Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Lord Howarth of Newport Excerpts

Wednesday 18th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

I am in total sympathy with the amendments that the noble and learned Baroness has tabled, but I wanted to ask her whether she envisages that victims of trafficking who might make employment claims could also include people who are employed by gangmasters in conditions of well nigh slavery, fruit-picking or cockle-picking.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

I certainly saw the amendment as broad as that, and they may very well be able to do it through the employment tribunal. The great problem is that the employment tribunal will no longer have legal aid.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I do not think the noble Lord should worry. At this time of night it becomes a bit of a blur for us all.

Amendments 72 and 82ZC would bring into scope debt matters that are not covered in Schedule 1 and which we intend no longer to fund. We are faced, as we have said before, with tough choices in this current fiscal climate, but this has allowed us to focus resources on those who need them most in the most serious cases where legal advice and representation are justified. We estimate that we will continue to spend around £50 million on social welfare law overall.

Amendment 72 relates to paragraph 28 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 and appears to be aimed at making legally aided advice, assistance and representation available where a person’s financial difficulties, such as debt problems, could potentially lead to the individual losing their home.

Amendment 82ZC would bring into scope all debt matters not covered in Schedule 1. In our consultation on legal aid reform, we proposed that funding should be prioritised on cases where the individual’s home is at immediate risk. We are therefore retaining legal aid in relation to court orders for possession or sale of the home and in relation to eviction. We generally consider that other debt matters are a lower priority and therefore do not justify public funding for legal advice and representation.

We recognise that early advice can be helpful in a range of contexts. However, what people often need is general advice, for example on welfare benefits, debt or housing, rather than legal advice. There are many alternative sources of help with debt issues, including Credit Action, the National Debtline, the Consumer Credit Counselling Service and local authorities, which also direct people to local sources of advice and assistance on debt matters. In addition, the Money Advice Trust has recently launched My Money Steps, an online tool for providing advice for people with debt problems. The Consumer Credit Counselling Service also offers a free online debt remedy service.

We also recognise the argument that withdrawal of legal aid for any issue could lead, by a chain of events, to serious consequences. We considered this point carefully when formulating our final proposals. However, our view is that the limited public funds for legal advice and representation should be focused on those cases where the client faces serious direct consequences. Therefore, we do not propose to devote these limited public funds to less important cases on the basis that they could indirectly lead to more serious consequences for that person.

It is also important to recognise that the Bill does not require legal proceedings to have been issued before legal aid can be made available. Legal aid will be available where action for repossession or eviction is contemplated—for example, where a person receives a letter threatening repossession action in the absence of payment. Therefore, legal aid will be available to a person threatened with repossession action for mortgage or rent arrears, for example to negotiate with the mortgage lenders. It should also be noted that we will retain funding for the housing possession court duty scheme. It offers free legal advice and representation to anyone in danger of eviction or having property repossessed, on the day of the hearing, regardless of their means. Research shows that 77 per cent of clients who receive this last-minute advice avoid the immediate loss of their home. Under the circumstances, I hope the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment.

Amendment 82D appears to be aimed at bringing into scope debt relief remedies under Part 5 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and, in particular, as the noble Lord said, debt relief orders. As I have already said, we consider certain debt matters to be a high priority for funding. That is why we are retaining legal aid for debt cases where the individual’s home is at immediate risk of repossession because of rent or mortgage arrears or involuntary bankruptcy. We recognise that debt problems can be difficult for the individuals concerned. Nevertheless, we strongly believe that what is often required is practical advice to resolve issues, rather than advice of a legal nature.

It is important to note that debt relief orders are relatively informal procedures. Advisers act as approved intermediaries and assist debtors in applying to the Insolvency Service for a debt relief order. I reiterate that individuals who have debt issues are able to seek advice from alternative routes. For example, the Insolvency Service website provides guidance and leaflets, and information is available through the insolvency inquiry line. Importantly, it should be noted that debt relief orders are used by people who owe limited amounts of money and have no assets. Therefore, they do not involve a person’s home being at immediate risk. They are clearly not analogous to cases in which a home owner is at immediate risk of losing their home as a result of involuntary bankruptcy. I hope that noble Lords will be reassured by what I have said and will not press these amendments.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

Can the Minister assure the Committee with complete confidence that every single one of the organisations that he has named in his remarks are confident that they will be in a position to provide debt advice—indeed, sufficient personalised debt advice—to the people who will need it? Has he taken into account that the number of people sinking into the toils of debt is increasing hand over fist as the economy deteriorates?

[Lord McNally]

No, of course I cannot give that assurance, but neither do I assume the absolute worst case in everything that we discuss, as the noble Lord seems to do in each of his interventions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Best, was well worth waiting for. This is a very important and valuable group of amendments and I endorse the arguments so powerfully stated by the noble Lords who have spoken. Under the Government’s proposals in the Bill, legal aid will no longer be available for damages claims in relation to tenancy disputes; for example, disrepair. CLG tells us that more than 40 per cent of private rented dwellings do not meet the decent homes standard. Tenants will still be able to get legal aid to seek injunctions to get the work done, although only where there is serious risk of harm to the health or safety of the household. So there is a very high threshold for one to get legal aid for an injunction of that kind.

Under the current arrangements, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, explained, bad landlords know that the longer that they delay in carrying out the repairs, the greater the damages that they will have to pay. Therefore, the current arrangement, whereby legal aid is available for damages suits for disrepair, constitutes an incentive on landlords to carry out the repairs relatively promptly. Without the availability of legal aid for such damages claims, the pressure on landlords not to let their properties fall into disrepair will be removed.

Illegal eviction, actual or threatened, is a horrible reality for all too many people. Under the Government's proposals, legal aid will be available only to secure an injunction for the tenant to be reinstated to the property from which he has been illegally evicted. Again, as the noble Lord said, it is most likely that tenants will not want to go back to a tenancy with that same landlord. They will want to secure recovery of their possessions but they will not want to go back to that landlord. Under the Government’s proposals, the worst landlords will be able to get away with the worst behaviour and their victims will not be protected and will not be able to obtain compensation. The availability, through legal aid, of damages claims against bad landlords is a deterrent against bad behaviour; and the aggravated and exemplary damages that are, from time to time, awarded because the court takes a particularly severe view of the behaviour of a landlord are a most important deterrent. We will not be able to see that working in the future.

These problems are all too extensive. Environmental health officers testify to the fact that there are too many bad landlords and that many of them behave with the peculiar ruthlessness with which unfortunately people tend to act in housing matters; 90 per cent of environmental health officers say that they have personal experience of landlords harassing or illegally evicting tenants. The proportions of people availing themselves of private rented accommodation are rising at the moment. The Localism Act encourages local authorities now to place homeless households in the private rented sector. The benefits cap and the cuts to local housing allowance will drive families lower down the scale of the private rented sector towards the bottom end. It seems bizarre that legal aid will not be available to people facing housing problems until they are actually on the precipice of losing their homes. It is obvious that early intervention to deal with the underlying causes is a sensible policy to prevent the underlying problems deteriorating. It is both kinder and more economic.

Removing welfare benefit and debt cases from the scope of legal aid will mean, as my noble friend Lord Stevenson pointed out, that we will see a compounding effect of people getting deeper and deeper into trouble until they face homelessness. Under the Government's proposals, only then will they be able to get legal aid to help extricate them from the crisis that they have been allowed to get into.

This policy will increase insecurity and distress among tenants. It will add to the pressure on tribunals and courts, as the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Best, told us. It will increase costs to the taxpayer because of the consequences of the distress and of the problems that will be without remedy.

The Minister prayed in aid time and again in debates on different parts of this foolish and iniquitous Bill the requirement of the Treasury that the Ministry of Justice should make its contribution to reducing the deficit. The Treasury will certainly not be swayed by the pathos of vulnerable people finding themselves in greater difficulty than they need be in, but it should be swayed by the prospect of increased costs being shunted around Whitehall so that we end up with no reduction of the deficit but possibly an increase in it. I very much hope that the Treasury will review the policy that is proposed in the Bill before we get to Report. I hope that it will look at the arguments and figures put forward by Dr Cookson of King’s College. The central case on which the Minister relies—that all this, miserable though it may be, is inescapably necessary in order to reduce the deficit—is profoundly flawed. I hope that on Report we will see major government amendments to the Bill.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, after three excellent speeches I will make only one point, following directly from the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth. What I may perhaps call the Cookson report—the King’s College report—quantifies certain knock-on costs. What it does not do is look at indirect knock-on costs. For example, in a case such as the one my noble friend referred to when he moved the amendment of somebody not getting timely advice and as a result finding that he and his family were on the street with the local authority having to pick up the problem and provide housing, along with the welfare fallout and so on, the indirect costs were not included in the figures of the King's College report. That makes the self-interest of the Government in listening to and agreeing the amendments in this group all the more acute.

My only other point was made by all three preceding speakers but is worth emphasising. The noble Lord, Lord Best, drew an analogy with Somali pirates. He talked of a small minority of exploitative landlords. That is absolutely fair; it is only a small minority of private landlords. However, they are concentrated among poor tenancies. If we throw our minds back to Rachman, we will remember that his tenants were among the poorest in London. That was no accident. Landlords who are of that evil mind know that poor tenants are least able to protect and stand up for themselves, and most easily harassed. Again, it is an issue of self-interest on the part of the Treasury to recognise that. If it does, it will see the sense of the amendments in this group without getting into morality and justice.