Prisoners: Foreign Nationals

Debate between Lord Faulks and Lord Wigley

Tuesday 12th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is a champion of those who have been imprisoned under the IPP scheme brought in by the previous Labour Government. The position is that this Government are committed, as I think all Governments before them were, to removing foreign criminals to their own countries where possible. They must be punished but not at the expense of British taxpayers. Therefore they are removed when the relevant section permits their removal. Of course the Secretary of State actively considers the position that he has a power to change the release test but, at the moment, he is not satisfied that it is appropriate to do so.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, in view of the totally unsatisfactory ongoing position with regard to IPP prisoners, will the Minister convey to the Secretary of State that if the Secretary of State is not willing to take and use the powers at his disposal, he should consider appointing a senior judge to review the working of this system in order to get justice for people who are quite clearly not getting it at present?

[Lord Faulks]

We have reduced by 584 the number of IPP prisoners in the last year. There is an indeterminate sentence prisoners co-ordination group, run by NOMS, where close examination is taking place of all serving IPP prisoners. Efforts are made to accelerate their access to the appropriate courses, and we have removed backlogs from the Parole Board. We think that everything is being done to make sure that those who are safe to be released are being released when the Parole Board decides.

Mesothelioma

Debate between Lord Faulks and Lord Wigley

Tuesday 9th December 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks]

As I indicated, the strategy is to ensure that the right questions are posed so as to elicit appropriate applications. The funding is very much there, but there is no point in having it unless it is directed towards research which can feasibly produce the result which, I am sure, everybody in this House wants to achieve.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, will the Minister go further on that? There needs to be a certainty that the money is there but the top-level researchers also need to be aware of it so that the money and the level of the research capability are brought together. Is the Minister confident that that certainty now exists? What can be done to make sure that the best researchers in the land are aware of it and can get engaged with this problem?

[Lord Faulks]

I can do no better than quote what Professor Dame Sally Davies, the Chief Medical Officer and chief scientific adviser, said yesterday. She thanked all those who provided information and said:

“With their help I believe we have built a genuine consensus—and a real impetus. I hope the research community will now respond by generating new research proposals that will provide robust evidence to help people with mesothelioma”.

Public Protection Sentences

Debate between Lord Faulks and Lord Wigley

Wednesday 3rd December 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, is it not totally unacceptable that 600 people should be in for eight years when they might have expected to be out after two years; that, had this happened before IPP came in, they would not be in these circumstances; and that, if their cases were to arise today, they would not be in these circumstances? It is totally invidious that they should be locked up in this way and that the Government should allow this to happen.

[Lord Faulks]

That ignores the particular judgment exercised by a judge when sentencing an individual. We do not know precisely what the sentence would have been with the current sentencing powers. Of course, the party opposite introduced IPP sentences. There are now different sentences. These individuals were sentenced to IPP sentences because the judges considered that they represented a potential danger to the public. The Government have to bear that in mind.

Prisons: Education and Training

Debate between Lord Faulks and Lord Wigley

Thursday 3rd April 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks]

Any violence or instability in prisons is clearly to be regretted. However, the noble Lord will be aware that assaults in prisons are at their lowest level since 2008, and the number of cases of escaping or absconding has reduced by more than 85% of what it was 10 years ago. I am afraid that I cannot accept that there are problems as a result of overcrowding. At the moment, although there is no room for complacency, matters are stable in the Prison Service.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, does the Minister recall the debate last Thursday in which it was mentioned that more than 5,000 IPP prisoners are being held in prison, two-thirds of whom are beyond their tariff, and that the main reason for this is the lack of training for rehabilitation? Given that this is costing more than £200 million a year, is it not penny wise, pound foolish to cut back on courses of that sort? Can the Minister give some assurance that these prisoners can have the hope of getting rehabilitation courses?

[Lord Faulks]

I well remember the debate and the prominent part which the noble Lord played in it. He will also recall the response that I gave him, which was that there was a considerable, co-ordinated effort to ensure that those IPP prisoners were enabled to engage in appropriate activities which would increase the likelihood of, although not guarantee, their release after hearing before the Parole Board. That is happening, and the Prison Service is well aware of the problem.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Lord Faulks and Lord Wigley

Monday 16th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendment so comprehensively moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, to which I have added my name. It would go some way towards rectifying the alarming situations that may be faced by individuals who have been disabled due to clinical negligence.

Many people involved in cases arising from clinical negligence by a public authority are among the most destitute. These cases will frequently involve parents or other family members bringing cases against public authorities as a result of traumatic injuries sustained by their children or other relatives. Considering the inequality of arms that inevitably arises, having access to expert reports is vital.

What is perhaps most distressing in cases centring on charges of clinical negligence is that individuals will come up against the state, with its teams of lawyers, during proceedings. Never is an inequality of arms more blatant than in those situations. This is somewhat ironic when we would all agree that the state should have a responsibility to ensure that an individual has the means to hold it to account.

To put this debate into context, there are about 1 million adverse accidents in the NHS every year. About 10,000 of those lead to action being taken against the NHS—in other words, about 1 per cent. These figures gainsay the claim that we live in a compensation culture, at least in this context. People who make these claims may have suffered grievous harm at the hands of a public authority, and they have every right to legal assistance in seeking redress.

What is more, and as the Unintended Consequences: the cost of the Government’s Legal Aid Reforms report, published last week by King’s College, made clear, charging ahead with these reforms would be economic nonsense, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, said. The report states that the proposed changes surrounding clinical negligence cases will cost the NHS some £28.5 million, which is nearly three times the amount to be saved by the Ministry of Justice—about £10.5 million. The figures may be slightly different but the ratios are the same.

Moreover, the Government have not yet specified how they intend to deal with the problems that will arise if legal aid is withdrawn from these cases. As the Bar Council has argued, the Government seem to assume that most clinical negligence claimants will receive representation under a conditional fee arrangement—that is, from a no-win, no-fee solicitor. They also seem to assert that the cost of funding expert reports will be paid for by the retention of recoverable “after the event” insurance premiums. If, however, the Government succeed in implementing these proposed changes to Part 2 of the Bill, clinical negligence cases, which are frequently among the most complex, will present too much risk, preventing most solicitors taking on cases on a no-win, no-fee basis. The difficulties involved in establishing liability will simply be too great.

What is more, under Part 2, after-the-event insurance premiums will no longer be recoverable from defendants, and a number of insurers have said that they will pull out of the ATE market. As the Bar Council once again made clear, it is highly unlikely that ATE insurance will be available for expert reports—hence, victims of negligence will be unable to establish whether their case has merit.

In these proposals, the Government appear to have lost sight of their duty to protect the vulnerable from further harm. Moreover, they have failed to provide a robust alternative to counter the inevitable damage to justice that would ensue if the proposals in the Bill went through unchecked. The Government must retain their responsibility to protect the vulnerable, and I hope that they will listen to the criticisms made in this debate.

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, all the amendments in this group are directed towards the retention of legal aid in clinical negligence cases. This is an area in which I have practised as a barrister for the past 20 years or so, acting for both claimants and defendants; I continue to do so.

I should emphasise that in making these few remarks I am not against Part 2, which brings into effect the Jackson reforms. Litigation costs have become wholly out of control, particularly in smaller cases, where legal costs tend to dwarf the sums at issue, and litigation has far too often become concerned about legal fees and the recoverability of insurance premiums rather than what should really be at the centre of the dispute.

However, we should acknowledge that if Part 2 becomes law, difficult cases will be less attractive, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has rightly pointed out. There will be no success fee recoverable, nor ATE premiums, and there is a significant risk that complex but meritorious cases will be uneconomical for legal practices to pursue. The paradigm case which concerns me—and, I dare say, many other noble Lords—is that of a brain-damaged baby. Of course, there are other entirely worthwhile and difficult cases, but such cases are particularly complex and often need many experts to tease out whether there is a case on liability or causation. Without legal aid, individual litigants or solicitors will have to carry investigative costs of many thousands of pounds before, in many cases, deciding that there is no claim to be pursued. There will, however, be quite a number of cases where entirely meritorious claims will simply be unfeasible, so that those who have to bring up brain-damaged babies will be unable to have the consolation and substantial financial assistance which a successful claim may bring as some slight mitigation to the hardship which the child and the child's family will have to undergo for the rest of that child's life.

I understand that the Government have acknowledged that there is potential injustice in the removal of legal aid for such cases. What answers have they put forward in what I acknowledge as being a constructive exchange of views in this area? The first is that CFAs should be available. I am unconvinced of that. Availability would be theoretical only. At the very best, some of the largest firms might take on the occasional case on the basis that they could bear the risk of funding it, but no individual will be able to do so. The second answer given is that exceptional funding within the terms of the Bill will be available in such cases. That is on the basis, as I understand it, that funding will be forthcoming in circumstances where there would be a violation of an individual's convention rights if there were to be no legal aid.

I pointed out at Second Reading that clinical negligence cases very rarely involve any human rights violations. To that argument comes the rejoinder that the relevant article of the convention is Article 6—the right to a fair trial—and that if the circumstances are such that Article 6 is violated, exceptional funding will be forthcoming. The problem with that answer seems to me to be that the jurisprudence from Strasbourg concerning the circumstances in which the denial of legal aid or other state support would constitute a violation of Article 6 is considerably lacking in consistency and coherence. I do not see how anyone could advise their client with any confidence that the refusal to provide legal aid would constitute a violation of Article 6. That means that the exceptional funding answer is remarkably insecure. If it is really the case that the refusal to provide legal aid in such cases constitutes a violation of Article 6, I venture to suggest that there may be some difficulty in justifying the declaration of compatibility with the Human Rights Act which has been signed in relation to the Bill.

If there is indeed an intention to provide funding for the sorts of cases that I am discussing, why not place the provision of such funding in the Bill rather than rely on the vagaries of exceptional funding and potential challenges by way of judicial review or otherwise if a determination turns out to deny access to legal aid in such cases? I appreciate that in the other place the Minister, Jonathan Djanogly, made some reassuring remarks in this area, but they went nothing like far enough to inspire the sort of confidence that is needed that these claims can be pursued.