cases would be funded. As was made clear in the methodology, those were rounded figures. Further supporting data consisting of a breakdown by category of law have been included in the updated impact assessment published alongside the consultation response. While the estimate is based on 2011-12 data, I can assure the House that it is consistent with more recent data; that is, the data from 2012 and 2013. The noble Lord also made reference to the criticism of the regulation by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.

The cases which may be included are those where there is a dispute over law or expert evidence. I mentioned that there may still be legal aid where it is as yet impossible to assess the prospect of success, but the Government have been frank that they consider it reasonable in principle that 50% should be the touchstone. We suggest to the House that it is a very reasonable and rather modest prospect of success when one bears in mind the sort of decisions that somebody paying privately might make in deciding whether to pursue litigation. Indeed, many would say that 50% was rather a modest prospect of success and very few privately paying citizens are much enthused or encouraged by the fact that their case raises an interesting point of law. They may well find that that is a less enticing prospect than the fact that they risk losing the case.

Several noble Lords made reference to the fact that there might be some form of inequality of arms because many of the cases were brought against government, either local government or government in one department or another. The Government’s position regarding litigation is that they take into account a broad range of factors when deciding whether to defend or appeal legal challenges, including the prospects of success and the potential costs versus benefits of that action. However, it would be simplistic to say that the Government simply took advantage, as it were, of their overall position in deciding their approach to litigation. It is already a principle of the current scheme that most cases, even those concerning issues of high importance, must have a reasonable prospect of success in order to warrant public funding, and there has to be an assessment of merits and a decision must be made.

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

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise from the lower ranks of the legal profession and many years ago was apt to brief members of the criminal Bar, few—with the exception of the late and much lamented Lord Taylor of Gosforth—of the eminence of many of those who have spoken tonight. I ought therefore to declare my interest which is, of course, registered. I also have, like the noble Lord, Lord Alton, a paternal interest because my daughter is a barrister. She also sits as a part-time deputy district judge but she is not at the criminal Bar.

In the earlier debate tonight, I raised the issue of how the Government go about or do not go about consulting on matters of great significance. We are in exactly the same position in relation to the present proposals. The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, on the other hand, perhaps to protect himself from his colleagues, threw the question at the Opposition regarding our stance. If he looked at the record he would have seen, as my noble friend Lord Bach’s reply has indicated, that there were some cuts under the previous Government —indeed, my noble friend Lord Bach put through a 5% cut in fees. That is one-sixth of the present cut this Government is inflicting.

We made it very clear in discussions over the legal aid bill that there is a need to look at the cost of the whole system of justice, not to isolate a particular part like this and impose a massive swingeing cut on it. One can look, for example, at the Serious Fraud Office which unfortunately again is in the news, having again incurred a significant cost, perhaps because it is underresourced. In all events, there are other areas under the auspices of the Ministry of Justice that would repay attention and if we are looking for savings—and it is accepted that there have to be savings—then we ought to be looking not just at this end of the system but at the system as a whole to find sensible savings that would not impact on access to justice.