Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Bill

Debate between Lord Howarth of Newport and Baroness Hollis of Heigham

Monday 25th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I support the amendment of my noble friend. I have to declare a sort of interest as a former Minister responsible in the DWP for the tribunal services before Leggatt centralised them. As a result, I would visit tribunals and, five minutes into the hearing, I could tell whether the claimant had or had not received legal advice and support or welfare advice and support before entering the appeal. Those who had presented a coherent account with the appropriate accompanying papers and evidence, were prepared for the questions asked of them. It kept the process simple and straightforward, and the cases that I saw took on average about 40 minutes to complete. In each case, the decision, usually up to half the time in favour of the claimant, was the right one.

Then there was the other sort of case that came to tribunal, people who came with their sheaf of papers in a carrier bag, which they shuffled through without any advice, unaware of what it was that the tribunal needed to know and what would count as relevant evidence. I recall one man, Indian or Pakistani, who was there with his wife; his eyes never left the floor, and he sat hunched over as he tried to explain in poor English and a low, faltering voice, why he was appealing against a refusal of DLA—and he could not. The superb chair, who we now call a judge, spent nearly two hours trying compassionately to coax his story and evidence out of him in some sort of order. It took more than twice as long as the previous case, and his appeal was upheld.

What lessons may we draw from the situation in which there is no prior legal help or support for advice? Social security decision-makers, as we argued on the previous amendment, frequently fail to review decisions properly. Unless the claimant is savvy enough to put his case in ways that fit guidance on reconsideration, we end up with an unnecessary tribunal case, and the tribunals handling such cases clear, as a result, two or three cases a day instead of five or six. I plead with the Minister to learn from this. I do not know whether he has sat in on any social security tribunals, but he would quickly see which claimants had had prior advice and which had not. Remove the advice and the need does not go away; it is merely displaced to the very much more expensive and time-consuming stage of the tribunal itself. Instead of advice being given in advance, the whole untangling of that mess has to be done by the tribunal judge in person. That seems to me key. The need does not go away; all you are doing is transferring it to the most expensive and laborious way of addressing it.

Legal advice, which we are told we cannot afford, is not a luxury; in my view, it is essential because social security is complex and most claimants, by definition, are probably poorly educated, not especially articulate, confused about what they are due and need help at the early stages. They are aggrieved. However, as my noble friend Lord Bach said, early advice may discourage people from pursuing unfunded and unfounded cases. Legal advice also helps ensure greater consistency and a common approach across regions. We are getting a lot of research evidence suggesting the unevenness of responses from decision-makers and tribunals trying their best to produce the consistency that local offices are not.

The Minister knows that we are seriously worried about what will happen when existing claimants are brought on to UC, which I very much want to work. I fear that the tribunal system will be completely overwhelmed unless there is legal aid and welfare advice available at the preliminary stage to screen out weak cases and to put into good order appropriate cases for the tribunal; otherwise, I believe that the system will buckle.

We are therefore deeply worried about the situation of claimants under the Bill who will not know what their rights are and whether the proposed sanction is valid. In some cases, they may have been stalled for many months. They do not have fresh evidence to bring to bear and can no longer rely on their memory to give a coherent account of what happened when. Did they have good cause? At the preliminary stage, legal or welfare rights advisers can perhaps help them find out, track hospital or school records, organise paperwork and explain to the claimant what will happen, why he has lost his benefit and whether the case against him is soundly based. If that welfare rights officer or the legal advice is not there to do that, the tribunal judge will have to, as I have seen with my own eyes. Can that individual stop the sanction? Is it possible for him to comply? Jobcentre staff cannot or will not now give that advice, especially given the evidence about targets. Claimants need the supportive, friendly, neutral, professional, cheap advice from outside the system. However, of course all this hinges on whether the department wants people to get the right benefits and the right outcome. Does it?

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, is it not the case that every Government of the United Kingdom since 1948 have been committed to the principles and values articulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Is it not also the case that Article 7 declares that all are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law? If the Government deny legal aid in these cases, will they not repudiate that historic and fundamental commitment?

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Lord Howarth of Newport and Baroness Hollis of Heigham

Monday 5th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, I have been encouraged so fulsomely by the Minister that I rise to contribute briefly to this debate and to support my noble friend Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, who moved this amendment. She is right to draw our attention and, more importantly, the Government’s attention to the interaction between these two major pieces of legislation—this legal aid legislation and the welfare reform legislation—because they combine to impact in major ways on the fortunes, perhaps I should rather say the misfortunes, of people who are poor and disadvantaged. The Government have a responsibility to look to see what the combined effect may be, and I think what my noble friend has proposed—an independent review after a year—is entirely reasonable.

I would like to draw attention to paragraph (c) of my noble friend’s amendment. She wants the review to consider,

“the number and any increase in the welfare benefit cases that are made or referred to … parliamentary constituency offices”.

There is no doubt that the case load of Members of Parliament in their constituency offices will increase. People who do not know where to turn for remedy will look around and think that they must at least go to their Member of Parliament to see what he or she can do to help. Members of Parliament will be extremely willing to do what they can, but most of them will certainly not be in a position to give legal advice, and I rather suspect that Members of Parliament who are lawyers will be reluctant to give advice in their capacity as lawyers to constituents who come to them at their constituency offices.

Members of Parliament listen to what their constituents have to say and give them the best practical advice they can. They will take up the case for them or refer them to the Minister or to other appropriate agencies, but there is a very strict limit to what Members of Parliament can do to sort out such problems on behalf of their constituents. I think we need to recognise that, and also that IPSA has pretty drastically squeezed the resources available to Members of Parliament. If the workload of MPs is going to rise, one very relevant consideration is just what resources will be available to MPs to help their constituents. Equally, local authorities face reductions in their funding of some 30 per cent over the spending review period, and so will be less well placed than they would wish to support local people who find themselves in difficulties.

For example, local people with housing problems may have a complaint about their landlord; the landlord is not keeping their accommodation in proper condition. People will no longer have access to legal aid to enable them to sort out these problems. They might turn to the environmental health officer but the environmental health officer may take a very long time before he or she can get around to their case.

The “other prescribed agencies” that my noble friend mentions in her amendment are presumably charitable organisations; we talked about that earlier. The Government’s reduction to local authority funding is having a major knock-on impact on the funding that local authorities are able to provide for charitable bodies in their areas, including law centres and citizens advice bureaux. The effect of the recession is also squeezing the amount of income that is available to those agencies.

My noble friend does well to draw attention to some of these realities and I hope the Government will accept that there are problems here that they ought to review in the kind of way that my noble friend’s amendment proposes.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I come in on an amendment that is rather dear to my heart, after the powerful speech by my noble friend Lady Hayter, because we both worked on the Welfare Reform Bill.

What struck me in that particular debate on the Welfare Reform Bill was that it is surely folly to withdraw legal advice at the time that you are bedding in a new system of welfare benefits, which will probably have greater effect on claimants than anything since the Second World War. I do not know whether I have the Minister’s attention but perhaps I could suggest to him that the one thing you do not do is withdraw legal advice about entitlement and eligibility at the very same time that you are introducing a major, vast set of changes to benefits.

As my noble friend Lady Hayter indicated, in discussions on the Welfare Reform Bill, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Freud, who had genuine respect for evidence, agreed to accept three major reviews post-implementation of the Bill: first, what would happen to private sector rented housing; secondly, what would happen to public sector rented housing; and thirdly, what would happen to disabled children. This is in respect of being informed by evidence and seeing what the effect of changes will be.

The Government are taking a leap into the dark on the Welfare Reform Bill and a leap into the dark on withdrawing the ability to seek legal advice at the time claimants are most likely to need it. At the very least, therefore, the Minister should follow in the footsteps of his noble friend Lord Freud and put in the basic safety net of a review to see whether the Government’s expectations will be fulfilled.

Local Government Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Howarth of Newport and Baroness Hollis of Heigham

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I understand that perfectly well, but as we did not have the outcome of the judicial review at the time the orders were being made, we were in no different a situation than that of all the previous debates, in which I think the noble and learned Baroness did not take part, where a judicial review was running alongside a debate about particular orders. If she is alleging that we should have known the outcome of the judicial review before the judge made his determination, in that case none of the previous orders would equally have proceeded until the judge had made his determination. Had the noble and learned Baroness been involved in those previous procedures, she might be aware of that fact.

So the judicial review ran simultaneously, as it did with all the other orders. As a result, because we could not and did not know the outcome of the judicial review before the orders were laid before Parliament, Parliament made its decision in the full light of information and after something like seven hours of debate. The judge then chose to overturn those orders. We could have argued it, but when the noble and learned Baroness says we could have gone to appeal, I should say that the costs of such an appeal would probably have been £500,000 or more, which would have had to be shared between two authorities. Such a sum would have represented between 5 per cent and 8 per cent on the district council tax. That is not something we can ask the citizens and ratepayers of Norwich to pay.

As for the Department for Communities and Local Government, against which those judicial orders were made, with a change of government it is clearly impossible or at least unlikely that it is going to appeal. To that extent, I hope that the noble and learned Baroness will accept that her argument that these orders were always illegal is simply wrong. You only know them to be illegal when the judgment is made—and Parliament was making its decision before any such judgment was made.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

Is there not a distinction between conduct by the Minister in his capacity as head of a Whitehall department which the court judges to be illegal, and a decision taken by Parliament? This is a qualitatively different decision.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I entirely accept that. In the same way that if any Minister—myself in a former capacity, my noble friend or the noble Baroness opposite—were to make an administrative decision within their department—in my case it might have been about the Child Support Agency or whatever—which did not go through parliamentary scrutiny, it would be perfectly proper, and occasionally happens, that there should be a JR. At that point a judge might well say, “Minister, you have exceeded your administrative power”, and that would be fine. That is exactly what judges should do—they do it all the time—both for central government Ministers and for local government councillors. No one is challenging that. Of course there is an important key role for JR to ensure propriety of behaviour by people in official positions who carry official responsibilities.

However, that is a completely different situation from the one described by my noble friend. Parliament had seven hours of debate on these orders and—knowing all the facts alleged by Members opposite and ourselves and what they entailed—decided to support them. One judge, 1,000 parliamentarians, seven hours of debate. You can see why some of us feel that this was perhaps an intrusion on parliamentary sovereignty too far. I do not recede from that line.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

The noble and learned Baroness is absolutely right that the Permanent Secretary followed this unusual, though not unprecedented, process. As I tried to suggest in an earlier amendment—though clearly I did not make myself clear—the Permanent Secretary wanted best value for money, which meant a unitary Devon and a unitary Norfolk, as opposed to a unitary Norwich and a unitary Exeter, which represented second-best value for money, let alone the status quo, which was the worst value for money. The Permanent Secretary’s letter therefore called for an organisation of local government which only the Permanent Secretary and the Boundary Committee supported, and which even the county councils would have had judicially reviewed against themselves. That is the nature of the Permanent Secretary’s request for a direction. Therefore, given that we are not debating unitary counties—I am afraid that now it is past that point—the issue is status quo versus unitary, not status quo versus unitary versus unitary county. Had that been the case, the Permanent Secretary's advice would have been correct and we would have had a very different outcome.

I go back to the electoral point. It is the DCLG, not Norwich or Exeter, that lost the JR, and the department should take responsibility for its actions. With appropriate behaviour—a letter, for example—it could have abated this problem and the orders would not have been quashed. It is not reasonable that two cities that have acted lawfully on every day and at every stage of the process should pay the bill because the DCLG failed to act prudently. The costs of £100,000 in Norwich and perhaps another £80,000 in Exeter, with additional costs for all the local parties, will be incurred not because of what the cities did but because of the failures of the department.

Therefore, first there is the issue of costs. Secondly, as far as concerns these elections, there is the issue of timing, which my noble friend explored. I understand that the DCLG has advised Mr Pickles that the elections should take place within 35 days. This comes into the same category as the weak advice from the department, or its failure to act appropriately, that we have seen throughout this saga. On the opinion of a counsel specialising in electoral law, the DCLG is wrong. The Minister, Mr Pickles, is assuming that these are casual vacancies to which 35 days would apply. Casual vacancies are defined in Sections 83 to 87 of the Local Government Act 1972, which was Mr Peter Walker's disastrous attempt to impose unitary counties across the country—and, belatedly, some district functions. However, these are not casual vacancies. I am sure that the noble Baroness has checked the legislation. Section 83, for example, tells us what counts as a casual vacancy: it is when there has been a failure to make a declaration of office. Section 84 deals with the resignation of an office holder, Section 85 covers the case of a councillor who has failed to attend meetings, Section 86 deals with councillors who are no longer living or working in the area or who have been disqualified for a personal offence that has resulted in imprisonment, and Section 87 covers death. In all cases, the casual vacancies relate to a particular councillor. None of the sections applies to what has happened here, which was the inadvertent failure of returning officers to hold the ordinary elections in May 2010 because they were following the existing orders that were in place until Parliament or a JR struck them down.

If we are right—and we are confident that we are—this means that elections are not necessary within 35 days because the vacancies are not casual. As 35 days would take us into August, that produces major democratic issues. We are not challenging—because we cannot—the need to hold by-elections. We are challenging, first, where the costs should fall, and secondly, whether the elections should occur within the 35-day deadline, which they clearly should not. A date in September, a couple of weeks later, after the school holidays, might make the difference between a 15 or 20 per cent turnout and a 40 per cent turnout.

To ask local authorities to spend £100,000 on local elections because of the failure of the department, and then to order that they must occur in August when a large proportion of the electorate will be away, compounds a democratic deficit on to departmental negligence. The law, which I have gone through, does not require it. Therefore, I hope that the noble and learned Baroness will accept that by-elections can take place in September, for example as soon as the school holidays are over, and that there should be an appropriate recognition of the department's responsibility for their cost.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, I add my support to the arguments made by my noble friends Lord Rosser and Lady Hollis on Amendment 4. Significant and unbudgeted additional costs would be created by these by-elections, if they occurred. I refer not just to the cost to the authorities—£80,000 for Exeter and no less for Norwich—but to the costs for the parties and candidates. This would come at a time of severe financial pressure on the local authorities.

This situation has been brought about through no fault of either Norwich or Exeter. The judicial review was taken out by the counties against the CLG and not against Norwich and Exeter, and it seems unjust that council tax payers in Norwich and Exeter should have to foot the bill for it. In Exeter, the cost has already been computed at no less than a 1.8 per cent increase in council tax, which is a significant burden to land on local people.

It would be open to the Government to amend the Bill to reinstate the councillors who were unseated by the High Court on 5 July and to defer the elections on the original plan until next May. That would save money and would restore an orderly situation. As it is, if Section 2 is simply deleted, the leaders of all the opposition groups in Norwich will be unseated.