Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Bach

Wednesday 25th April 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

Before it is too late, perhaps I may pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, to whom this House owes a tremendous debt. Throughout, he has argued passionately in favour of something he really believes in: legal aid. It is important that the basic principles that were laid down so long ago are observed. Like him, I believe passionately in the purposes of legal aid. Many people outside this House are indebted to what has been achieved.

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, I can be very brief. The Official Opposition share the disappointment of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in the Government’s response to his amendment. The Government have approached that amendment—a modest and sensible one by any standards—in a most unsatisfactory and unconvincing manner. We certainly agree with what the noble Lord had to say about financial privilege in the context of his amendment. There will be many inside and outside Parliament who will wonder for some time to come why the Government were not able to accept his amendment. We had no satisfactory reason given at any stage, and people will fear the worst as far as concerns this Government’s intentions in relation to legal aid.

I, too, would like to pay a compliment to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, as my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis did. He is a model of the way in which a noble Lord can assist this House when dealing with difficult and complicated legislation, and he does it from a point of view that always has justice as its base. The noble Lord made some strong strictures on the Bill and I agreed with every word he said. I will be less polite than he was. There are parts of Part 1 of the Bill—the bits that destroy social welfare law—that are not just bad but actually wicked; and I choose that word with great care. They are wicked because they set this country back from the position it was in.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, has a great reputation for making sure that the system of social welfare law worked well and to the benefit of the poorest in our society. I very much regret that the Government have changed all that for no savings at all. Even if the savings were great, they would not be worth it—but there will be no savings at all. Why do I say “wicked”? Because I think it makes this country more uncivilised and it diminishes something that is very precious to all Members of this House: our legal system. As such, it diminishes our country, too.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Bach

Monday 12th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bach]

I am much obliged to the Minister. He supported, then:

“A properly funded system whereby access to legal advice and representation before the courts is not denied to those otherwise unable to bear the costs”,

did he? He supported, to repeat:

“The continued provision of legal aid, for those who cannot afford to pay for legal services, in serious cases where a failure to provide legal services may lead to injustice”.

I admire him very much for being able to support those provisions and then argue today what I would argue is the precise opposite. If there is an example of a serious case in which legal aid is available now—for advice in many cases, and sometimes for representation—but will not be available if this Bill goes through in this form, that is it.

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

Is it not quite usual for the Minister to stand on his head?

[Lord Bach]

A few months ago I would have said no; now I am not quite sure. I just find it incredible that the Government seem to have taken no notice at all of this wonderful resolution, which was passed unanimously. It is extremely depressing that we find ourselves in a position where people who may have lost their job completely wrongly or suffered other wrongs in their employment are now not able to get that advice because they do not have the resources. The cost to the Exchequer is £4 million a year. Is there nothing else that the Government could have found in order to save employment law as we know it?

It is always tempting to have a vote but, because of matters beyond my or indeed the Minister’s control, we have started this series of important debates at a ridiculous hour, 6.30 pm, and it becomes really stupid to have a vote at this stage. With considerable reluctance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Bach

Tuesday 24th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in what I was going to describe as a short debate but is now a medium-sized one. None the less, it has been a passionate debate, with many strong views being expressed. I am grateful, too, to the Minister for answering the sometimes difficult questions that were rightly posed to him. I am particularly glad to thank the noble and learned Lord for acting as a recruiting sergeant for trade unions. Speaking as a member of a trade union, I think that that is a splendid thing to do from the government Front Bench. He is quite right; this is a strong argument for people to join trade unions and get the help that that brings. I know he was making a serious point.

On this occasion, the Government and even the noble and learned Lord are being rather naive about tribunals. It seems that the best justification for what the Government are doing is that because tribunals were designed to be informal, they are therefore informal and it is fine for individuals to represent themselves in person on a regular basis, even when the other side is represented by a QC or a lawyer of any kind. There is nothing that the tribunal can do to make it fair if that is the position. One thing that the state has done to make it fairer is to give individuals who do not have the benefit of trade union membership or any other resource—who do not have the money to pay for lawyers—some legal advice and, in occasional cases, representation at a tribunal, just to equalise the situation a little. I have no doubt that employment tribunal judges and the lay members who sit on tribunals welcome the fact that individuals have had advice or are, on occasions, represented. That makes their task that much easier than it is when there is complete inequality of arms.

I ask the Government why they are making a system that works pretty well at the moment more unfair and more likely to lead to injustice—this is true about a whole range of these issues but we are talking here about employment tribunals—for savings of some £4 million a year. That is if there will be savings, but I will come to that. Many arguments have been put forward against this change from all sides of the Committee this afternoon.

The question that I want to ask is: given that the only possible reason for doing this is to save some public money—we know, of course, that public money must be saved—is the Minister really satisfied that this will save any money at all? The obvious consequence of there being no legal aid is that bad cases will be taken forward by individuals, which will clog up the tribunal and slow it down because the individual will not have had advice or representation. Good cases will not be pursued, which is an attack on justice, or, if they are pursued, will take much longer to be heard because of the large number of bad cases that suddenly find themselves before the tribunal.

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

Take, for example, a person who feels aggrieved and is advised by a lawyer that he has no case or no chance of winning but still feels aggrieved. He therefore pursues his argument to the bitter end. That will take up much more time and money. Am I right?

[Lord Bach]

As usual, my noble friend is right. The point is that many individuals who feel aggrieved, when they are advised—whether by a trade union lawyer or a private lawyer—that they do not have a case, will take that advice and not clog up the system in the manner that I describe. One suspects that there will be no savings at all for the poor employment tribunal itself. It will be caught with hopeless cases that will get nowhere, and claimants with good cases will have to wait a very long time to pursue their cases, if they even pursue them at all. It all seems totally unnecessary when the system that we have in England and Wales works well. I hope that I am not putting it too high when I say that I believe it is the envy of the world as far as employment law is concerned.

I hope that the Government will reconsider this aspect of the Bill between now and Report. I am minded to bring this matter back at Report for decision. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

I have learned so much today. I did not know that the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, had been at the Bar for 40 years. I always thought she was 40.

The amendment is self-evidently sensible. I hope that the Government will realise that it is important for the public that the points made here are expressed. We are talking about,

“a complex issue of law … wider public interest … some other compelling reason why the proper conduct of the appeal requires the provision of civil legal services”.

I hope that the Minister will say that on reflection the amendment will be embodied in the provisions that the Government are prepared to make on Report or later. I thank the noble Lord for raising these important issues, which are critical not only for lawyers but for the public.

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, I will be very brief. We on the Front Bench support the amendment unreservedly. I will make three points. Given that these cases address complex or novel points of law, they are clearly beyond the ability of the average litigant in person—and, if she is to be believed, even of my noble friend Lady Mallalieu, although I am not sure about that.

Secondly, such cases are the lifeblood of our legal system. They give it its unique character and ensure that it is kept in line with evolving social mores and values, and with extranational jurisprudential developments. They are a crucial part of our legal system. Thirdly, a failure to guarantee that such cases can be heard would be a complete failure of any regime purporting to protect the needs of the average litigant.

Perhaps I may repeat the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. Are these cases covered by the exceptional cases regime in Clause 9? If they are, under the terms of the amendment, I would be very grateful if the noble and learned Lord would say that on the record. I will go no further than to thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for the very thoughtfully crafted amendment that we commend to the House.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Bach

Monday 16th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

As a former Member of the other place and as a Member of this House, I am deeply suspicious of secondary legislation. The onus of proof that secondary legislation is absolutely essential must rest on the Government. There are too many instances where people do not vote on the issues which arise because they happen perhaps late at night or in circumstances where it is not regarded as absolutely essential that Members should attend. Whether that is right or wrong does not matter. What is important is that the Government should resist the temptation to indulge in secondary legislation wherever possible.

The onus of proof rests fairly and squarely on the Government. In my view, they have not begun to do that. They disregard entirely the essential nature of that duty. In other words, they are saying that it is not important. I think that it is vital that Parliament conducts itself properly and scrutinises legislation where possible. I do not think that we should resort to secondary legislation, except where it is proven to be absolutely essential.

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend Lord Howarth in particular for supporting our Amendment 24. Of the alternatives set out so clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, Amendment 24 is the preferred amendment. But I want to make it absolutely clear from our Front Bench that our real quarrel is with the Bill as drafted. In the mild words of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, it is astonishing to find Clause 8(2) in modern legislation. It goes without saying that we believe that this is a non-party issue. Right around the Committee, it has been suggested that on this the Government have got it seriously wrong. If I am a little harsher on the Government than noble Lords have been so far, it is because this is an essential and very important part of this Bill. It is crucial that the Government move on it, if not at this stage, then later. I very much hope that on this group, the Minister can help us by implying that the Government are thinking of changing their position.

The Bill represents an attack on a number of crucial areas of civil legal aid. If the Government get their way, the whole edifice of social welfare law will be severely damaged, perhaps to destruction. The restrictions on private family law are poorly thought through and the proposed taking out of scope of clinical negligence, which we are to debate shortly, seems more ridiculous as every day passes.

We all agree—we certainly do—that there must be some cuts to legal aid. But there should not be these cuts, and any cuts should not be so fast or so far. I pose again to the Minister a question to which I have had no response up till now: why on earth is all criminal law seemingly off limits? Is there no waste, nothing that could be rationalised, in that area of law which, I remind the Committee, takes well over 50 per cent of the whole legal aid budget? The answer is apparently not, because the Government have announced that there will be no moves on criminal legal aid until 2015 at the earliest. I pose the question again: why?

The present position, as I understand it, is that a government can, to a limited extent—I shall be frank in saying that I am not sure to what extent—alter by order what is in and out of scope; for example, by amending the funding code as felt appropriate. But what the Bill asks us to accept is a quite new proposition; namely, that the Government should have the power to omit services from Schedule 1 by order. However, there is no suggestion, of course, that they should have the power to add services by order. Again, the question that all noble Lords have been asking the Minister is: why not? Why this imbalance, this tilt, against legal aid? My own view is that the answer is a bit depressing. It is that, to put it mildly, the ministry has a rather small-minded, extraordinarily partial view of legal aid; it does not much like it and would rather be rid of it than defend it. It does not see it as central to access to justice, let alone the rule of law, and is rather looking forward to cutting more. What other impression can one possibly get from the way in which this clause is drafted?

It is often said, particularly in this House, that the real argument against allowing a provision like this is not for now but for a future government who may not be troubled by the same principles as are supposed to exist in all modern governments of whatever complexion. However—and I hope that this does not sound too harsh—my own reason for not allowing this crude power to omit legal aid to the Government is just as much to do with what I fear is the present Government’s careless attitude towards legal aid as with some rogue government in the future.

Right across this Bill, or right across Part 1 at any rate, the cavalier manner in which it is proposed to decimate social welfare law, to remove clinical negligence from scope and to restrict the definition of domestic violence on the one hand and have too wide evidential criteria for it on the other all tend to suggest that, on the importance in our society of the availability of civil legal aid for ordinary citizens to access justice, the Government really do not have the enthusiasm that they should have. I believe that this view is shared by many inside and outside this Committee. How then can it be right to entrust the Government with the new extensive powers that they propose? Legal aid could be further diminished by order, but nothing could be added to it except by primary legislation. Just to state that proposition shows how wrong it is.

No one apart from the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has referred to the two important reports that have been published for our benefit. One was from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which discussed this issue and came to the following conclusion:

“The Committee has concerns about clause 8(2), and those concerns were not allayed by the explanation in the memorandum that this was merely an updating provision. However, there is precedent for a power of this type to be delegated and subject to affirmative procedure (whether the power is to add or to remove from the Schedule), and on that basis, we do not find it inherently inappropriate. But we draw it to the attention of the House because it is not limited to routine updating and may legitimately be used to make substantial omissions from Schedule 1.”

The Select Committee on the Constitution said this about Clause 8(2):

“Under the Bill the Lord Chancellor will have a power to modify Schedule 1 by omitting further services from the scope of civil legal aid (clause 8(2)). Orders made under clause 8(2) will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. This provision should be amended to enable the Lord Chancellor not only to omit services from the scope of civil legal aid but also to add services to the scope of civil legal aid.”

I do not want to quote from the Government’s response to both those committees’ reports. Perhaps the only advantage was that of consistency, because the two paragraphs were the same in each case. If noble Lords look at those paragraphs they do not make a convincing case, or indeed any case at all, against the amendments that have been raised in Committee today.

This is another part of the Bill where the Government must move. I very much hope that the Minister will show signs that the Government have listened to the unanimous view of these committees on this matter today.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Bach

Tuesday 25th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

I was born in the borough of Hackney. I lived in Hackney. I was a member of the council there and I represented Hackney in the House of Commons for nearly 13 years. People who came from Hackney came from all different parts of the world. There were Turks, people from the West Indies, Indians, Pakistanis and many, many Jews. The important thing was that they had a common bond, as my noble friend Lord Graham would acknowledge, and the important thing from their point of view was that they were quite different from people in adjoining boroughs such as Islington and Tower Hamlets. They had some shared preoccupations, undoubtedly, but in the main they were different and they recognised that difference. It was very important to them as far as their lives were concerned. I do not think that that ought to be underestimated. We are talking about the River Thames but we are also talking about tributaries of that river, such as the River Lea. In my time, it was absolutely inconceivable to consider that people in Hackney could be divorced from the River Lea. They were part of it, they recognised it, and when we think of the possibilities of change it would be very remiss of us to consider that the people who live in Hackney should be part of another borough. That is inconceivable.

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Morgan of Huyton for introducing this group of amendments, which have led to an engaging and important discussion about both rivers and communities. My only regret was that she did not reveal the list of bands that her son gave her to see whether noble Lords knew about Liverpool or not. I have to say I have longed for many a year to use the expression that the unfortunate High Court judge used many years ago, “Who are the Beatles?”, but I am sure all noble Lords these days know very well who the Beatles are and many of the other bands that she kept from us. I am very grateful to her for moving this amendment.

We have heard from noble Lords on all sides of the Committee today. It is interesting to consider that the following place names have arisen from their speaking: Huyton, Kentish Town, Edmonton, Furness, Jarrow, Newport, Detchant, Hill Top, Harringey, Portsea, Marsh Green, Lambeth, Tankerness—he hopes very shortly, I am sure—Hammersmith and, last but not least at all, Gateshead. For unelected noble Lords, place names are important. Lutterworth is important to me, and I am sure that Tankerness is important to the noble and learned Lord. That shows that a sense of community runs not just in the House of Commons, where it would run a great deal for those fortunate enough to represent people of a particular community, but in this House.