Justice: Sentencing of Young Offenders
Lord McNally Excerpts(14 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sheldon
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to avoid the unnecessary sentencing of young offenders.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, the Government are introducing reforms to give professionals greater flexibility to resolve offences without the need for prosecution, if this is in the public interest. However, robust community sentences, and where necessary custodial sentences, will continue to be used for the most serious and prolific young offenders.
Lord Sheldon
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, because it is rather useful. However, there is one problem in avoiding any unnecessary sentencing of young offenders: the age of criminal responsibility, which is 10 years in England but 15 years in Nordic countries, so there is a big difference there. There has also been a United Kingdom-wide financial programme to help young people to fulfil their potential. Will this programme be used to help the young offenders?
Lord McNally
My Lords, first, on the question of the age of criminal responsibility, the argument that has been put forward by successive Governments is that keeping it at 10 allows the support services to intervene early and positively with young offenders who have committed serious offences. I think the Scots have already moved or are about to move to 12, and, as the noble Lord rightly said, other parts of Europe have higher ages. All I can say is that at the moment, as with our predecessors, Her Majesty’s Government have no plans to review that minimum age—for that reason of intervention.
On the question of help for young offenders, again, following on from the progress made by our predecessors, we are trying early intervention to help to identify the problems behind some of the offences, and that will certainly continue.
Lord Dholakia
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there has been a significant reduction in youth crime that is mainly attributable to the work of the Youth Justice Board, which deals with offenders up to the age of 18? Will he consider extending the remit of the Youth Justice Board to deal with young adult offenders up to the age of 21 to see whether this pattern can be repeated?
Lord McNally
Like the age of criminal responsibility, this matter is kept under review. There are certainly indications that more holistic intervention by youth offending teams has led to a significant fall-off in youth offending, and there are lessons to be learnt from that. As always with these matters, the question is how much further up the age group one can carry interventions such as that without severe resource implications. However, my noble friend is right to draw attention to the 18 to 25 group, where a lot of criminality that lasts for a lifetime starts becoming embedded.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, I speak with experience of the restorative justice programme at Thorn Cross young offender prison in my diocese, which has demonstrably effective results. Where in government policy will the support be for creative and effective restorative justice programmes that help young offenders to come to see the consequences of their actions?
Lord McNally
My Lords, the Government hope to publish in the near future a White Paper on the criminal justice system. Having seen some early drafts, I know that we will bring forward some positive proposals on restorative justice, because, as has been said, there is every indication that restorative justice has a significant and beneficial impact on reoffending.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I welcome what the Government are doing. However, given that half of children in the juvenile estate have experience of being looked after by their local authority and a quarter of adults have similar experience, and given the particular worry about young people leaving the care of their local authority and moving into bed-and-breakfast accommodation, will the Minister discuss with his colleagues the possibility of a review of services for looked-after children, including children in children’s homes, and care leavers? Will he also discuss with colleagues the example of the Scottish Institute for Residential Child Care, which provides a centre of excellence in a university to train staff in children’s homes, to research looked-after children’s services and to influence policy, which we do not have in this country?
Lord McNally
My Lords, as so often, the noble Earl puts forward some very sensible suggestions, which I will follow up. Anyone who has been involved with our criminal justice system must be slightly shamed by the fact that a large number of young people who find their way into it as adults have been in our care as children.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, the Minister rightly spoke warmly of the work of the Youth Justice Board in answer to the question from his noble friend. Does he recognise now that it was wrong for the Government to propose the abolition of the Youth Justice Board in the Public Bodies Bill and to have fought so tenaciously for it?
Lord McNally
As always, the Government listen extremely carefully to this House. In this case, the House was wise, and the Government were wise to listen to it.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
My Lords, do those who have offended and have been penalised in one way or another have greater difficulty in finding jobs when their sentence ends? We know that 23% of young people between 16 and 25 are out of work. How much more difficult is it for those who have offended?
Lord McNally
I would have thought that it would be difficult. If you get a criminal record, it becomes a problem in employment. That is why part of the thrust of the Government’s policy on young people offending is to try to keep them out of the criminal justice system and to give those with responsibility in this area greater flexibility in their treatment. As my noble friend has said, it is also a question of making sure that young people are kept in the education system. Where full-time education is not the most appropriate route, apprenticeships and other forms of training should be there.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, is the Minister aware that about a half of those convicted for riot-related offences, certainly at the time the Riots Communities and Victims Panel published its report, were 18 to 24 year-olds? If he does not feel that he can give additional resources at the moment to enable the Youth Justice Board to take over, how else can he address the problems of that age group? After all, if we have another set of riots, that may be money well spent.
Lord McNally
What I can say is that there is a White Paper in the offing on these areas. It does not take a great deal of homework to identify that age group as perhaps the next best group on which to focus the intensity of care that has been shown in the youth justice system. If we could get anywhere near that success in the 18 to 25 group, we would have a real chance of cutting reoffending, which is the real problem in our prison population and in general levels of crime.
Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (Amendment) Order 2012
Lord McNally Excerpts(14 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Trusts (Capital and Income) Bill [HL]
Lord McNally Excerpts(14 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
Lord McNally Excerpts(14 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McNally
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1B to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1C.
1C Because it would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this reason may be deemed sufficient.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, Motion A is the Commons response to the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. That amendment has prompted a great deal of high quality, thoughtful and principled debate, and I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord and other legal luminaries in this House who have given us the benefit of their expertise in exploring its effects. Although we have not been able to agree on precisely what those effects are, I thank the noble Lord for his clear argument and his commitment to the important constitutional principle of access to justice. I fully understand his motives in doing so. However, the House of Commons has given us its view on the amendment, and I ask the House to support the position that it has taken. I beg to move.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, I am very disappointed by the Government’s response to the amendment on the purpose of legal aid, approved by this House on Monday. Noble Lords will know that this amendment had its origins in a recommendation of your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, of which I am a member. The recommendation was strongly supported by many noble Lords at Second Reading and in Committee. The amendment was approved in this House on Report by a majority of 45 votes. After the other place disapproved of the amendment, this House voted again on Monday night, and your Lordships approved an amendment in similar terms, this time by a majority of 15 votes.
At no stage during this parliamentary process has the Minister or anyone else on behalf of the Government made any proposal, publicly or privately, for meeting the concerns of this House, whether by a revision of the wording of the amendments approved in this House or in any other respect. That is despite what the Minister kindly described as the very high quality debates that we have had in this place.
In my view, to ignore the views of this House in this way by bringing forward no proposal whatever to meet the concerns expressed here is, at the very lowest, most regrettable. It is all the more regrettable when the issue is of constitutional concern. I hope that these views may be shared, even by noble Lords who did not support the substance of this amendment.
The sorry state of this saga is exacerbated by the application of financial privilege to this amendment, even though it expressly stated that the allocation of financial resources was a matter for the Lord Chancellor’s discretion. This raises issues of considerable concern, which I hope will be shared on all sides of the House. Of course I recognise that financial privilege is not a matter for the Government, but I have had no indication at all that the Government made any representations in support of my contention, shared by many other noble Lords, that it would be quite inappropriate to apply financial privilege to an amendment that expressly stated that financial resources were a matter for the discretion of the Lord Chancellor.
Notwithstanding these matters, I have, with regret, come to the conclusion that I can take this amendment no further. Noble Lords have asked the other place to think again and it has done so. Although I disagree with the result, I do not think it appropriate to invite the House to press the matter further. I should add that if I were a Member of a House of which 80 per cent of Members were elected, I would certainly persist on this matter. Furthermore, given the very limited time made available in the other place for consideration of the amendments that we passed in this House, and given the general absence of scrutiny of this legislation in the other place, I suggest that it is not the procedures of this House that are urgently in need of reform.
I hope I will be permitted to make one other observation; I do so despite the genuine respect I have for the Minister. The unsatisfactory manner in which the Government have treated this amendment is, I regret, typical of the unsatisfactory manner in which the Government have proceeded on this Bill generally. The Government were defeated on this Bill on 11 occasions on Report and three times again last Monday. So large a volume of defeats occurred because the Government adopted inflexible attitudes and lost the arguments on their merits. Part 1 of the Bill has been made marginally better by the amendments, which are the product of the considerable work done on all sides of this House. The Bill would have been marginally better if this amendment had been accepted, but this remains a bad Bill and there remains in particular a bad Part 1 in it on legal aid.
The Government’s general inflexibility on the Bill, as with Amendment 1 in particular, has involved a failure adequately to assess the impact of the provisions before their implementation, a refusal to take on board the fact that many of the financial savings at which Part 1 is aimed are illusory because the denial of access to legal services will result in other financial costs to the state for disadvantaged persons who will be denied the benefits to which they are entitled, and because of a refusal to recognise that the limits on the scope of legal aid imposed by Part 1 will hit hardest the weakest and most impoverished sections of our society, often on complex questions of law such as are raised by immigration law.
The Government’s treatment of my Amendment 1 is, I regret, consistent with this inflexibility and narrow perspective. I am sorry to say that the product of the Minister’s hard work and the process followed by the Government on the Bill do not reflect well on this Government’s reputation. They have damaged access to justice, a fundamental constitutional principle, as this amendment sought to recognise. The Minister has repeatedly emphasised in this House that the Government have accepted amendments during the passage of the Bill, but those amendments have mainly been on matters that should never have been excluded from the scope of legal aid in the first place.
I pay tribute to the noble Lords, Lord Bach and Lord Beecham, for their tireless and eloquent work in exposing the defects in Part 1. I thank them, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and the noble Lords, Lord Faulks and Lord Hart of Chilton, for adding their names to the amendment. I thank all other noble Lords who supported the amendment during the passage of the Bill.
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.
Lord McNally
We have heard that speech several times over the past few months. I repeat that the big betrayal of the poorest in our society would be to lose control of our economy. Sometimes noble Lords opposite take the biscuit in the way they put their arguments. The noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Clinton-Davis, do not have a monopoly of passion in this area. The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, has used his argument before. We have consciously changed the direction of the 1949 and subsequent Bills that were open-ended in their commitment and now have one that is specific in its commitment. That is at the heart of our resistance to the Pannick amendment. It is to mislead the House to argue that the Government have not made clear from the start the purpose of the Bill and of the Lord Chancellor. I tremble to take on a former Lord Chief Justice or a most distinguished QC, but Part 2 states:
“The Lord Chancellor may make such arrangements as the Lord Chancellor considers appropriate for the purpose of carrying out the Lord Chancellor’s function under this Part”.
It is all laid out there in Part 2. To argue that it is not will mean that we will go round in circles.
I have never used the financial privilege argument. As is well known and as we have heard from some very experienced parliamentarians, if an amendment infringes privilege, that is the only reason that will be given. If noble Lords want a major reconstruction of our constitution going back 300 years, that is all very well; but, as I said, the financial privilege of the House of Commons is not something to be lightly dealt with. Our opposition to the Pannick amendment from the beginning was that it was flawed, providing as it does a duty that is unclear in both application and effect, as well as displacing a duty that is precise, unambiguous and inherently tied to the Bill and the legally aided services available under its auspices.
I therefore ask the House to support the House of Commons in rejecting the amendment—I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is not going to press it. This is really the time to ask the House to agree with the House of Commons.
Lord McNally
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 2B and 196B to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 196C.
196C Because it is appropriate for provision about evidence of abuse for the purposes of an application for civil legal services described in paragraph 10 or 11 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to be made by regulations.
Lord McNally
My Lords, we now move to Motion B, which contains amendments in relation to domestic violence. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, told this House on Monday that we had a choice to make. Let me reassure this House that the Government have made a clear choice in favour of victims. The Lord Chancellor made this very clear last week when he stated:
“It was never in doubt that there would be legal aid for the protection of victims of domestic violence. Domestic violence is an issue that this Government, like any Government, including the previous one, take extremely seriously”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/4/12; col. 219.]
The debate on the Bill that we have had over the past few months has not always reflected the extent of the Government’s clear commitment to victims, so I will give some examples.
The Home Office will provide more than £28 million of stable funding until 2015 for specialist local domestic and sexual violence support services, and will provide £900,000 to support national domestic violence helplines and the stalking helpline. The Ministry of Justice will contribute towards the funding of independent advisers attached to the specialist domestic violence courts a total of more than £9 million up to the end of 2012-13. We will also allocate nearly £3 million a year for the next three years to 65 rape crisis centres and are working with the voluntary sector to develop the first phase of new rape support centres where there are gaps in provision. Domestic violence protection orders are being piloted in three police force areas. We have also announced a one-year pilot that will take place from this summer to test out a domestic violence disclosure scheme known as Clare’s law.
We have always been clear that where there is a need for a protective order to prevent victims coming to further harm, legal aid will be available regardless of means. Separately, legal aid will be available for victims of domestic violence for the secondary issue of private family law proceedings—we have always made clear that this should be the case. The issue in hand is how best to apply this principle.
I will remind the House how far the Government have moved. The evidence list has been very significantly lengthened to include protective injunctions, criminal conviction or ongoing proceedings, undertakings, police cautions, evidence of admission to a refuge, evidence from social services and GPs, referral to a multi-agency risk assessment conference and a finding of fact by the courts. We have doubled the time limit on evidence to two years, other than for convictions, where the only limit will be if the conviction is spent. This is a wide-ranging evidence set, which we are confident will meet the needs of victims in these cases.
I remind the House that our package of proposals contains two very important safeguards that will provide genuine victims with a route into legal aid even if they do not have the headline forms of evidence, the need for which may not have been fully appreciated. One is a finding of fact by the court. This is not part of the UK Border Agency list, which is often cited when assessing proposals, but it is extremely important because it means that where someone does not have the evidence we have stipulated but the courts determine that domestic violence is a relevant factor, perhaps on the basis of evidence from friends or family or a domestic violence support organisation, legal aid will be triggered. As such, even in older instances of domestic violence that go beyond the two-year limit, funding will still be available where a court has determined that it is still pertinent to the case. Of course, there remains the more generic safeguard of the exceptional funding scheme.
I submit that this package represents significant movement by the Government. I remind the House that we have now accepted the ACPO definition of domestic violence in full. We have listened and we have learnt from what noble Lords, Members of the House of Commons, and others said about our proposals. We absolutely agree that victims of domestic violence should receive legal aid. However, other than in protection cases, there needs to be evidence, and this should be covered in regulations because of the level of detail that will be required. This package is now worthy of support. The House of Commons gave its support to this, and now should we. I beg to move.
Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I hope that my noble friend, in responding to this, can help the House as to how extensive regulations can be to cover the concerns that have been expressed. I have spoken on many occasions over the years about domestic violence, and my response to a lot of what has been said, particularly comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, whom I respect enormously, is to think that we should be doing more with the services that we give to, mostly, women who find themselves in this situation. However, that is about services—refuges and other sorts of help—and it does not go to the evidence, so I hope that my noble friend can help expand on the answer that we have been given by the Commons: that regulations should deal with these matters.
Lord McNally
My Lords, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, is a powerful advocate. Throughout, she has presented a case against the Government which I am sure has swayed a number of your Lordships. That is why I sometimes get a little bit exasperated. For example, the right reverend Prelate says that the wool was pulled over his eyes, but I assure him that I made every effort to make clear where we are going, how we are going there and why we are going there on this Bill. Rather like the outgoing Labour Government in their manifesto, we sought to cut legal aid. The noble and learned Baroness read out a load of statistics that suggested that this Bill might achieve that purpose. I point out that part of our approach from the very start was to try to move away from litigation to arbitration, mediation and the alternative settlement of disputes, and we will do so in the various parts of the legal system that were covered by legal aid.
I worry sometimes when I listen to the language that is used. I heard what the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, said, and I read in a Sunday newspaper that women who could not get into refuges would be denied legal aid—as if that was it, and they were like Oliver Twist being turned away from the workhouse door. The noble Baroness knows that that is not true.
Baroness O'Loan
My Lords, with great respect, I did not say that women who could not get into a refuge would necessarily be excluded, but it is a fact that that is one of the forms of evidence. If you do not have either that form of evidence or the other forms of evidence that are required, you will not get in.
Lord McNally
But isolating one aspect and saying that if a woman goes to a refuge and cannot get in she will not get legal aid ignores the fact that I have put before the House—the whole list of options that people can turn to. I do not think that it serves the case of women subject to domestic violence to somehow suggest that the passing of this Bill will cut them off from legal aid. The fact is that we will be spending something like £120 million a year in legal aid in this area of law. As I pointed out in my opening remarks, one thing that I am most proud of about this Government is that we have put funding into domestic violence issues in a very detailed way—in a way to which the noble Lord, Lord Blair, referred.
We are talking about a very specific area of assistance in a very specific area of law, with victims seeking legal aid for private family matters. With her skills, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, has turned this into a debate again and again on who is in favour of helping domestic violence victims, and who is against. I think that is a clever way of putting it to the House, but it is not a fair way. We have tried and listened and moved on all these areas. Long ago, the request from the Opposition was for the ACPO definition; when the ACPO definition was conceded, it was the UK Border Agency that became the mark. The fact that we have done ACPO-plus does not seem to matter. The fact that we have brought in funding for specific aid in this area does not matter. We will always find there is another bar to clear, so that as noble Lords come in asking, “What’s this about?”, it can be said to them, “It’s about voting for legal aid for those affected by domestic violence”. But legal aid is there for those affected by domestic violence. The criteria by which they qualify have been widened. We have listened to this House and acted on its advice.
On the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, about family legal aid in children and kinship, where private family law proceedings are being taken as an alternative to public law proceedings—for example, where it is more sensible for grandparents to care for a child rather than the parents—legal aid will be available. If there is evidence of child abuse, it will also be there. I will look at the further points the noble Earl made, and if I may I will write to him, but we believe that exceptional funding will also kick in in this area.
The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, is a powerful and sometimes an emotive advocate but it is sometimes worth cutting through the emotion, and I ask the House to do that—to cut through the threat that this will cause death—and look at the facts. The fact is that this Government have listened and extended the criteria for this form of legal aid beyond what the House first asked for. This Government have put real money into real, pioneering services in terms of this terrible scourge of domestic violence. The Commons has considered this, and was right to return it to your Lordships. I believe this is the moment to ask your Lordships to accept the view of the Commons. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, perhaps I might say to the Minister straight away that I hope it has been clear from everything I have said that I have always believed, and still believe, that all sides of this House—and, I hope, of the other place—are of one mind in the approach that they take towards helping domestic violence victims. Nothing I have said from this Dispatch Box has undermined that. What I have been clear about is that this Government have been wrong not to widen the gateway. With respect, we have consistently argued about the time limit and the evidential criteria, right the way through, and we have not changed.
I also say gently to the Minister that in looking at reducing litigation, the one happy thing about domestic proceedings—both in private family law and in relation to domestic violence cases specifically—is that family lawyers worth their salt always appreciate that if a family has got to the stage of having to litigate, they are dealing with damage limitation and not winning or losing. That is why only about 5 per cent of the cases ever go right the way through into contested matters, so in this area of law we are not looking at cases running away and people litigating when it is unnecessary. The Government are continuing the approach that the previous Government took in advocating mediation whenever it is proper.
However, we have a difference of view. I thank the noble Lord very much for his compliments about my advocacy, but I have to tell him that this is not about advocacy. This is about truth and fact, and if I do nothing else I will always stand side by side with the victims of abuse. I believe that is where the Government should be too.
Lord McNally
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 31 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 31C.
“Sections 43 and 45 and diffuse mesothelioma proceedings
(1) Sections 43 and 45 may not be brought into force in relation to proceedings relating to a claim for damages in respect of diffuse mesothelioma until the Lord Chancellor has—
(a) carried out a review of the likely effect of those sections in relation to such proceedings, and
(b) published a report of the conclusions of the review.
(2) In this section “diffuse mesothelioma” has the same meaning as in the Pneumoconiosis etc (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979.”
Lord McNally
My Lords, I would like to start by paying a sincere tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for his vital role in pursuing his cause conscientiously and relentlessly. I know how conscientious and relentless he can be when he gets hold of a campaign, this time in the cause of mesothelioma victims and their families. I know others have followed his lead, but, as he pointed out, when this Bill first came before the House, there was no mention of this cause and he has, quite literally, put it on the front pages. He can take great personal credit for helping us achieve the position we have reached today and on which I hope all sides can agree.
In the past few days, we have had the opportunity to debate at some length issues in relation to the plight of sufferers of this terrible disease. I and ministerial colleagues have also held a number of meetings with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others, including my noble friend Lord Freud, which have been extremely productive. I am grateful for the general recognition of the value of what the Government now propose in respect of a pause in commencement of the reforms in Part 2 in relation to mesothelioma.
Let me be clear about what we are doing. The Jackson reforms in Part 2 of the Bill are due to come into effect in April next year. They will continue to come into effect then, except in so far as they affect mesothelioma claims. Mesothelioma claims will therefore continue for the time being with the current arrangements of recoverable success fees and insurance premiums. As I informed your Lordships on Monday, we are working hard to agree an acceptable scheme to help victims who are unable to trace their employer’s insurers; as I said, I hope that we will be in a position to make an announcement before the Summer Recess. The arrangements for any new process will obviously take some time to bring forward. We will review the position in due course and publish the findings of that review. Only after we have done so, and we are satisfied that the time is right to implement the provisions in Part 2 in relation to mesothelioma, will we do so.
Amid general approval in the House of Commons yesterday, one issue was raised which related to the terms of the review that we have committed to undertake. I hope that your Lordships will understand that I cannot say much more at this early stage about the precise terms of that review, but it will be a proper and appropriate one. My right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor will publish the results, and we will not commence our reforms as far as mesothelioma is concerned until we are satisfied that a structure exists which enables swift and fair compensation for victims and their families.
The strength of feeling in this debate has been palpable and genuine. I am glad that we have been able to meet some of the concerns expressed by tabling the amendment that we have. I beg to move.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, I first thank the Minister for the kind remarks at the outset of his speech. I suspected that he might have meant that I have been a bit of a pain in the neck on this subject.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
He put it rather more elegantly. The Minister having had a tough time during proceedings on Part 1 this afternoon, he will be glad to know that I can be very warm in what I am about to say to him, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and my good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for the encouragement and support that they have given me as I have taken this amendment forward at every stage of the Bill.
It puts me in mind of a passage from EM Forster’s book, Two Cheers for Democracy. He said that only “love, the beloved republic” deserved three cheers, but that sometimes the cantankerous, difficult, awkward Member of Parliament who sees some minor injustice and is able to get it right is the justification for our system. I suspect that that is something that unites us on all sides of this House and, indeed, in another place as well. On that note, the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, is about to intervene.
Lord Bach
My Lords, I begin by congratulating the Minister on being a member of the luckiest Government there can ever have been in the history of Parliament. The odds against drawing three votes on crucial amendments, two on Report and one at this stage of proceedings so that the Government win the vote, as it were, must be immense. He has managed to do that and I congratulate him on it. I just hope for his sake and the Government’s that their luck does not begin to run out.
On this issue, the Minister also deserves some congratulation if, as I suspect he did, he played a part in persuading his fellow Ministers, and the right honourable and learned gentleman the Lord Chancellor, that there had to be some give or concession. If he played a part in that, I congratulate him and think that he has served the House well in that regard.
I, too, want to compliment those outside the House. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, stressed, the co-ordinator of the Greater Manchester Asbestos Victims Support Group, Mr Tony Whitston; Mr John Flanagan, the Merseyside equivalent of that organisation; and many others outside have worked incredibly hard to make sure that people who do not always have a very loud voice have had a say in Parliament—or rather in this House of Parliament. It is absolutely clear that when these matters were raised in the House of Commons when this Bill was first taken through, they were completely dismissed. It was only when the Bill came to the House of Lords that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, with his usual courage and zeal, managed to raise these matters, with the help of the noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Wigley. Eventually, at the very last minute, he got a concession from the Government.
I pay tribute, too, not only to those I have mentioned but to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the Conservatives who abstained in the vote on Monday night. Had they not played the part that they did, the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, would not have gone through. I remind the House that it won by nine votes. If it had been lost there would have been no review or concession; there would have just been rejoicing in the Ministry of Justice. It was as close as that. It is because of the bravery of those who were prepared to abstain or vote against their own Government that we are here today congratulating the Government, quite rightly I am sure, on their concession.
Seriously, it is a good concession and we know, or trust, that the review will be genuine. We look forward to playing our part in making sure that the sufferers of this terrible disease get a fair deal when the Government have had their review. Not only the noble Lord, Lord Alton, but all of us will be watching very closely to see how developments move forward in this very vexed field. As for this House, for once it can congratulate itself.
Lord McNally
I think that if the noble Lord were to ask Señor Torres, he would find that a draw is also sometimes a victory. He is the Chelsea centre forward. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, is a Leicester City supporter and does not mix in that kind of high-class company.
I was very grateful for the comments at the beginning of the speech of the noble Lord. I notice that he quickly tailed off towards the end to start initiating rebellions, and so on. I have continually made the point that I am well aware that any Minister is a bird of passage, but I have always been a lover of this place—I mean the whole Parliament building. I sometimes say when I show visitors around that I never come into this place without a sense of awe for what it stands for and what it does. Anyone who stands at this Dispatch Box takes the buffeting and advice and has to work through very much with the help of the awkward squad. The only problem with the awkward squad is that when one campaign is over it immediately starts on another. I noticed from the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Wigley and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, himself that further campaigns will be on the way.
Leveson Inquiry
Lord McNally Excerpts(14 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
Perhaps we may hear from the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, first.
House of Lords: Reform
Lord McNally Excerpts(14 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kakkar
My Lords, does characterising House of Lords reform in exchange for House of Commons boundary changes as coalition civility risk an erosion of confidence in democracy, as the people of our country are coming to terms with the spectacle of one party in coalition attempting better to control the House of Commons in exchange for the other party trying to achieve control of a future elected second Chamber, all being pushed through using the Parliament Act in what would amount to a monumental gerrymander?
Lord McNally
That is a rather harsh judgment on the Government. It is right that the case for boundary reform and House of Lords reform are judged on their merits. The Government put them through this House for scrutiny separately. They are not interlinked but are part of the Government’s and the coalition’s overall commitment to constitutional reform.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, the noble Lord has said that the Government will carefully consider the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee. He may have observed that the committee did not achieve exact unanimity in its conclusions. But the one issue on which all members seem to be agreed is that Clause 2 of the Bill will not do. Will the noble Lord say what the Government’s response will be? Will he also respond to the evidence given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in relation to the Parliament Act 1911, in which they say it is very clear that that Act was introduced to govern the relationship between an elected and an unelected House?
Lord McNally
My Lords, less than 24 hours after the publication of a carefully considered report, it would be impudent of me to start pronouncing on some of these issues. As to the opinions of the noble Lord and the noble and learned Lord on the 1911 Act, the strength and the powers of the 1911 and 1949 Parliament Acts were recently tested in court.
Lord Tyler
My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House whether the Government have made an assessment of the risks of not proceeding with legislation for the reform of this House? For example, does he appreciate that if each incoming Prime Minister wished to rebalance the party representation in this House, we would soon exceed 1,000 Members? Does he also recognise that the public at the moment are more in favour of abolition of your Lordships’ House—by a very considerable margin—than retaining the all-appointed element?
Lord McNally
My Lords, the best thing this House can do for its own reputation is now to deal with the issue of Lords reform, aided and assisted by the report we have just received and by our normal process of debate. I do not think the country will be satisfied with a House of Lords that seems self-confidently smug about its own rectitude—and that groan of noble Lords will, I suspect, only confirm the country’s opinion of that. Let us proceed with dignity and responsibility. If we allow the status quo to develop—which I do not want to see because I love this House of Lords—the House will drift into public contempt because of its lack of reform.
Lord Soley
My Lords, does the Minister agree that if we move to a situation where a part—perhaps 80 per cent—of this House is elected, we will be moving down the road of a written constitution? Is that his intention?
Lord McNally
I have no intention of going down the road to a written constitution. This country has probably for 300 years been extremely successful in adjusting its constitution to the age in which it is there to serve the people. Now, in the 21st century, the time has come for the House of Lords to make a similar adjustment.
Lord Cormack
Has my noble friend had a chance to read the alternative, unanimous report produced by 12 members of a committee of 25? Will he ensure that all Ministers see it, read it, mark it, learn and inwardly digest it, because it offers a sensible way forward?
Lord McNally
I have not yet read that report. Yesterday I was fully engaged in the fruitful debates on the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. However, I can assure my noble friend that I have a box by the side of my desk marked “weekend reading” which has in it that report and the main report. I look forward to reading both over the weekend. I cannot compel other Ministers as to their reading but I hope that all Members will take this issue forward with a sense of responsibility and a sense of the dignity of this House.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, in response to the supplementary question from the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, the Minister said that the AV and boundary legislation requiring a second vote by the House of Commons and passage of the House of Lords Reform Bill were two entirely separate and distinct issues. Does this mean that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, publicly disowns the comments freely made by many of his Lib Dem colleagues that the two of them go together and that without the one there would not be the other?
Lord McNally
No. Every time I open my newspaper, there is some new, exciting story about some Minister or somebody in the other place taking a position one way or the other. What I said was that those two Bills had been presented to Parliament quite properly, and debated separately. They stand on their merits. However, over the next few months, we will have to get used to all kinds of scaremongering, rumours and the rest. That is why it is important that we all keep calm—and noble Lords will know how good I am at keeping calm.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
Lord McNally Excerpts(14 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McNally
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1A.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, today the House has the opportunity to consider the Commons reasons in response to the amendments passed by this House during its consideration of this Bill. We have engaged in complex, informed and sometimes passionate debate on a wide range of issues that are of fundamental importance. In so doing, this House has exercised its rights and responsibility as a revising and advisory Chamber. I would hope that, in turn, the Government and the House of Commons have responded attentively and constructively to the opinions of this House. In addition, my ministerial colleagues and I have had numerous meetings with individual Peers and interest groups. We have listened, and we have amended.
Before I deal with the details of Motion A, I would like to remind the House of some of the steps that we have taken to respond to its concerns and to make this a better Bill. From the start, our guiding principles have been to decide what kinds of case need public funding and what alternative routes are suitable for others. It is not all about cost savings, although they are clearly a vital factor; it is also about what kind of justice system we want for the future.
Successive Governments have concluded that the provision of legal aid in the current structure is too broadly drawn, and it encourages court-based litigation and the engagement of professional lawyers as a first, rather than a last, resort. With that in mind, the test that the Government have applied to amendments in both Houses is whether they strengthen or weaken the principles behind the Bill—what I have described many times as its central architecture. We have accepted amendments where they truly improve the Bill. The House has done much valuable work in correcting omissions and ensuring that the most serious cases continue to receive public funding, and I am grateful for the commitment that this House has put into the Bill.
As I have said, the Government have listened and have moved in important areas. We have accepted the arguments put forward by, among others, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, and adopted the definition of domestic violence used by ACPO. We have widened the forms of evidence of domestic violence that will be acceptable to secure legal aid funding in private law cases, and doubled the time limit within which such evidence may be presented. We have removed the power to means-test suspects in police custody, and retained legal aid funding for cases involving human trafficking and domestic child abduction.
We have agreed that legal advice and assistance should be made available to welfare benefit appellants whose cases are heard by the Upper Tribunal, the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court on points of law. We have committed to doing further work to see how we might provide funding for those appearing before the First-tier Tribunal whose case also turns on a point of law, and have retained legal aid for babies who are victims of clinical negligence. We have introduced further measures to put beyond doubt the extent of independence from Ministers enjoyed by the director of legal aid casework.
Many concerns have been listened to and many amendments made, but we have not been able to satisfy every demand. We have now reached the stage where the Government ask both Houses to disagree with amendments that, in our opinion, would undermine the rationale and principles underlying the Bill. The Government cannot accept amendments that use scarce resources on lower priority needs where other funding is available, where conflicts could be resolved by other means or where people can reasonably make provisions themselves. The Government have demonstrated their commitment to the not-for-profit sector, which does such invaluable work, by providing £20 million a year for the next two years, in addition to the £16.8 million we have allocated for this year. However, in a time of austerity, we must make responsible choices about spending public money. We must be rigorous in our decisions about allocating resources. We cannot rely on unrealistic thinking about alternative methods for achieving savings.
We have rehearsed the arguments at great length and in great depth. We are about to reflect on the House of Commons’ opinion of your Lordships’ amendments, and I will be asking the House to agree with the reasons of the House of Commons. I hope that this House will give good weight to that opinion. As I have said, we have listened and responded to the opinions of this House, which now has a responsibility to listen to the clear and settled view of the House of Commons.
Lord Higgins
If the noble Lord will allow me, he is saying that great attention has been given to the various issues that have been raised, for example by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. Is it not the case, however, that on some of these issues there was initially no debate in the Commons at all because it was programmed, and that when the matter returned from this House to the other place the Lords amendments were also programmed—that is, guillotined—and the debate was not brought to a conclusion in the usual way?
Lord McNally
My Lords, the debates came to a conclusion in the usual way. I must say that for a parliamentarian of the noble Lord’s experience, who must have carried through quite a few Bills himself on timetables and the rest—
Lord Higgins
When I was in the other place, we had a very sensible system. If the matter was being filibustered or was urgent, we had a half-day debate followed by a vote on whether there should be a guillotine. In total contrast, when I was carrying through legislation we certainly did not have the system of programming from which we are now suffering.
Lord McNally
I will leave it to the Opposition to explain fully the introductions that they made to timetabling,
Lord Cormack
I am most grateful for that flattering giving way. I point out to my noble friend that it was indeed a Labour Government who brought in automatic timetabling, but before the coalition Government were elected Sir George Young and others gave an assurance that any Conservative Government—or presumably any Government led by Conservatives—would not have timetabling. We still have it.
Lord McNally
This is an interesting side issue. Anybody who has read the debate in the other place will see that the amendments passed in this House were thoroughly discussed.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, before leaving that point, it was the Minister who raised the question of procedure and who said that these matters had been thoroughly dealt with in another place. The fact remains that the issue of mesothelioma, which was quite properly raised by the Minister’s noble friend Lord Higgins, was not debated on Second Reading, in Committee or on Report at all in another place. Had it not been for the amendment that your Lordships passed, it would not have been debated at all in another place. To give it only one hour at that stage and for it again to be timetabled is indicative of the need to reform not this place but, in light of what we heard earlier, the other place.
Lord McNally
The four interventions, interestingly, have all come from ex-Members of the other place.
Motion A and Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, described by him on Report as a purpose clause, reflect that which features in the Access to Justice Act 1999. Amendment 1 would place a duty on the Lord Chancellor to secure within the resources made available and in accordance with Part 1 of the Bill that individuals have access to legal services that effectively meet their needs.
Despite what was said in the House of Commons by the shadow Justice Secretary, the basis for the Government’s opposition to this amendment has been clearly explained in this House. While I am grateful to the noble Lord for this new amendment, I am afraid that it has not addressed the issues with the original Amendment 1, and the Government oppose the new amendment on the same substantive grounds as we opposed the original construction. In addition to those issues which I will turn to in a moment, Amendment 1B would remove the duty in Clause 1(1) for the Lord Chancellor to secure that legal aid is made available in accordance with Part 1 of the Bill.
On Report I spoke at length about the technical issues with incorporating provisions of the Access to Justice Bill, where only excluded services are specified, to this Bill, where included services are specified. The Bill before us today, if enacted, will represent Parliament’s clear intention as to which services are to be capable of being made available to people by way of publicly funded legal aid services, and therefore to meet their needs in that regard. Any benefit of such a provision akin to that in Section 4(1) of the Access to Justice Act is simply not present in the context of this Bill. Further, both amendments conflate access to justice as a constitutional principle with the provision of legal aid. Access to justice means access to the courts, and does not mean access to a publicly funded lawyer whenever one is sought.
A further duty to provide unspecified legal services must also, in part, serve to muddy the waters and create uncertainty in respect of the services which might be funded under the Bill. It was said by the noble Lord when moving his original amendment that, as a result of the qualifications in it, the amendment,
“does not impose an independent duty which trumps the specific contents of Part 1”,
and that it,
“does not require any further expenditure by the Government”.—[Official Report, 5/3/12; col. 1559.]
I am afraid that we cannot agree with this analysis. By virtue of introducing a new duty on the Lord Chancellor, a potential cause of action must be created where such a duty is said to have not been met. Therefore, by definition, the Lord Chancellor must be at risk of being compelled to provide additional, and as yet unidentified, services to meet that duty or the duty would be a redundant one. This risk is heightened by the fact that both amendments refer to legal services, which are far broader than the legally aided services that the Bill is intended to provide. I acknowledge that this is the first time for the House to hear that observation. Such a scenario would entirely frustrate the Government’s intention of bringing certainty and clarity to the range of services that can be funded under legal aid. The amendment also has the potential to create a great deal of unhelpful and unnecessary litigation as the boundaries of that duty are tested in the administrative court.
The Bill’s purpose is clear, as are the Lord Chancellor’s duties under it. Therefore, I ask that this House does not insist on its Amendment 1. The Commons has decided against it and in my opinion the amendment in lieu from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, will elicit the same response. Therefore, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his Motion.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I will explain briefly why I do not agree with the amendment. I quite agree with those who have said that it is inconceivable that it will give rise to effective judicial review because it imposes no legally enforceable duty and it is therefore inconceivable that anyone could threaten the Government by way of judicial review. However, my problem with it is that it imposes no legal duty and then does nothing else.
The amendment begins:
“The Lord Chancellor shall exercise his powers under this Part with a view to securing that individuals have access to legal services—”.
Pausing there, it is of course already the Lord Chancellor’s duty to do so under the Human Rights Act, as I pointed out in a brief question to my noble friend and colleague Lord Pannick. Under that Act, the Lord Chancellor has to act in a way that is compatible with Article 6 of the convention, which secures a right of access to justice. Existing law and Section 3 of the Human Rights Act require that all legislation, including this Bill, must be read and given effect in so far as it is possible to do so compatibly with the Human Rights Act. That first part of the amendment is already fully taken care of by that Act. In so far as the rule of law is in play, it is also taken care of by the Constitutional Reform Act.
The amendment goes on:
“that effectively meet their needs, subject to the resources which the Lord Chancellor decides, in his discretion, to make available, and subject to the provisions of this Part”.
That completely swallows up any suggestion that this is some new, important principle. I am afraid it is written in water and I do not approve of putting anything in the statute that is simply an unenforceable duty written in water.
Lord McNally
My Lords, we have had a very interesting debate on this. I hope when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, has time to read his own remarks, which contain some fairly harsh strictures about the Lord Chancellor, he will reflect that the question of financial privilege is not a matter for the Government or for the Lord Chancellor. As the Clerk of the Commons explains, an amendment that infringes privilege would be the only reason that would be given. That is because giving other reasons suggests either that the Commons has not noticed the financial implications or that it somehow attaches no importance to its financial primacy.
We had a debate very like this one when we discussed the Welfare Reform Bill. I do not have figures at my fingertips—perhaps we can give the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, the task of looking at the record of respective Administrations in using financial privilege—but when we last discussed the matter it was made clear that this is a matter for the Commons. As the Companion states:
“Criticism of proceedings in the House of Commons or of Commons Speaker’s rulings is out of order, but criticism may be made of the institutional structure of Parliament or the role and function of the House of Commons”.
I think noble Lords have exercised that procedure today.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, the Minister said that financial privilege is not a matter for the Government but for the House of Commons. We understand—we are very familiar with the convention—that when the House of Commons rejects a Lords’ amendment it may state reasons of financial privilege and give no further explanation. However, that does not explain or justify why the Minister, Mr Djanogly, in opening the debate on the Lords’ Amendment 1 last Tuesday, began his speech by drawing to the attention of the other place that:
“Lords amendments 1 and 24 impinge on the financial privilege of this House. I ask the House to disagree to them and will ask the Reasons Committee to ascribe financial privilege as the reason for doing so”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/4/12; col. 200.]
That was his argument, essentially because he could not think of a better one. It is very unusual for the Government to rely blatantly on financial privilege during the debate.
We have to contend with a new situation. We are not criticising the constitutional arrangements, the conventions or the manner of the relationship between the two Houses, but we are saying that the Government should not hide behind this formula, this antique convention, but should deal fairly and squarely with the merits of the argument.
Lord McNally
The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, has wandered—I shall come to some of his comments later—into interesting fields. The financial privilege of the House of Commons may be antique, but as an old House of Commons man I am rather attached to financial privilege. Kings have lost their heads and revolutions have taken place to protect financial privilege and I do not airily sweep it away as an antique remnant of a bygone age. It is an important part of the relationship between the two Houses.
Lord Howarth of Newport
Can the Minister explain how financial privilege applies in this case? Of course the Bill concerns public expenditure, and in that sense financial privilege applies, as it does to virtually every item of legislation, but how do the Government contrive to justify making it the basis of their argument to Members in another place? They asked them to reject the amendment on the grounds of financial privilege as if it were at risk of incurring unaffordable increases in public expenditure, which is simply not the case.
Lord McNally
My Lords, we can go round in circles. The qualification of financial privilege is a matter for the Clerks of the House of Commons. Former Mr Speaker Martin, when we last discussed this matter at the time of the Welfare Reform Bill, made very clear where the line is drawn.
I might not have had as long and continuous a place in the House of Commons as my noble friend but I have been around this place for the past 40 years, and one of the reasons why I teased some former Members of Parliament is that for the past 40 years, under various Administrations, I have heard these debates about the paucity of the way in which the House of Commons discussed a matter and the brutality with which the guillotine was used. That may well be one day—perhaps soon—the reason for a proper parliamentary reform Bill that takes in both Lords and Commons, but it is not an excuse for assuming that somehow, on this particular Bill and this particular issue, the Government are using chicanery or arguments that are not well understood in the relationship between these two Houses.
I also point out to the House that the one thing I have not done, and certainly did not do in my remarks at Report stage, Third Reading or today, is to hide behind financial privilege. I do not think that the Pannick amendment stands up to scrutiny and I was grateful for the contribution of a number of my noble friends in that. Part 1 of the Bill, the Lord Chancellor’s functions, states:
“The Lord Chancellor must secure that legal aid is made available in accordance with this Part”.
This seems to me a very clear statement of intent. The difference between the Act being replaced and this Bill is that the Act being replaced is an open-ended Act. It does not restrict where legal aid would apply. The whole point of the Bill—what makes it different from the previous Act—is that it limits, specifies and draws attention to where legal aid will apply and what will be out of scope. That is the danger of the Pannick amendment—that in its general good will to all men approach, it leaves the idea that things may be added. Indeed, both the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and to a certain extent the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said that when better days are here this whole circumstance may change. It may change, but not under a vaguely-worded Part 1 of the Bill. We have, in the course of the Bill, accepted an amendment from my noble friends that removed the ratchet and left a regulator in terms of what can be put back into the Bill, but that will be a matter for reflection and discussion in the future.
What worries me is that all the learned Lords who have spoken may be absolutely right, and if they are right we will all live happily ever after. But if they are wrong it is a future Lord Chancellor and the taxpayer who will have to pick up the consequences. Therefore, I think at this stage in the passage of the Bill, the Lord Chancellor of the day and the Government of the day see dangers in what, if it is anything, is either meaningless or has a meaning that has implications for the future; and if it does have implications for the future, in a Bill structured in this way, I think we are right to resist it.
I hope noble Lords will agree that the Lord Chancellor of the day and the Government of the day could and should have a sense of responsibility and care for the central architecture of the Bill, which we keep on talking about. The Bill is not open-ended but specific and the Pannick amendment is not something that should show on the face of the Bill. I hope that noble Lords reflecting on this, and the fact that it has been well considered and well debated and that I have not tried to hide behind financial privilege in addressing your Lordships either previously or today, will support the Government and the Commons in their amendment.
Lord Pannick
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this full debate. I am grateful to the Minister for his consideration of the amendment and for meeting me last week to discuss the issues raised. The other place rejected the amendment and the Minister invites the House to reject the amendment because of a concern or belief that it would impose further obligations on the Government. In this House, a number of noble Lords objected to the amendment on the precisely opposite ground that it would impose no obligations on the Government. Perhaps I may briefly reply to both those concerns.
First, on the concern that the amendment would impose further obligations and would somehow undermine the architecture of the Bill, to use the Minister’s words, with great respect I have enormous difficulty in understanding those concerns. I could understand the concern if the amendment had any adverse financial consequences, but it plainly does not. It says,
“subject to the resources which the Lord Chancellor decides, in his discretion, to make available, and subject to the provisions of this Part”.
I am very grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Faulks, Lord Carlile of Berriew and Lord Phillips of Sudbury, for their views, which I share, that it is impossible to understand how in the real world this amendment could result in litigation that had any prospect of getting off the ground—certainly any more so than the original Clause 1. So the only possible objection to the amendment is that it does not impose further obligations on the Government and that it does nothing. That was the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, and was a concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. I say to those noble Lords and to the House, with great respect, that that is to misunderstand the purpose of an objects clause. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the Bill recognises that we are cutting back on legal aid, most regrettably, because of current financial stringency, but that the principle of securing that individuals have access to legal services that effectively meet their needs, which has been part of our law since 1949, has not been forgotten. It is still the purpose of legal aid and, when the economy improves, that is the principle by which Ministers and Parliament should assess—
Lord McNally
I hate to stop the noble Lord’s flow, but he has just put his finger on it. This is not an interim, pro tem measure, waiting for a return to the 1949 Act. Although, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, financial considerations of course have played a part, the main intention of the Bill is to restructure, reshape and re-point the direction of legal aid away from the open-ended nature of the 1949 Act and successive Acts and put it into a closed system. It is that closed system that the noble Lord’s amendment, with great skill aforethought, plans to undermine. That is why we are resisting it.
Lord Pannick
I entirely accept the Minister’s point that the Bill seeks to identify those subjects for which legal aid should be made available. But the Minister will recognise that, in the anxious debates that we have had through the progress of the Bill, we have considered a number of sensitive topics in respect of which the Minister’s argument has been that we would like to provide legal aid for this subject but, regrettably, we cannot do so because we do not have the money under the current financial stringency. The House has listened to that debate and accepted, with a heavy heart, that in relation to many of the subjects in respect of which legal aid has previously been made available it will regrettably no longer be made available. Having accepted that the Government must have their way for financial reasons on many of those very difficult areas, I believe that it is absolutely vital that we retain in this Bill a statement of the principle of why legal aid is made available so that when the economy improves—
Lord Pannick
I have given way to the noble Lord before. I anticipate that the House is anxious to move on. The House has heard the debate in relation to this matter. I say to the House that that part of the 27 minutes which the other place devoted—I am not giving way—
Lord Pannick
The House wants to move on. That part of the 27 minutes which the other place devoted to consideration of this amendment shows that the purpose and effect of this amendment were not understood. I think that we should ask the other place to think again on this important matter, and I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord McNally
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 2, 194 and 196 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 2A, 194A and 196A, do not insist on its Amendment 192 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 193A, 219A and 220A.
Lord McNally
My Lords, Motion B contains amendments in relation to domestic violence. As I have previously made clear, the Government take domestic violence extremely seriously. We fund a range of programmes to help deal with and prevent this crime, many of which—I am happy to acknowledge—were put in place by the previous Administration. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, has previously made clear, there is nothing between the Government and the Opposition in principle here.
This was reflected in our initial proposals. First, legal aid to obtain a protective injunction against domestic violence should remain exactly as it is at present, so that those who need legal aid to protect themselves can get it regardless of their means. Secondly, while we have removed most of private family law from the scope of legal aid in favour of funding mediation and less adversarial proceedings, an important exception should be made for victims of domestic violence. This was because such victims could be intimidated during court proceedings about, for example, child contact or maintenance issues. Again, it is fair to say that these principles were welcomed.
There has been considerable debate in both this House and the House of Commons over how to decide who qualifies as a victim of domestic violence for the purpose of legal aid for private law family proceedings. Therefore, there has been much scrutiny of the definition of domestic violence used in the Bill, the types of evidence that would prove that someone was a victim and the length of time for which these should be valid. The contributions across the House have been informed, sometimes passionate and extremely helpful. The Government have listened and moved on several key points.
As set out in government Amendments 193A, 219A and 220A, we have accepted the ACPO definition of domestic violence in full. The Bill now defines domestic violence as,
“any incident of threatening behaviour, violence or abuse (whether psychological, physical, sexual, financial or emotional) between individuals who are associated with each other”.
This has been universally welcomed. We have also undertaken to widen the list of evidence, which will be reflected in regulations, to include: an undertaking given to a court by the other party in lieu of a protective order or injunction against that party for the protection of the applicant, and where there is no equivalent undertaking given by the applicant; a police caution for a domestic violence offence by the other party against the applicant; appropriate evidence of admission to a domestic violence refuge; appropriate evidence from a social services department confirming provision of services to the victim in relation to alleged domestic violence; and appropriate evidence from GPs or other medical professionals.
These are in addition to those forms of evidence already accepted by the Government, which are: that a non-molestation order, occupation order, forced marriage protection order or other protective injunction against the other party for the protection of the applicant is either in place or has been made in the past 12 months; a criminal conviction for a domestic violence offence by the other party against the applicant; ongoing criminal proceedings for a domestic violence offence by the other party against the applicant; evidence from a multi-agency risk assessment conference of the applicant having been referred as being at risk of domestic violence from the other party and action recommended; and a finding of fact by the court of domestic violence by the other party against the applicant.
On time limits, we intend to double the previously announced time limit from 12 months to two years, save in respect of a conviction for a domestic violence offence, where the only limit is that the conviction should not be a spent one. We think that some sort of time limit will still be needed—we are in the business of reducing rather than encouraging litigation—but we think that two years will make sure that those who need help get it.
I know that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, continues to have concerns and has tabled amendments in lieu of her original amendments which ask for our list of evidence to be exactly the same as the list of evidence used by the UK Border Agency in assessing domestic violence immigration applications. I know from my conversations with her that she is worried about consistency and about genuine victims missing out. I have enormous respect for the noble and learned Baroness but I really do think that her fears are now misplaced, given how far we have moved.
On consistency with the border agency, we need to understand that the decisions being made are different, as is the context in which they are made. When the border agency takes a decision on whether domestic violence has occurred, it is a decision on the case itself. This would be analogous with a court looking at an application for a domestic violence protection order and a judge deciding whether domestic violence had occurred, not with a legal aid decision about a private family law case.
We are talking here about a secondary issue—in this case, legal aid—that arises indirectly from a person being a victim of domestic violence, not a decision that directly relates to someone’s protection, such as in an immigration context or an injunction application. What is needed for a grant of legal aid is a set of clear rules, not the kind of case-by-case nuance that is needed to decide whether someone requires immediate direct protection.
Other government departments have to grapple with similar issues when it comes to these secondary issues. They do not use the border agency list but take a judgment on what works in their particular context. One example is the rules for jobseeker’s allowance for victims of domestic violence, over which individual local authorities have discretion.
I should also point out that the noble and learned Baroness has never objected to a very important addition that we have made to the border agency list—namely, “a finding of fact” by a court that domestic violence is a relevant feature. This partly highlights the different context that we are dealing with; such a finding of fact is much less likely to arise in an immigration context, but it also provides a very important safeguard in these cases. By definition in this context, if you are seeking legal aid, it is because there is the prospect of family proceedings. If you cannot show any of the evidence of domestic violence that we have asked for but the court decides, perhaps on the basis of police call-outs or other types of testimony, that domestic violence is a feature in the case, then legal aid will be available. This is also relevant when thinking about the time limits. Where a case relates to older incidents of domestic violence but a court considers that the matter is still relevant and it makes a finding of fact, legal aid will be triggered.
When I spoke last week with the noble and learned Baroness, she suggested that we would be missing a large number of victims with our time limit because of how long victims take to come forward. She mentioned that the average time for a victim coming forward was five and a half years. However, it does not follow, as she suggested, that a two-year time limit for evidence cuts out nearly two-thirds of people as a result, because the crucial point is that the evidence will be generated when people come forward—that is, when they seek an injunction, turn to their GP or decide to go to a refuge. It is when the evidence arises, not when the abuse occurs, that indicates the start of the time limit.
I stress again how far the Government have moved on this issue. We now have a system which will genuinely and generally ensure that victims of abuse get legal aid in these private family cases. We have accepted the ACPO definition of domestic violence—indeed, we have gone beyond that. We have significantly expanded the range of acceptable evidence and doubled the time limit. There is one in-built safety mechanism in the form of “finding of fact” hearings, and of course there is a second safety mechanism in the form of exceptional funding, for the more unusual cases. So I think we have now got this right. I want to pay tribute to those across the House, not least to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland—I know her well and I know her deep concern on this issue.
For the sake of completeness, I should add that we cannot accept that the evidential requirements should be in the Bill. Legislation of course needs to be precisely drafted, and because of the level of detail required, the evidential requirements are much better left to regulations, subject to the affirmative procedure, rather than primary legislation.
Sometimes at this Dispatch Box one has to make the government case with a heavy heart. I have looked at this from where we started, where we have moved to, and what we now cover in this very important area. I am proud of what the Government have done in carrying on the broader work against this evil crime, but I am also proud of what we have now finished with in terms of a package to help in this particular case. I hope the House will give us its support. I beg to move.
Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)
Lord McNally
I have never doubted that. It is just that I keep getting nudged when I call someone learned and someone whispers in my ear that they are not.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
Noble Lords are learned if they are in the Supreme Court or have been a Law Officer. Others, regrettably, may be learned in fact but are not learned in name.
Lord McNally
That helps me a great deal. I shall never refer to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, as learned again.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I have stated as clearly as I can why the Government and the Commons have put forward their reasons. The emotional span of this debate is sometimes extended to question whether we are in favour of victims and their children. The answer is that yes, we are in favour of them. As I said in my opening remarks, this debate is about how and whether and within which ambit we provide legal aid in private law cases. It is difficult to go beyond that into individual cases, which have been cited in debate at every stage. In many of these cases, the suspicion is that they would qualify either by application for an injunction or by a finding of fact by the court. The latter is extremely important in the additional list that we have put forward to qualify people for legal aid.
As I said in my opening remarks, when addressing an issue such as this one, and within the constraints under which the Government are operating, lines have to be drawn. It is legitimate for the Opposition to argue that that line has been drawn in the wrong place or that a time limit has been put in the wrong place. In the end, however, Governments have to make decisions—and we have made decisions. As I said, I hope that the House will look at the decisions we have made and see that we have listened and acted in a way that puts us on the side of victims and their children and that, in practice, those who face the problem of domestic violence and who want to obtain legal aid for decisions in private family law cases will find that the concessions we have made and the rules and the guidelines we have laid down will give the women and children—I accept that there may be others, but mainly women and children—who are affected by this scourge access to legal aid. I therefore ask the House to support Motion B.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
I am disappointed that the Minister takes that view. As he will know from our previous debates, our assessment is that as a result of the changes that the Government are proposing, 54.4 per cent of victims currently obtaining legal aid and assistance for family proceedings will not be able to obtain such help and assistance in future. Although I absolutely accept that the Government intend, or wish, to be supportive, these provisions demonstrate the reverse—that they will not be supportive. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord McNally
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 3 and 4 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 4A and 4B.
Lord McNally
My Lords, we now turn to Motion C and to Amendments 3 and 4, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pannick. The noble Lord is not learned, is he?
Lord McNally
The noble Lord’s amendments concern the independence of the director of legal aid casework. I am confident that we all share the sentiment that the Lord Chancellor should have no involvement in a decision about legal aid funding in an individual case. However, I share the view of the House of Commons that this amendment has undesirable and unforeseen consequences and that it is possible to provide the assurance and protection required without adopting the amendment.
The primary concern with these amendments is that they would have the effect of preventing the director being appointed as a civil servant. It is our strong view that the director will enjoy full independence from the Lord Chancellor yet can be appointed as a civil servant. For the avoidance of doubt, we are abolishing the Legal Services Commission and creating a new executive agency to provide Ministers with greater policy control and improved accountability for legal aid. Giving full independence to the director would run entirely contrary to this intention.
Clause 4 already provides protection in subsection (4) with a statutory bar on the Lord Chancellor’s involvement in making funding decisions in individual cases. The Bill also imposes a duty on the Lord Chancellor to publish any guidance and directions issued to the director, thereby providing transparency. Noble Lords will recall from Report stage that we amended the Bill to offer greater transparency by requiring the director to produce an annual report for the preceding financial year on the exercise of their functions during that period. This report will be laid before Parliament and published.
Baroness Northover
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 24 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 24A.
Lord McNally
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 31 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 31A.
Lord McNally
My Lords, when we were opening this debate the noble Lord, Lord Alton, intervened to make the very valid point that it was only by him raising the issue of mesothelioma in debate in this House that this important issue has received the attention that it deserved. I pay tribute to him, having known him for a long time as an adept campaigner. Whatever happens, he can take great credit for the way that he has focused attention on this terrible disease. As with some of our other debates, however, this is not about whether you are in favour of or against mesothelioma victims. This is a debate about how our legal system is being reformed.
We are implementing fundamental reforms of conditional fee agreements, or CFAs, following the recommendations in Lord Justice Jackson’s review of civil litigation costs. The current regime allows for risk-free litigation for claimants and substantial additional costs for defendants. We want to restore a fair balance to the system, with meritorious cases being brought at proportionate cost. We are therefore abolishing recoverability of success fees and “after the event”, or ATE, insurance premiums. These reforms are intended to apply across the board and will cause a real shift in our society’s approach to litigation.
That is the general case, and it is important not to lose sight of it in considering respiratory disease claims, mesothelioma claims or others, but I want to repeat some specific points about mesothelioma. No one is suggesting that these tragic cases are contributing in any way to what has been described as a compensation culture—this is a horrible disease which acts very fast, and that suggestion has never been any part of my case in putting forward the Government’s position, as noble Lords know. It is a horrific disease and we have nothing but sympathy and compassion for its victims. Recent Governments of all colours have taken measures to help claimants in these cases, and this Government are continuing that work with due urgency.
Lord Bach
I am very grateful to the noble Lord—I think the whole House will be grateful to him—for shutting me up. That is the first thing that he succeeded in doing, but he also made the point that this is about whether this House believes that the other place should have a closer look at this. What worries me slightly is that, as I understand the programme Motion in the other place, there may be only one hour in the programme for all the matters that they have to consider; but I am not sure that I understand the procedures of this House, let alone those of the other place.
The noble Lord has persuaded me to sit down now. I think that was his intention. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response to the points that have been made. Surely the other place should take up this matter again—it is of such huge importance.
Lord McNally
I think it was the line, “I want to stop soon” that provoked my noble friend Lord Higgins to get to his feet.
Again, this has been a very useful debate, with two parallel arguments. I go back to my opening remarks: nobody underestimates the horror of mesothelioma and the importance of getting speedy redress for sufferers. Parallel to that, however, are the attempts that we are trying to bring forward to bring some order to the costs of litigation. It simply is not true that the Jackson reforms are intended just to catch dodgy whiplash claims. There was a general feeling that the amendments to CFAs which the previous Administration introduced brought in an overall inflation of costs in our legal system. We all pay for that inflation.
I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Wills, said, but the truth is that the present system which the sufferers have to use is slow and expensive. I repeat that the intention of this Government is to move as speedily as possible to get to where we can through agreement with the industry, to get litigation out of the way. It is true, as has been said by a number of noble Lords, that there was callous treatment of sufferers. There was slow movement in addressing the issue, but that accusation does not lie at this Government’s door. We have moved very quickly in our attempts to get agreement with the industry.
Lord Bach
As far as that is concerned, the setting up of a body in order to get a move on with this was mentioned in a White Paper from the previous Government two years ago. We have seen absolutely nothing after two years to suggest that that body will be set up soon. Indeed, every comment made by the insurance industry as a whole has been opposed to any organisation that would stand in, as it were, when they cannot find who is responsible for these diseases being caused.
Lord McNally
As I made clear in my opening remarks, my noble friend Lord Freud hopes to be able to make a Statement on this by the summer. The House, the insurance industry and sufferers from this disease should understand that we mean business on this. We are addressing this with a real sense of urgency. Whatever happens regarding this amendment, given the plight of sufferers from this disease, they deserve fairness and speed in settlement for the many reasons that have been put forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, said that there is no virtue in dogmatic consistency and he even had the strong support of my noble friend Lord Carlile in that. Certainly, there is no virtue in dogmatic consistency, but we need to consider the integrity of the legal system as a whole and fairness between different claimants. There are two parallel debates. There are the necessary Jackson reforms of legal costs, which will apply across the board, and the need to move with speed to get a system that deals with the problems of mesothelioma victims as quickly as possible. We can only make our impact assessments.
My noble friend Lord Carlile asked whether we thought that the Jackson reforms will prevent sufferers’ access to justice. We do not believe that. We would not have brought this forward if we had thought it. The point was made about success fees. I repeat that they are not compulsory. As my noble friend Lord Faulks has pointed out, there may be some proper, healthy competition among lawyers that will address the question of success fees.
It is not the responsibility of somebody suffering from a terminal illness to watch the clock as far as costs are concerned. It is the responsibility of government. The Jackson reforms take that responsibility away from claimants. Not just in this particular case but in the broad there was no responsibility on litigants or their lawyers to watch costs. That was the weakness of the whole system. The Jackson reforms put some emphasis back on to the responsibility to watch costs—not on somebody suffering from a terminal illness but through the reforms that we are putting through across the board in this area. For a claimant who does not have to pay a success fee, the 10 per cent uplift could mean more compensation than he or she would otherwise have got. I make no firm claim on that. It is not a question of being callous towards the sufferers. On the contrary, the Government are taking very speedy action to try to get in place an agreement which I am sure we all agree should have been in place many years before.
Sadly, this is not a problem that will go away. That is one of the reasons why I believe that we need a sense of urgency in our approach to this. Although we are now fully aware of the dangers of asbestos, this insidious disease can strike 20, 30 or 40 years after exposure. Therefore, there is a need not for a complicated, expensive, lawyer-based system of compensation, but for a system that will address the needs of sufferers. I am sorry that I cannot help more in relation to making it an exception. Horrific as the disease is, it is not an exception to the way in which the justice system should work. We should have a system in which lawyers get a proper return for the job that they do and in which those deserving compensation receive proper compensation. It is not a case of grabbing 25 per cent of that compensation. Competition and even some morality might drive that out of the system. Even bigger than that is the prize that the Government are seeking: a system that is not lawyer-based but one that is based on need, clearly agreed with the industry. As I have assured the House, we hope to make a Statement by the summer and we hope to have a system in place that brings speed and fairness to the sufferers of this disease. I ask the House to reject the amendment and to support the House of Commons resolution.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in this debate and in the earlier debates. The Minister has, with his usual courtesy, dealt with the arguments that have been put forward today. I reiterate my thanks to him for the time that he has spent with me, with Mr Paul Goggins last week and with the noble Lord, Lord Freud. He has said a number of things this evening on which the House should reflect, one of which was about the new scheme that it is hoped will be brought in in future and which will be a lot less reliant on lawyers. If we can achieve that, I think that there will be consensus in your Lordships’ House that it will be a very significant and purposeful step forward and it is certainly one that I will wholeheartedly support. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, has told us that that announcement will be made in the summer. However, it will require primary legislation, which is not before us, so there will be at least another 18 months from the time of the announcement before anything is on the statute book.
In the course of this evening’s proceedings, there has been dispute between different lawyers and different Members of your Lordships’ House about the practical effects of the law as now drafted on victims of mesothelioma. Pending the announcement in the summer and the new legislation that might come, I beg your Lordships not to play Russian roulette with the lives of people who have a terminal illness. I beg you not to be drawn into either side’s arguments about how this might work out and not to take chances but to preserve, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said the amendment would do, the status quo and keep things as they are at the moment until such time as we have something better to put in its place.
Success fees have been mentioned a great deal during the proceedings. The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, said that many lawyers would not want them, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said that they should not take them, and the Minister said that they would not be compulsory. However, the Bill provides for lawyers to take, if they wish, up to 25 per cent in compensation. They can take that as their payment, not for the base fee—they will get that anyway—but in addition to the base fee if they are successful in pursuing a case.
I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said earlier that it would be better if such a system were entirely swept away, but it has not been. If we are to wait for regulation, how do we know whether those regulations will be put forward by the Government or whether they will be successful? I do not think that we should do this on a wing and a prayer.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, thanked me for my persistence but, 40 years ago, in 1972, the noble Lord issued a pamphlet championing people who were suffering from mesothelioma. Thirty thousand people have died from the disease over the years. As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has just intimated, probably the same sort of number will die before this is all over.
We are often accused of being preoccupied with fringe issues, but in a week or so, we shall have Workers’ Memorial Day. Surely, this evening, it would be fitting for us to recognise the sacrifice that workers have made in the service of their companies and this country in many heavy industries. This does not affect just those who have worked in heavy industries as even those who washed the clothes of people working in those industries have contracted this awful disease. Surely this is something on which we can raise our voices tonight, knowing that there are Members in another place who wish to pursue this further in the House of Commons and who were denied the opportunity to do so at earlier stages. Many of the issues that we have been debating this evening, which are new, should have been debated in Committee in another place much earlier on. We have been reassured that there are no financial questions. This is not about austerity; it is not about fraud; it is not about ambulance chasing; and it is not about a compensation culture. However, it is about elementary justice. I hope that your Lordships will agree with my Motion. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord McNally
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 32 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 32A.
Lord McNally
My Lords, Motion F contains Amendment 32, which seeks an exemption from Clauses 43, 45 and 46 for industrial disease claims. The Government cannot accept this very broad exemption to the provisions in Part 2, and the House of Commons has agreed with our position.
The suggested exemption is very wide and would cover all manner of conditions, including relatively minor problems that may be better resolved outside the courtroom. I take the point that there are all types of industrial disease claims with special factors. Where these exist, we can take specific actions, as I outlined earlier when speaking about mesothelioma, but industrial disease is potentially a very wide category, and I am not persuaded that it would be fair to treat the class of industrial disease claims differently from other types of personal injury claim. This may be of little comfort to individual victims of industrial disease, but we need to consider the integrity of the legal system as a whole and fairness between different claimants.
For all the sympathy that we have for sufferers of any industrial disease and the desire of all of us to make the legal process easier, particularly for those facing terminal illness, I cannot see that a system based on exceptions would be fair to other claimants. I fear that we would be failing in the wider duty of fairness in legal proceedings, which, as I mentioned in the earlier debate, is the key element behind the Jackson reforms. I urge the noble Lord not to insist on his amendment. I beg to move.
Motion F1 (as an amendment to Motion F)
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I can be very brief. There is a belief on this side that Amendment 32 would drive a coach and horses through the Jackson amendments, and we are broadly in support of the need to amend and reform conditional fee agreements and the like. I also draw the House’s attention to the fact that the wording of this amendment is extraordinarily wide. It will not apply just to cases of damages for industrial disease, as the heading would indicate; it will relate to any proceedings that include a claim for damages for a disease, condition or illness. That could be a minority part of the claim, and the rest, piggybacking on it, would also be outside the broad changes to these conditional fee agreements that have, in my view and in the view of the Government, had extremely unpropitious consequences for litigation generally, some of which we heard in discussion on the previous amendment. I am afraid that I oppose this amendment.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend’s support. We should move quickly to a decision on the matter. This is a very wide amendment. It ducks the issue that the Government have made central to this Bill and which I made in our debate on mesothelioma. Singling out a sector for special treatment is unfair across the board. We are looking in that case for non-legal solutions to the problems of the victims. The Government have taken action on a number of areas of specific industrial diseases and will continue to do so.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, we will not undermine what most people saw in the system that is now in place: a very inflationary form of financing litigation where neither the claimant nor the lawyer has any need to concern themselves about cost. That is why Jackson was set up and why he came up with the solution that he has. As in previous cases, the idea that the 25 per cent is compulsory is not necessary. I should like to see much more competition and willingness to take these cases. Noble Lords have seen that it is easy to take very hard cases and then to say, “Well, we can’t go along with this”. If you do that, you dismantle the Jackson reforms. I believe that the debates in both Houses over the full period of this Bill have been mainly supportive of the central architecture of the Jackson reforms. I hope that when they vote on this amendment, noble Lords will see its flaws and will support what the Commons has proposed.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said in this short debate, but the fact remains that if one considers the debates that took place at Second Reading, in Committee and on Report in the House of Commons, these issues have not been handled in depth and in detail. We have not seen the figures on how financial savings will arise in detail from the changes that are being made. If there are complexities in law with regard to many of the cases for compensation for injury or disease in a place of work, surely without financial support people will not be able to get the compensation to which they are entitled. If they are entitled to compensation, it is downright unacceptable that up to 25 per cent can be skimmed off.
Time after time the Minister has said that there is no compulsion to take up to 25 per cent. There may not be compulsion but it is available, and the Government have chosen to make it available. To my mind, and I believe to the minds of many noble Lords, that is unacceptable. The House of Commons needs to get its act in order and to apply itself in detail to these questions in a way that did not happen on 17 April when about one-third, at most, of an hour was allotted to the content of this amendment. For those reasons, I wish to test the will of the House.
Lord McNally
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 168 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 168A, do not insist on its Amendments 169 and 240 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 240A and 240B.
Lord McNally
My Lords, the amendments in Motion G would bring the majority of welfare benefit matters back into scope. Before I get into the detail of this Motion, I want to remind the House that these amendments have been considered by the House of Commons. That House has disagreed with Amendment 168, ascribing financial privilege as the reason for doing so, and in place of Amendments 169 and 240 has accepted the Government’s amendments in lieu. Despite this, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, has tabled an amendment to Amendment 168 that would bring into scope advice and assistance for all welfare benefit appeals in the First-tier Tribunal. It is my opinion that this amendment will elicit the same response from the House of Commons.
As in our earlier debate, the fact that the amendment infringes privilege is the only reason that is given. I do not object to the amendment; as the Clerk of the House of Commons recently put it after a privilege reason, “That does not exclude a second try by the Lords”. However, as was said by the Joint Committee on Conventions, of which I was a member:
“If the Commons have disagreed to Lords Amendments on grounds of financial privilege, it is contrary to convention for the Lords to send back Amendments in lieu which clearly invite the same response”.
I put it to the House that the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, will invite the same response—in fact more enthusiastically, in that they are wider.
As I have said many times, the Government consider that, in most cases, appellants can and do present their welfare benefit appeals in the First-tier Tribunal in plain language and without legal assistance. The tribunals system has been designed precisely so that they can do this. Indeed, a report by the president of the Social Entitlement Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal has pointed out that Department for Work and Pensions decisions are most commonly overturned because the tribunal elicits additional factual information from the appellant, usually in the form of oral evidence provided by the appellant. This suggests that legal arguments are not the most common reason for a welfare benefit decision being overturned in the tribunal. Furthermore, in his 2008-09 report, the president stated:
“The availability of this additional information suggests that there should be more direct engagement with the appellant”.
We have committed to ensuring that not-for-profit advice remains widely available and we have supported this view, as I reported earlier, with further funding, making available £16.8 million for advice service funding, which is already helping 300 front-line advice organisations. In addition, £20 million of funding will be made available in each of the financial years 2013-14 and 2014-15.
Perhaps I could draw the attention of the House to the government amendments, which, as I have said, I think are a genuine response by the Government to points that were made, not least from my own Benches. We have listened very carefully to the arguments raised here and in the House of Commons about retaining legal advice and some representation for onward appeals on a point of law in relation to a welfare benefit matter. At this point, I pay particular tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, who has engaged in a constructive discussion on this topic with my noble friend Lord Freud. Her contribution has undoubtedly helped us to produce a sensible and workable solution.
We accept that legal aid may be justified in these cases and we offered government amendments in lieu in the House of Commons. These government amendments will make legal advice and assistance available for welfare benefit appeals on a point of law in the Upper Tribunal, including applications to the Upper Tribunal for permission to appeal. In addition, the amendments would bring into scope advice, assistance and representation for welfare benefit appeals in the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, including applications to these courts for permission to appeal. It is worth noting that the right to appeal to the Upper Tribunal in relation to a welfare benefit matter is a right to appeal on a point of law arising from a decision made by the First-tier Tribunal.
The House of Commons also recognises that there may be cases—although the Government think that there will be very few—where appeals relating to welfare benefits in the First-tier Tribunal will be on points of law. The Government have listened to arguments on this and have undertaken to look into this issue and investigate whether we can devise a workable system whereby advice and assistance can be made available for certain welfare benefit cases in the First-tier Tribunal.
We believe that the government amendments in lieu address the specific concerns in this House and seek to prioritise funding on cases where legal advice and assistance is most needed. I beg to move.
Lord Martin of Springburn
My Lords, the noble Lord has made many very interesting points but, at the end, he said that it would be good if the House of Commons had another chance to look at this matter. If the amendment were carried, the other place would have a chance to look at this. I heard the Minister’s comments about financial privilege, but I do not share his point of view that if we put back the amendment we are being unfair to the House of Commons or to the traditions of this House.
I think of the situations that I had to face in my former constituency where there was a great deal of poverty. I heard many academics say that it was terrible that in the east end of Glasgow and in parts of the north end of Glasgow the life expectancy of people was such that you had a better chance of survival if you lived in Calcutta. It is all very well for an academic to say that, but people in areas of great poverty in my former constituency did not always get the benefits to which they were entitled. But if they go to the first line of appeal, it will be most unfair if they do not get legal aid. In the city of Glasgow, many lawyers recognise that people who have little or no income need the help of lawyers to articulate their cases.
We should not forget that when an appeal is made, often a recipient cannot speak up for themselves—perhaps because they are stroke victims—and cannot communicate, and therefore the carer has to worry about the benefits that they are losing. The carer has a 24-hour job. When someone says they are a carer it rolls off the tongue, but that carer can be up at three in the morning or may be denied the opportunity of a social life. They have to worry about going along to a tribunal on behalf of someone whom they love dearly and whom they are caring for seven days a week and it is a great relief to many of those people if they can get legal aid which will help them so much.
It used to be the case—I know it was a while ago—that if a working man or woman had to get the help of a solicitor, they had to go into the city centre but then lawyers realised that help was needed in the peripheral areas. Many legal companies operate in what used to be shops. They rent shops and now they are in the heart of very poor communities. It would be most unfortunate if people who need help, particularly carers, do not get assistance from those who are legally qualified and able to articulate a case for them.
Lord McNally
My Lords, when the Government launched their consultative Green Paper on this legislation nearly two years ago and I made one of my first ministerial responses from this Dispatch Box, I made it clear that I was aware that we were making some tough and difficult decisions about legal aid. We have heard many times in many debates over the past 18 months that X, Y, or Z is attacking, undermining, or damaging the most vulnerable in our society. I have listened to those debates, but I remain convinced that what would have damaged the most vulnerable in our society more would have been if we had not taken the tough economic decisions necessary to put our economy right. It is no use noble Lords opposite shaking their heads. We were a lot poorer than we thought we were and every government department has had to make tough decisions. My own has had to take cuts of 23 per cent across the board over this spending review. That has meant tough decisions not only in terms of legal aid, but in staff numbers and in other aspects of the Ministry of Justice’s work.
We have never ducked the fact that we have made some hard decisions in this matter. Neither have we ducked the fact that our approach to cutting the legal aid budget meant taking the bulk of social welfare law out of scope. We had taken the decision to focus on civil legal aid. The term “relatively low priority” refers to our view that in terms of criminal legal aid we are talking about people’s liberty and reputation. It is an important part of our system that people should have legal aid in this area.
Lord Howarth of Newport
Is the Minister therefore confident that there is no waste in the criminal legal aid budget and that there are no rackets there? Is he confident that this is an area that did not need the Government’s attention and that since the Treasury obliged his department to find savings of 23 per cent it really needed to focus its effort on the civil legal aid budget?
Lord McNally
On the contrary. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, is ready to leap to his feet to draw attention to the fact that we have carried through the savings in criminal legal aid that the previous Administration put in train.
Lord Bach
Yes, I am pleased that the Government have done that, but that figure is included in the 8 per cent that they have taken off criminal legal aid. They have taken 29 per cent off family legal aid, as well as 53 per cent off social welfare law. Why that distinction? Why take 8 per cent from a large amount on criminal legal aid, 29 per cent on family law but 53 per cent of a pretty small budget on social welfare law? That is deliberate, is it not?
Lord McNally
Of course it is deliberate. One of the things about that rather long opening speech is that it is the same speech that the noble Lord has been making for 18 months. I appreciate that he disagrees with our judgment on social welfare law, but we have never made any bones about the fact that that is where we took a tough decision. On criminal legal aid, I am quite sure that we will return to it, but the judgment we made was that since the previous Administration had made a series of quite significant cuts in criminal legal aid, we would allow them to bed in before returning to that matter. The fact is that the decisions have been tough, and we stand by the fact that tough decisions were required in the economic circumstances that we found ourselves in and also because successive Administrations have said that the legal aid system was in need of reform.
I do not know whether we have got the specific answers to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, about the balance in other common law countries. I have never used comparisons with continental legal things; I have always made the point that as far as Britain is concerned the comparison is with common law countries. Many months ago, on my return from the Commonwealth Law Conference in Sydney, I mentioned that the one message I brought back from Commonwealth countries with legal aid systems was their amazement at the generosity of the British system.
We are in a process in which we have had to take tough decisions. Some of the contributions today by the noble Lords, Lord Low and Lord Martin, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, almost made the case that the only practical help is legal advice. That is not something we accept. We think that in these cases there are other forms of advice that are just as valuable.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Martin, that I had said that we cannot give offence to the House of Commons, I think that if he checks Hansard he will find that I have never been against this House giving offence to the House of Commons. Indeed, I quoted the Companion earlier:
“Criticism of proceedings in the House of Commons or of Commons Speaker’s rulings is out of order”.
However, the Companion goes on to state that,
“criticism may be made of the institutional structure of Parliament or the role and function of the House of Commons”.
Lord Martin of Springburn
I think that the Minister suggested that for this House to send the amendment back again was against the conventions of this House.
Lord McNally
It is not. I quoted from the Cunningham committee which held that opinion. There was a point when it was against the conventions of the House.
Lord Martin of Springburn
That is an opinion of a committee; it is not a convention of this House. The opinion of a committee is just that: an opinion.
Lord McNally
Nobody is suggesting that if this House wants to send the amendment back, it is not entitled to do so. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Low, said about the importance of people’s Peers. He may know that it is my long-standing opinion that having a party-political label does not somehow lower one’s capacity to take views on legislation. Indeed, for many hours in this House the only people taking a detailed view of legislation are those on the party political Benches. I admit and acknowledge that recent appointments have brought valuable experience to this House.
Although my membership of the other place was brief, I remain at heart a House of Commons man in terms of where—
Lord Low of Dalston
With respect, in my remarks I said that I had no intention of disparaging other Peers. More than once I have gone on record as saying that the contribution of Peers appointed from political parties is indispensable to the effective working of this House. I am certainly not one of those who would like to see the House of Lords a politician-free zone.
Lord McNally
The point is that it is still an appointed House and is an advisory and revisory Chamber. As such, where this House decides to draw stumps on a particular issue is a matter for its judgment. Although financial primacy may occasionally irritate this House, again, as a House of Commons man and as I said earlier, this is not something recently drawn up by the coalition agreement or even by the 1911 Act. It is 300 years of our much-valued history during which kings have lost their heads and their throne in the primacy of the House of Commons on financial matters. Much as I should like to flatter the House on this matter, I still believe that it is important.
I understand the desire to see more legal advice in these cases. As I said in my opening remarks, we believe that in most cases individuals will be able to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal without formal legal assistance. I quoted the president of the tribunal in highlighting that in many cases eliciting additional information from the appellant was the most useful exercise that the tribunal carried out.
I also think that we are not being idle while welfare benefit reforms are being brought forward. A number of proposals currently are being considered across government that should make it easier for people to receive the right provision of entitlement in areas such as welfare, benefits and education. The most notable of these is the universal credit which will help to reduce the scope of error significantly as it makes the whole benefit system simpler and easier to understand. We are working closely with DWP as part of its wider welfare reform programme to improve the quality and effectiveness of its initial decision-making.
As I have said, we have gone into this matter fully and it is not something that we have ducked. From the very beginning, from the first consultation paper, we took a decision that social welfare would be taken out of scope. I know how passionately the noble Lord, Lord Bach, feels about this matter. If he was in my position, it is not the road he would have taken to fulfil his party’s commitment to cut legal aid. That is the nature of things. This is the judgment of the Government.
We are not looking at complex points of law in other areas at the moment. As the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said, the problem is that if you make a concession somebody immediately stands up and says, “Why not look at it in other areas?”. We can build on what the Lord Chancellor promised about talks with the DWP. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, in explaining what he was proposing, illustrated why we have been careful in putting this matter forward. We will look at it carefully and I will draw to the attention of my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor the specific proposals he made in his speech.
As I have said before, we have had a very thorough debate on this. It has certainly been very thoroughly debated in this place over the past year. I believe that it would be better now if the House were to accept the Commons amendments and the noble Lord were to withdraw his.
Lord Bach
I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. We have had the expertise of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Low, both of whom are experts on the disabled and the problems that they face. I am also very grateful to my noble friend Lord Howarth and the noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn, for their very knowledgeable contributions on this matter, and not least to the Minister for what he has had to say.
This is one of the central and most important debates of this whole Bill. It goes to the very heart of what the Government are seeking to do, which is effectively to ask whether social welfare law will survive in our jurisdiction. We currently have a system of social welfare law that we can be proud of. It is not perfect; it makes mistakes and it probably does not have enough money spent on it but it is not a bad system, where not-for-profit organisations around the country—CABs, law centres, other advice centres and some Law Society solicitors—do wonderful work at very low rates, giving advice to the most vulnerable, the disabled and the poorest in our country.
The issue is whether claimants will continue to get the advice that they have been entitled to in the past—because there has been a consensus of the political classes of all the parties that that is the proper way for a mature legal system to behave—which helps them decide whether or not they have a case when they are dealing with the state. Without that advice, how will these people get to the tribunal in the first place? The Minister quoted the president of the Social Entitlement Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal. Is that the same president who has publicly said that he is appalled at the prospect of more and more claimants coming before his tribunals who have not had the benefit of any legal advice?
Lord McNally
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 170 and 172 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 170A and 172A.
Lord McNally
My Lords, the Motion contains amendments dealing with clinical negligence. We have debated the issue of clinical negligence at length, and I am grateful for the intensity and conviction of those who have spoken in support and those who have challenged the Government during the passage of this Bill. Before I go into the detail of this Motion, I remind noble Lords that we listened to their concerns and brought forward an amendment at Third Reading in this House which specifically addresses their concerns. This amendment puts beyond doubt that legal aid will remain available for babies who suffer brain injury at birth leading to a lifetime of care needs. This was in recognition that there are often difficulties in obtaining funding for these cases through conditional fee agreements due to the extent and expense of the investigations required.
Our amendment brings into scope claims where medical negligence causes a brain injury as a result of which the child is severely disabled. It is intended that this will cover cases of medical negligence where the child is at its most vulnerable, during its time in the womb, during the delivery, and immediately afterwards. The House of Commons raised concern that there might be arguments about whether a particular child falls within the scope of this amendment. We believe that the amendment is clear in this regard. It provides for funding where the negligence occurs in the period of time beginning with the point of the mother’s pregnancy until eight weeks after birth. In recognition of the fact that premature babies are particularly vulnerable, the government amendment also provides that where a baby is born prematurely, the eight-week period will be taken to start from the point at which the mother would otherwise have begun her 37th week of pregnancy.
We have also provided that where the negligence occurs beyond the eight-week point, a safety net will remain in the form of the exceptional funding scheme, in those cases where the failure to fund would amount to a breach of the individual’s rights under the ECHR. Contrary to the concern expressed in the other House it is right that all other cases should first seek a conditional fee agreement, and where one is not available—for example, due to high disbursement costs—then exceptional funding may be available, taking into account factors such as the complexity of the case and the capacity of the litigant or litigation friend to present their case. The Government’s amendment covers the vast majority of clinical negligence children’s cases currently funded through legal aid.
My noble friend Lord Cormack has tabled an amendment in lieu of his Lords Amendment 172, which seeks to bring into scope other children’s cases involving clinical negligence that occurred when the child was below the age of 16, rather than 18. We believe that this amendment would still bring into scope a whole range of less serious cases which do not involve lengthy and detailed investigations or multiple expert reports, which are caught by government Amendment 216, and which are more suited for funding through a CFA in exactly the same way as for adults. We believe this to be the case whether the child is 18 or 16. The Commons has decided against Lords Amendment 172, and it is my opinion that my noble friend’s amendment in lieu will elicit the same response. I urge my noble friend to withdraw his Motion.
On Amendment 170, the Government have already made special provision for expert reports in clinical negligence reports to the Jackson provisions in Part 2. This will mean that no one is required to pay up front for expert reports in clinical negligence cases. Providing for all expert reports would be more costly than the current legal aid arrangements. As I have said previously, at present solicitors have to choose whether to use legal aid or a CFA to fund the case. Only 18 per cent of cases where the funding method is known use legal aid. The amendment would open up legal aid for all of those cases which are currently funded by way of CFA. Lawyers would be able to claim their success fee while using legal aid to fund expert fees, and the legal aid fund would carry all of the solicitor’s or insurer’s risk. This could result in a significant expansion of the legal aid scheme and significant costs. We do not consider this a fair outcome for the taxpayer, who should not be required to pay where cases are already taken forward and paid for by alternative means. I beg to move.
Motion H1 (as an amendment to Motion H)
Lord Beecham
I was about to say precisely that. It was never implemented so it is open to the Government to lay regulations that would require that 25 per cent deduction. It is equally open to them to do what their predecessors did and not lay such regulations or make that deduction. I am entirely at one with the noble Lord in saying that that deduction should not be made, but that is the situation at the moment.
With respect to the noble Lord, I do not think that his argument takes us very far at all. The Opposition support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, despite the fact that it appears to contain a grammatical error. It refers to,
“clinical services which took place at a time when the individual was child”.
There is an indefinite article missing somewhere. However, that is a trivial point. The substantive point is one that was made effectively by the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, when we debated this on Report. In the debate on the amendment that was discussed on that occasion, she talked of the figures involved in legal aid expenditure for children. She pointed out that legal aid for clinical negligence claims involving children cost the Legal Aid Fund some £4.6 million, of which £3 million was spent on precisely the cases of neonatal injury to which the Minister referred and to which the Government have responded by restoring them within scope. Therefore, as the noble Baroness pointed out, the net saving would amount to £1.6 million for the Legal Aid Fund.
It is time to dispose of some of the shibboleths about tough decisions and the like. Apparently it is not a particularly tough decision for the Department for Communities and Local Government to spend £250 million on weekly bin collections. It seems to me and to the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, and presumably the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, a very tough decision to deny legal aid at a cost of £1.6 million to children under the age of 16 who suffer clinical negligence other than through the limited but welcome concession that the Government have made in respect of the injuries to which we have referred.
I also remind your Lordships of the view of the National Health Service Litigation Authority, which I quoted last time and will quote again. It stated:
“We have serious concerns over the proposal to withdraw legal aid from clinical negligence claims. Whilst we have seen an upsurge of claims brought under Conditional Fee Agreements … in recent years, we question whether CFAs are likely to be readily available to fund many of the more serious claims currently brought via legal aid”.
That view was about clinical negligence claims at large. Therefore, one might think that those concerns would surely apply to claims for children under the age of 16.
This does not remotely impinge on the huge problems that the Minister constantly reminds us of in relation to deficit reduction and the like. It is an almost trivial sum of money. By no conceivable stretch of the imagination could it be justified by financial privilege, which is the cover under which the Government approach this amendment. Let us be clear about financial privilege because it has been bandied around today and on previous occasions. Of course the Commons has the right to assert financial privilege, which is an objective process as far as the Clerks and the Speaker are concerned. However, it does not stop there. The Commons can waive financial privilege. If the Government wished for financial privilege to be waived, it would pass almost without opposition and frequently does. It is often waived. The Government choose not to waive it in connection with this and the other matters to which we have referred. It is a fig leaf behind which Ministers hide. I hesitate to convey an image of Ministers brandishing fig leaves; that would be an unwelcome variation on a theme. However, it is a pretty feeble and diminutive fig leaf for any Minister to hide behind. It is not an adequate defence for what they are doing.
I repeat: the figures show that the potential savings are minimal. Undoubtedly, justice will not be accessible for too many young people except in an expensive form potentially through a conditional fee agreement—even allowing for how the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, described it. I very much hope that the House will build on the Government’s welcome concession with this small additional financial burden and extend justice to those who need it.
Lord McNally
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, quoted the Reason, which states that the amendment,
“would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons”,
and goes on to state that,
“the Commons do not offer any further Reason”.
As an old parliamentarian, he knows that if an amendment infringes privilege, that is the only reason that will be given. Obviously, when taken against the national economic crisis that we are dealing with, these various precise sums will always be able to be argued away as almost too trivial to worry about.
Perhaps I may relate to the House some other thoughts that have also motivated our approach in trying to reform legal aid in this area. Clinical negligence claimant lawyers’ bills, which the National Health Service Litigation Authority has to pay, have more than doubled from £83 million in 2006-07 to £195 million in 2010-11. As part of this, CFA success fees to claimant lawyers have more than doubled in the past four years from £28 million to £66 million, and the NHSLA pays out an estimated £33 million in claimant insurance premiums. However, damages paid to claimants have risen more slowly—from £579.4 million to £863.4 million over the same period—and the NHSLA has controlled its own defence legal costs much more carefully, rising only 26 per cent during the same period.
One motivation behind our approach in this whole area has been the impact that the system brought in by the previous Government in 2000 has had on the National Health Service, with an extraordinary rise in payments to lawyers. We are trying to address that. In doing so, early on we listened carefully to concerns about the specific issues faced by the most vulnerable children at the most vulnerable point in their lives, and we brought forward amendments to deal with that. Of course, in these areas there will always be disputes about where you draw the line and what happens to those on the other side of that line. However, in bringing forward our amendments our intention was to meet that initial lobbying, and we responded to it most positively. However, that was immediately followed by further lobbying that this should cover all children, but we do not believe that that is necessary.
The amendment purposely captures clinical negligence before, during and shortly after birth. We believe that that is a proportionate means of meeting the policy objective of targeting legal aid on the most serious and complex cases that would otherwise struggle to obtain a CFA. The eight-week period is an appropriate period of time at which to draw the line, because most of the serious and complex clinical negligence cases involving neurological injuries to infants are likely to arise from treatment or care administered during this period, when the infant can be considered to be most vulnerable. We have drawn the post-birth line at this point because of that. We also recognise that some children will be born prematurely and will need fairly intensive medical supervision in the first weeks of life. Any cases in which negligence occurs beyond this point will need to be considered under exceptional funding on a case-by-case basis. It is difficult—
Lord Faulks
I am very grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I wonder whether he can help the House on one point. Originally, before the welcome concession by the Government concerning babies damaged at or about the time of birth, the response was that exceptional funding might be available to meet those claims. Now that those claims are to be within the scope of legal aid, does it follow that more exceptional funding might be available to deal with the hard cases that may arise with children who are outside the scope of the eight-week period?
Lord McNally
I do not think that exceptional funding has ever been a specific amount of money and that therefore the amendment releases more of the exceptional funding pot to others. The exceptional funding is there to meet cases that fulfil the requirements for exceptional funding. I will not follow my noble friend because he leads me down a dangerous road. The exceptional funding is and will be there on the merits of the case. That is why we have confidence that the combination of the amendments that we have made, the CFAs, which, as was pointed out, some 82 per cent are already using, and a robust exceptional funding scheme will meet the needs in the cases that are covered by the amendment that we are opposing. Again, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment and to support the Commons.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I felt very sad as I listened to a Minister, for whom I have both affection and respect, fail to answer this brief debate.
I am grateful to all those who have taken part. It has been brief, but that does not mean that the issue is unimportant. I apologise, incidentally, to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for the missing indefinite article, but we are talking about a definite proposition. That definite proposition is this: we often talk about rights and responsibilities, and certain people have particular rights and to them we have particular responsibilities. We are talking about children—those under the age of 16: children who are damaged as a result of clinical negligence within the National Health Service that the country provides for them and in which they and their parents place their trust. To limit the help, in a very small timeframe, to those who suffer brain damage is frankly not the hallmark of a civilised health service or a civilised society.
I know not whether the figure of £1.6 million given by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is right, but it is certainly around that figure. Indeed, the state would be the beneficiary in the long term. It would certainly be the beneficiary in the moral sense. We should concern ourselves about that. Of course the Government have problems. Of course they have great responsibilities for the economy. We are not, however, talking this evening about something that can in any way damage the financial strategy. What it can do is damage our reputation. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Northover
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 171 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 171A.
Public Bodies (Abolition of Courts Boards) Order 2012
Lord McNally Excerpts(14 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
Lord McNally Excerpts(14 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McNally
(a) add services to Part 1 of Schedule 1, or(b) vary or omit services described in that Part,”
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, the Government have tabled government Amendments 1, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14 and 18 following the commitment I gave on Report. The Government have listened to the reasoned arguments presented by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford and other noble Lords, and we have brought forward these amendments accordingly.
Amendment 1 to Clause 9(2) would give the Lord Chancellor the power to omit, but in addition the power to add or vary the services in Part 1 of Schedule 1. He would be able to do so by modifying Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Schedule 1. The power to vary a service allows us to amend the existing services within the schedule where they need to be altered, but without the need to omit a service and then add a new service. For example, if the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 were amended in the future, any such amendment might not mean that services need to be added to the schedule, but it might be necessary to vary the provisions in paragraph 31 of Part 1 in order to reflect any such changes to those regulations.
The provisions of Amendment 1 mean that the power in Clause 9(2) would be similar to that which exists in Section 6(7) of the Access to Justice Act 1999. We consider that this is the correct and sensible approach to take. The powers in Clause 9(2) would be exercisable by the Lord Chancellor when making an order. Clauses 41(6) and 41(7)(a) mean that such an order would be subject to the affirmative procedure and so subject to debate in and approval by each House of Parliament.
Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, would allow services to be added but not to be omitted. As I have said, the government amendment provides for balance to the existing Clause 9. Amendment 2 seeks to go further and actually removes the ability to omit. I firmly believe that that power to omit is necessary and gives the Bill a welcome flexibility. An example of where this may be necessary is where the governing legislation behind an area of law is repealed or otherwise altered and we need to alter civil legal aid provision accordingly. Another example would be where particular court proceedings are moved to a tribunal. It may cease to be appropriate to provide funding for advocacy for those proceedings, so an amendment to Part 3 of Schedule 1 would be needed.
As a result of Amendment 1, we no longer consider that we need certain powers in Schedule 1 to make secondary legislation. The purpose of this is not to reduce the categories in which legal aid will be available but are more technical in nature. To ensure that this is clear, let me explain in detail the powers which will be removed. First, Amendments 6 and 7 relate to paragraph 4(1)(k) of Part 1 of Schedule 1, which concerns the care, supervision and protection of children and provides for further orders or procedures to be prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph. In the light of the power to add services proposed by Amendment 1, we consider that the power at paragraph 4(1)(k) of Part 1 of Schedule 1 is no longer necessary.
Secondly, Amendment 8 would omit paragraph 9(3)(n) of Part 1 of Schedule 1, which relates to community care. Paragraph 9(3) defines community care services as services,
“which a relevant person may provide”,
under a number of listed enactments. Heading (n) of that definition allows other enactments to be prescribed for the purposes of that definition. With the power to add services under Clause 9, this is no longer necessary.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, as a Cross-Bencher, I add to what the noble Lord, Lord Bach, has just said about the death of a man who was a great friend to many of us. Lord Newton was an adornment to this House, who stood, as the noble Lord, Lord Bach, has already said, for his conscience rather than for what his party, or any party, might wish. It is easy for me as a Cross-Bencher to examine my conscience, and I am well aware it is not so easy for members of political parties. He will be enormously missed. His name is on a number of today’s amendments, and I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for saying something about this before I move to Amendment 1.
I congratulate the Government. I do not do it terribly often but am going to do it three times today. This amendment, as the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Bach, have said, is overdue. It is splendid that the Government have recognised the importance of having the ability to increase legal aid. I also very much support the fact that they are putting in “vary or omit”. All of us who have had anything to do with legislation know that from time to time it becomes redundant and has to be got rid of or needs a tweak here and there, and therefore needs a variation. I support this amendment as it is.
However, if the Minister will forgive me, I will make one or two points about what has happened as a result of this Bill so far as family cases are concerned. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has already mentioned this but I will add to it. I strongly urge the Government to review the impact of the legal aid changes no later than a year from now, to see what happens to the family courts in the light of the removal of nearly all private law cases from legal aid. I am not sure the Government really quite accept what a number of us have been saying, to the Ministers in this House and the other place, about the impact on the courts. There will be longer lists. I know the Ministry of Justice is already aware that the lists in the courts are too long, and they will be increased substantially.
There will be longer hearings. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said—entirely accurately—without lawyers to keep a case under control, two litigants in person will spend an absolute age. The sort of case that takes a day, or possibly a day and a half to two, will take not less than a week. I have a vivid recollection of one litigant in person who took a week to give evidence and cross-examine. Every time I asked him to hurry up, it added another hour or two to the case. I am afraid I sat scribbling nonsense, because nothing he said was of any value to the conduct of the case.
It is going to be very difficult for district judges and magistrates to manage people totally caught up in the emotions of a failed relationship and fighting over money, a house or particularly children. They will have to do it but it will clog up the courts to an even more significant degree.
It will have an impact in children’s cases. One example in child protection issues is the fact that drink or drug abuse is sometimes detected only during the hearing of a private law case. It is crucial that the person who is drinking or taking drugs to excess is tested to see what should be done as to whether that parent is fit to have care of the child, or even to see the child. The Minister will be aware that in the Norgrove report that point was made about the very thin line between the private law cases and those that tip over into child protection issues. On Report, we discussed whether the mediator would identify cases where there might be abuse. There is a hard core of 5 per cent of cases that cannot be settled between the parties—and, of course, that 5 per cent of cases will carry on regardless and may not ever come to the attention of the mediator.
I ask the Minister, in congratulating him on proposing the amendment, to have a real look at the impact on the family courts within no later than a year to see what is actually happening.
Lord McNally
My Lords, of course I associate myself with the expressions of sympathy on the untimely death of Lord Newton.
On the matter raised by the noble and learned Baroness, we are committed to undertaking a post-implementation review of the specific policies set out in the Bill. As she acknowledged, we have just replaced a ratchet by a regulator, which should also help in seeing whether some of her predictions come true, and how we react to that.
Lord Bach
From the opposition Front Bench I can be extremely brief, as I should be because this is Third Reading. These are very important amendments which the House will have to decide on shortly. JustRights has done some number-crunching on the issue of children. It points out that, while 95 per cent of funding may be protected, only 74 per cent of children are protected likewise. Therefore, the 6,000 mentioned by the noble Baroness who moved Amendment 3 will be left to navigate the legal system alone. These children will have no adult to help them—no litigation friend, in parlance.
It is absurd to think that in social welfare law cases, a conditional fee agreement is any substitute whatever for basic legal aid for getting legal advice for the kind of problems that affect these children. In effect, we are being asked to abandon some of these children— 16 year-olds perhaps—to a legal system that is far from understandable. They will be mainly children in care who have fractured relationships with their parents. The House knows so well that these are exactly the kind of children who, if they do not get early legal help, may end up in young offender institutions or secure children’s homes at enormous cost to the state, which would be much more than the small amount that the Government claim will be saved by not giving them legal aid. How much wiser would it be to spend that money early? Surely, for children, legal aid is greatly preferable to a CFA right across the board. We support the amendments.
Lord McNally
My Lords, in debates like this, I am always a little worried that noble Lords not in the Chamber when the Division Bells ring will come along and say, “What is this about?”. They may be told, “Oh, we are voting on legal aid for children”. Let us be clear, these amendments and this debate are not about whether we provide legal aid for children and vulnerable people; nor is it about not being willing to help those least able to help themselves; and nor is it about denying help to the most vulnerable in our society.
As my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford pointed out, the core principle of our reforms is to ensure that civil legal services will continue to be available in the highest priority cases; for example, where a person’s life or liberty is at stake or where children may be taken into care. The application of this principle has led us to protect the vast majority of funding and cases involving children. They include child protection cases, civil cases concerning the abuse of a child, special educational needs cases and cases involving children who are made parties to private family proceedings. Noble Lords will also recall that we have moved to make funding available for clinical negligence cases concerning brain-damaged infants. It is simply not true therefore to suggest that there will be no funding or very substantially reduced funding for the cases involving children and young people.
In addition, as indicated earlier, we have moved the amendment ratchet to “regulator” which will enable us to test whether some of the more dramatic warnings that have been issued about our reforms can be looked at. We are committed to undertake a post-implementation review of the specific policies set out in Bill. We believe that these safeguards are sufficient to ensure that children do not fall through the net. Our approach will mean that 97 per cent of current spend on cases involving child claimants will continue, and that is the overwhelming majority of current support. Spending reductions are never welcome, but I hope these figures put it beyond doubt that we have made a genuine endeavour to ensure that children are protected, even as we push on with the wider objective of our reforms, which is to focus scarce resources on the most serious cases, to contribute to savings and to reform the system.
Lord Beecham
That is on top of the £80 million of cuts to citizens advice bureaux.
Lord McNally
Citizens advice bureaux operate in a country that is 10 per cent poorer than the last Government gave the country to understand. It is absurd to pretend that citizens advice bureaux or any other sector—local government and national government —should not face this reality.
In civil cases, it is already a requirement of the rules of civil litigation that a child or other protected party who lacks capacity must have a litigation friend to conduct a case on their behalf. In the case of a child, this is usually a parent unless the court specifically orders otherwise. It will only be in exceptional circumstances that the court will make an order permitting the child or protected party to conduct proceedings on their own behalf. Any step taken before a child or protected party has a litigation friend is of no effect unless the court makes such an order. There is no requirement that a litigation friend must act through a solicitor. It is therefore open to a child’s parent or other person caring for the child, for example, to act as the child’s litigation friend in proceedings where the child is a party. We believe that this provides a clear safeguard for children and vulnerable young people who lack capacity to conduct proceedings on their own behalf.
We recognise that Amendment 5 also covers the 18 to 24 year-old category. As I said earlier, we have provided for those who are most vulnerable. However, we have also been clear that, in what is a complex area, there must be flexibility. The exceptional funding scheme therefore provides a mechanism whereby the director of legal aid casework can grant legal aid in areas of scope which would normally be out of scope, where necessary, to ensure the protection of the individual’s right to legal aid under ECHR and EU law. In cases engaging Article 6 of the ECHR, the director of legal aid casework must take into account a person’s ability to represent themselves, the complexity of the proceedings, the importance of the issues at stake and all other relevant circumstances. An individual’s age as well as their capacity will be a key consideration in determining a person’s ability to represent themselves. The exceptional funding scheme will clearly be an important safeguard for children and vulnerable young people who would otherwise be unable to present their case.
Amendment 3, in particular, seeks to bring all cases back into the scope of legal aid where a child is a party, but the Bill already provides for child parties to be within scope of legal aid in family proceedings. The amendment is therefore in part unnecessary and seeks to replicate what is already in scope. The rest of the amendment seeks to keep funding across the board for children in all civil disputes without regard to the relative priority or alternative methods of resolving them. The majority of children will already fall within the scope of legal aid as provided for by the Bill. However, there are additional safeguards to provide further protection through exceptional funding powers and, should it prove necessary, the power to add to civil legal services.
The Archbishop of York
The Minister has not yet answered the question which I think the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, raised—and had I had the chance, I would have raised the same question—on Amendment 3, in relation to proposed new paragraph 1(1)(k), which specifies:
“civil legal services relating to an appeal to the Supreme Court”.
I have not seen that provision in the Bill as drafted, but it is quite important. What will happen to it? I agree with the Minister about the other provisions, but I do not think that he has answered the question on that one.
Lord McNally
It is always a pleasure to see the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York in his place. I shall give him a definitive answer as I sum up and come to my peroration, as there are a number of other matters that I wish to cover.
Amendment 4 seeks to bring into scope children for all clinical negligence cases. I have already set out my arguments on how we have protected children in the Bill. On clinical negligence, in particular, we recognised the concerns that serious and complex cases involving brain-damaged babies may not be able to secure a conditional fee agreement, and we therefore brought forward an amendment on Report that will provide certainty for families and make the application process straightforward.
The amendments we have made will allow funding for cases where the negligence occurs in a period of time beginning with the point of the mother’s pregnancy until eight weeks after birth. This does not mean that the symptoms have to become apparent during this period. They could become apparent beyond this period and still be in scope providing that the relevant negligent act or omission took place during that period. We also moved to include an additional safeguard in respect of babies who are born prematurely. We recognised that these children are particularly vulnerable in the post-natal period and have therefore provided that where a baby is born before the 37th week of pregnancy, the period of eight weeks will not run from birth but will be taken to start from the first day of what would have been the 37th week of pregnancy. I hope noble Lords will recognise that the Government have listened and acted to introduce back into scope the most serious clinical negligence cases involving children.
Amendment 5 seeks to bring into scope civil legal services in relation to advice and proceedings for any person who is 24 years old or under and has a disability, is a former care leaver or is a vulnerable person as specified by regulations. We have provided for those who are most vulnerable, as I have said, under Amendment 3, which covers those under the age of 18. However, we have also been clear that there must be flexibility in this complex area. The exceptional funding scheme therefore provides a mechanism whereby the director of legal aid casework can grant legal aid in areas that would normally be out of scope, where necessary, to ensure the protection of an individual’s rights to legal aid under the ECHR and EU law. In cases engaging Article 6 of the ECHR, the director of legal aid casework must take into account a person’s ability to represent themselves, the complexity of proceedings, the importance of the issues at stake and all other relevant circumstances. An individual’s age as well as their capacity will be key considerations in determining a person’s ability to represent themselves. The exceptional funding scheme will clearly be an important safeguard for children or vulnerable young people who would otherwise be unable to present their case.
I am told that we have lost the vote about retaining legal aid for appeals to the Supreme Court.
Lord McNally
The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York may be disappointed to know that he may have been absent to defeat us on that point at an earlier stage. As the noble Lord, Lord Bach, has indicated, the Government will look at these matters between now and consideration in the other place.
The only outstanding point that I wanted to cover was that made by the noble Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord Avebury, about the balance between CFAs and legal aid in injury cases. Although I am not a lawyer, I would say that, on balance, CFAs are the most effective way of taking these cases. It is worth remembering that 82 per cent of cases are already covered by CFAs. People are not left abandoned on a lonely sea—the process works.
It is always difficult to draw lines and easy to say that the lines have been drawn in the wrong place. As I said in opening, the amount of coverage for young people in this area is completely different from what was suggested in some speeches today. We believe that between the coverage of scope that we put into this Bill, the workings of exceptional funding and the availability of wider advice, there will not be the kind of consequences that have been suggested. I also make it clear that we do not think that Amendments 3, 4 and 5 are consequential, so if noble Lords do press them, we would want to test the opinion of the House on each. However, I hope that the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Grey-Thompson
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comments and consideration. The House appreciates that he has perhaps been given little or no room for manoeuvre. I would also like to thank all Members who have tried to ensure that children’s interests are safeguarded in this Bill. Most of all, I thank Members on the government Benches who have understood the problems with this legislation right from the start and have been prepared to raise them. We all understand that this is a very difficult thing to do. However, because of the very nature of the legislation and its impact on those unable in law to represent themselves, we need to ask the other place to take another look. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Hollis and, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Best, in moving this amendment. They have made a very powerful case, which was rehearsed on Report. At that time, I quoted Shelter and the Nottingham Law Centre, two separate organisations from the not-for-profit sector, which strongly urged the Government to change their position on this. They are the organisations that provide legal help and advice, not necessarily extending to court proceedings, on the benefits side as well as the remainder of the housing issue—some of which, in fairness, the Government are including within scope.
This is a classic case, as my noble friend has implied, where there is a potential modest saving to the Ministry of Justice budget but a potential extra cost to other departments. If homelessness ensues, particularly where children are involved, very substantial costs are imposed on the budgets of the local authority, and maybe also on the Department for Work and Pensions, which in certain circumstances may be devolved; for example, special needs payments or crisis loans, which a family on the streets may clearly require.
In this context, cost is a consideration which, if anything, tells against the Government’s proposals rather than the other way round. I hope that the Government will recognise the strength of arguments from those dealing with this directly—not from the legal profession in this case, but from the advice sector—and provide for the possibility of timely advice being given to avoid worse consequences for the individuals and their families and, for that matter, the public purse. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the position the Government have hitherto adopted.
Lord McNally
My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Best, acknowledge that this is one more time on which we have discussed these matters. We had detailed discussions in Committee and on Report. Amendment 16 is intended to bring into the scope of legal aid advice and assistance in relation to an individual’s financial situation, such as debt and housing-related welfare benefits issues, where they are linked to the loss or threatened loss of the individual’s home under paragraph 34 of Part 1 of Schedule 1. The House will be well aware that our proposals ensure that legal aid continues to be available to an individual in relation to the immediate risk of losing their home, through possession or eviction. This includes cases where the underlying cause is a debt or welfare benefits issue.
It may reassure noble Lords if I reiterate a few brief examples of where legal aid will be available under the loss-of-home provisions in paragraph 34 of Part 1 of Schedule 1. First, legal aid will continue to be available before a case is brought to court. It will be available where possession or eviction action is contemplated. Where an individual receives a letter which threatens possession action, legal aid will be available at that point. For example, legal aid will remain available to a person threatened with possession action for mortgage arrears to negotiate with their mortgage lender.
In the context of welfare benefits, it is important to recognise that, where a landlord threatens their tenant with possession proceedings, legal aid would be available to the tenant to reach agreement with a landlord to delay the possession action pending the resolution of the welfare benefits issue. If possession proceedings are issued, legal aid will be available to an individual to argue for an adjournment—for example, if they are likely to be able to make the necessary payments if an underlying benefits dispute is resolved in their favour. Where an individual loses a welfare benefits appeal and subsequently faces possession action for rent or mortgage arrears, legal aid will be available in relation to that action. We will also retain legal aid provision for judicial reviews about welfare benefits decisions and for welfare benefits matters which relate to a contravention of the Equality Act 2010.
This amendment would go much wider and would generally provide for legally aided advice and assistance on the financial circumstances of an individual—such as for underlying debt or welfare benefits issues—where these are linked to loss of home. This would run contrary to our approach. At a time when the country is recovering from a genuine fiscal crisis we need to focus limited resources on the highest-priority matters. As I have said before, we cannot agree that legally aided advice and assistance should be generally available in relation to a person’s financial circumstances—such as for debt or welfare benefits issues—in the situations covered by the amendment.
There is no doubt that people, including those in potential loss-of-home situations, find advice useful in areas such as debt and welfare benefits. But we are firmly of the view that what those affected often need is practical advice rather than legal advice funded by legal aid. Individuals who have debt problems often need advice on managing their finances better and on practical measures to resolve their situation, and can access that advice through a range of specialist organisations. It will come as no surprise to the House to hear me repeat that the Government greatly value the not-for-profit sector and the good-quality free advice which it provides to people in their communities on these sorts of matters.
My department is working closely with the DWP to improve the quality and effectiveness of initial decision-making in applications for social security, reconsideration within the DWP and the system of subsequent tribunal appeals. This work should make it easier for claimants to receive the right benefit provision. Moreover, welfare benefits appeals matters are resolved through a tribunal which is designed to be accessible without legal assistance, and general advice on welfare benefits is available from a number of sources.
I know that this issue has been raised at every stage. After these debates, we do not just close the book and not take any notice. We go back to the department and the Ministers and advisers have a discussion. There is also a discussion about the issues raised with other departments. This is not a decision taken lightly but we believe that the loss-of-home proposals in the Bill get the balance right in terms of focusing limited public funds for legal advice and assistance in the most appropriate circumstances. We have listened to the appeals made by the noble Lord and considered them. At this point, we cannot agree with them. I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Best
I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken. I am also grateful to my noble and right reverend friend Lord Harries of Pentregarth, who put his name to this amendment but has had to leave us. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, for talking of the perfect storm at a time of housing benefit change when advice will be incredibly important to people. Things will change dramatically on the benefit front and mistakes will be made by the officials concerned. Experts will be needed for support and assistance. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, who reminded us that Shelter, Citizens Advice and such bodies are behind this amendment rather than the lawyers. He also mentioned the extra costs that homelessness always brings.
This is a cost-saving amendment. The noble Lord is right that much remains within scope. Some 75 per cent to 80 per cent of the work currently being done remains within scope, which is great, but a lot of that is wasted if the remaining 20 per cent to 25 per cent is cut out. Where possession is threatened is the bit where the argument can be taken up with the administrators, the housing benefits officers. With their negotiating skills and expertise, they can fix it and sort it. Cutting that out renders a lot of the rest of the expenditure much less worth while.
Before the hour gets any later and without further ado, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord McNally
Lord McNally
Lord McNally
My Lords, the House will recall that my noble friend Lord Macdonald was most persuasive in Committee so that during Report a government amendment was agreed that removed the power to introduce means testing and make regulations setting criteria for determinations in relation to advice and assistance for individuals in custody. Amendment 20 is a government amendment that removes references to determinations under Clause 13, on police station advice and assistance, from Clause 21, which concerns financial resources. This is a consequential amendment in light of the Government’s amendment accepted on Report to remove the power to means test police station advice and assistance. This technical amendment is required to remove from Clause 21 the reference to regulations under Clause 13. I beg to move.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, has introduced this group of amendments with her customary fluency and passion, and she has been joined by other speakers who have made the case well. As has been pointed out, this measure risks damage to the UK’s reputation for justice to those people who have suffered damage to their human rights caused by companies based in the United Kingdom. I am sure that none of us wishes to see that happen.
We have support from all around the House, and we are grateful to those who have joined in on these amendments. The settled view of your Lordships’ House is clearly that there is a real danger that, if this Bill goes through in its present form, the changes that it makes to the way in which international human rights cases are to operate, combined with the restricted damages that the Rome II regulations impose on the level of damages that can be awarded to claimants, will make it impossible for such cases to be mounted in the UK in future.
As the House has heard, several very important independent charities have been lobbying hard on this issue. Several meetings have been held with the Minister and correspondence has been exchanged. We hoped that an accommodation could be reached, and we went to see him yesterday in the hope that that might be possible. He e-mailed us today to say that he could not accept our amendments.
It is clear to me that while on the one hand the Government do not want to be responsible for preventing these cases continuing in future, they have not so far been convinced that it is highly probable that they will occur in future. Why is that? The arithmetic, as has been said, is very clear. We seem to be in a situation where the department’s overriding concern that the architecture of the Bill should be retained is working here against good legislation. What other arguments can there possibly be? We have heard from those directly involved in these cases and we know what the figures are. It is clear that the facts outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and my noble friend Lord Brennan that the Government are wrong. I hope that when the time comes the noble Baroness will test the opinion of the House, and we will be supporting her in the Lobby.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I confirm that we have been in regular discussions about these amendments, and I regret that I am not able to accept them today.
There have been a number of comments about costs and indeed about the Trafigura case. What strikes me most about that case is that the £30 million that was won in damages worked out at about £1,000 per victim—against, as has already been accepted, legal costs that at one time, until they were beaten down, were running at £100 million. To me, that is an obscene system.
With regard to the reforms that we brought forward, we have said that we believe CFAs will continue. We are also introducing damages-based agreements. Far from welcoming them, though, the CBI and others worry that those may well provide funding in this area. So, it is not that the Government are opposed to bringing companies to account for their behaviour. I just do not believe in the rather broad claims by the noble Lords, Lord Brennan and Lord Judd, that this issue will dramatically affect the lives of people in developing countries. There are other areas of policy that are going to do much more than that.
I make clear that the Government strongly support claims arising from allegations of corporate harm in developing countries being brought, and we support the protection of damages for personal injury. Where we disagree with the supporters of the amendment is that we do not believe that our plans would prevent such cases being brought or ultimately damage the ability of NGOs and others to hold big business to account.
An exception along the lines proposed is in our view neither necessary nor justified. It is not necessary because reformed “no win no fee” arrangements will still allow cases to be brought. It is not justified because it would undermine the wider rationale for the Jackson reforms in Part 2 of the Bill, which should apply across civil litigation without any exceptions. In doing so, it would introduce unfairness between different types of claimant.
We recognise, however, that, following the Rome II regulations, damages in these cases can be relatively low, and they will not be subject to the 10 per cent increase available for other claims. The costs awarded can nevertheless be extremely high, as was demonstrated by the Trafigura case. The question is whether any exception should be made for these cases either on a wider basis, as proposed in Amendments 21, 22, 23 and 26, or on a narrower basis, as proposed in Amendment 27. I concede that in putting forward Amendment 27, the movers tried to put forward a narrow-based solution.
The Government have listened to this debate and those that went before, and we have reflected carefully on the points raised. We have held many meetings with interested stakeholders and NGOs over the past months, and the Government are fully aware of the strength of feeling on this issue. I have looked again at the evidence that has been presented, including reports by Professor Rachael Mulheron of the University of London and Mr Smith of First Assist. Both reports make the general case for recoverable success fees and insurance premiums to continue in these cases, but they do not present any figures showing why these cases could not be brought in future. During our discussions with the NGOs we have asked for such evidence but it has not been forthcoming, even though we have asked them for more detailed figures.
The truth is that the available evidence shows that these cases, though few in number—about 10 in a decade—have historically been highly profitable for the legal firms involved. Although under our plans the margins available would be reduced, they are still likely to remain attractive. I remind noble Lords of the sums involved. Since the previous Government introduced the recoverability of success fees and insurance premiums in 2000, we know that there have been only around 10 of these cases, mainly undertaken by a single firm of solicitors. Most of these cases have succeeded or settled, but some claims have been pursued in which costs have not ultimately been recovered. The figures suggest that in those cases that were not pursued to trial, there were disbursements of some £131,000 and legal costs in the region of £1.4 million. I appreciate that those figures will not cover all costs in all cases but they should be a fair ball-park indication. £1.4 million sounds like a lot of money for a firm to bear in what are effectively losses on a case not pursued and won until the substantial sums that have been received in success fees are considered. We know that in the case of Trafigura alone, success fees—intended to cover the costs in lost cases—of around £29 million were allowed by the Court of Appeal. Those figures amount to a net gain for claimant lawyers from these cases over the past decade of more than £27 million from the success fees for Trafigura alone. That does not include all the success fees in the other successful cases.
These figures speak for themselves. They cast all emotion aside and demonstrate the substantial gains in legal costs from these cases and the proportionately much lower costs expended. When the ratio of earnings to losses is more than 10:1, the current system can, to put it mildly, bear some reform. Therefore, while I recognise that claims against multinationals can be complex, the changes that we are making to the CFA regime will not prevent these cases being brought in the future. They can still be brought but the costs will be more proportionate. As Lord Justice Jackson recognised, a greater incentive for claimants’ lawyers to work more smartly is needed so that they incur only costs that are justified when bringing a claim, rather than allowing costs to escalate.
It is worth pointing out, as I have previously in the House, the criticism by the Court of Appeal of the costs claimed by the claimants in the Trafigura case. In that case, the court itself questioned whether some of the work undertaken by the claimants’ lawyers was necessary. It criticised them for seeking costs of £100 million in a case that resulted in payment of £30 million in damages. It is not for me to question the conduct of those involved, but it needs to be borne in mind when looking at the extraordinary costs claimed in that case alone. I should add—again, as I have pointed out to the House previously—that in that case the defendant’s costs were approximately £14 million, which is around one-seventh of the costs claimed by the claimants.
I turn now to Amendment 27, which seeks to allow for the recoverability of “after the event” insurance premiums to pay adverse legal costs, including expert fees and other disbursements. In doing so, the amendment goes much wider than just the cost of funding the expert reports for which we have provided in the special situation of clinical negligence cases. The amendment would potentially cover paying the other side’s costs, too, but this is not necessary because we are introducing a system of qualified one-way cost shifting in personal injury cases, which will protect losing claimants from having to pay the other side’s costs. We have discussed making exceptions in relation to expert reports in other contexts, but we do not believe that an exception is more needed here than in other cases. As I have said, the costs recovered in successful multinational cases have been substantial and could provide funds towards paying up front for reports where needed.
As I indicated on Report, on several occasions my officials and I have met representatives of the NGOs that support these cases. However, we have not been persuaded that such cases cannot continue to be brought when our changes are implemented. Nor are we persuaded that they justify an exception in the Bill that would be unfair to other, no less deserving claimants.
The House will be aware of all the arguments that I have rehearsed today, in Committee and on Report. We have treated subsequent discussions with the seriousness they deserve, and we have listened carefully. However, the Government continue to believe that reform is unavoidable, necessary and overdue. In this case in particular, we should not mix up a challenge to overgenerous costs with a denial of access to justice. Access to justice is precisely what the reformed CFA regime will protect, but as part of a more proportionate and balanced system. Therefore, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, the Opposition certainly support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in his customary and eminently reasonable way. He clearly draws the analogy between the changes that the Government, to their credit, accepted in relation to legal aid and what is being advocated here. It adopts the precautionary principle whereby if things went wrong—they may not of course—there would be a fairly simple way of correcting them if the amendment were to be accepted. If it is not accepted, we would presumably be in for a long delay while primary legislation was enacted, as both noble Lords have made clear.
In this case, discretion is the better part of legislative valour, and I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. It does not bind them to anything but provides an opportunity for corrective measures to be taken, if that should prove necessary, in precisely the same way that they have accepted in relation to legal aid.
Lord McNally
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has tabled his amendment along the lines he suggested on Report. He suggested then that it might be sensible to have a power to disapply the effects of Part 2 in relation to the abolition of recoverability of success fees and insurance premiums in respect of particular categories of case. The amendment now seeks to achieve that.
I have referred on several occasions during the passage of the Bill to its central architecture. The Government’s view, quite simply, is that the current recoverability regime is wrong in principle. It is wrong in principle to impose substantial additional costs on losing parties, whether in relation to success fees or insurance premiums. Those costs add to the already significant costs of civil litigation and allow for risk-free litigation by claimants and what I earlier described as inflation in our legal system.
I have explained the rationale for our proposals and why we consider that they should apply across the board without exception, and I do not propose to repeat those arguments now. The amendment seeks to allow different recoverability in different classes of case. We are implementing a package of reforms, not all of which are contained in the Bill. This package has been carefully put together to be fair between claimants and defendants.
I understand the noble Lord’s intentions. I understand that he thinks it sensible to allow for exceptions to be made at a later date. However, we are legislating now on what we consider to be a fair and overdue basis. Funding arrangements need a degree of certainty. Claimants and defendants need to be able to plan and adapt to the new regime. The amendment would only create uncertainty. Will an exception be created? For what and when? Rather than settling the issue of CFAs, as this Bill seeks to do, the amendment would open the door to constant campaigning and calls for individual exceptions. The amendment may be well intentioned but it is fraught with difficulty. It would provide uncertainty and confusion where we are seeking to introduce clarity. It would provide increased costs where we are seeking to reduce costs. It is wrong in principle and unnecessary. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. I simply do not understand how the amendment undermines certainty any more than does the equivalent provision in Part 1. I repeat that it would simply confer a discretionary power on the Lord Chancellor. I understand that the Government believe that the architecture in Part 2 is correct, but the Minister should accept that experience may show that in some contexts, the architecture does not work. The amendment would, importantly, ensure that if those concerns prove to be justified, the Lord Chancellor will have a power to do something about it.
This is an important matter. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord McNally
My Lords, my noble friend is catching something that perhaps I should not call Pannick disease. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has a habit of asking questions and then giving the answers. We will have to see whether I will be able to satisfy my noble friend on the questions that he raised.
As I explained, the basic rationale for the proposed reforms to no-win no-fee conditional fee agreements is to squeeze the inflation out of our legal system. It is to rebalance the system to make it fairer as between claimants and defendants. They do this by correcting the anomaly whereby those who bring cases have no incentive to keep an eye on the legal costs. Right now, the recoverability of success fees and insurance premiums from the losing side can have the perverse effect of preventing defendants fighting cases, even when they know they are in the right, for fear of the disproportionate legal costs involved if they were to lose.
High and disproportionate costs have a negative impact not just because they can deny access to justice but more broadly because they can lead people to change their behaviour in damaging ways because of the fear of claims. Nowhere is that more true than in relation to responsible journalism, as well as to academic and scientific debate. The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, to which my noble friend Lord Lester referred, in January 2011 in Mirror Group Newspapers v the UK—the so-called Naomi Campbell case—found the existing CFA arrangements with recoverability in that instance to be contrary to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the convention. Editors and journalists have long warned of the chilling effect of the current libel regime and argued that part of the problem is the huge costs that no-win no-fee cases impose. However, defendants are not always rich and powerful newspapers; they are also scientists, NGOs, campaigners and academics.
I have already made the general argument that any exception to reforms intended by Lord Justice Jackson to apply across the board is invidious and likely to lead to unfair anomalies with special treatment for some areas of law but not others. In the case of defamation, I additionally argue that these amendments are premature because, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, explained, these issues need to be considered in the context of the defamation Bill, which we aim to introduce as soon as a legislative opportunity arises.
Lord McNally
The noble Lord will have to wait and see. One thing is certainly true: I have made every effort to make sure that defamation is not engulfed in a tsunami from Leveson. If we really want to reform defamation and not get caught up in a much wider privacy law, what I am trying to do is the way forward. Stunts like dividing the House tonight will show that, on this Bill, the noble Lord is still more interested in short-term political gain than in making progress.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
As a member of the committee that has just reported, I should remind the noble Lord that it advised against a privacy law.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve
Before the Minister finishes winding, will he explain to the House why he does not think that these exemptions—the noble Lord, Lord Lester, may be entirely right—are the right way to go? Does he not think that two successive changes in the regime are the very worst thing for litigants in this area? In so far as we are leaving the Bill as it is, one change will happen now and another will happen down the road if there is legislation on defamation.
Lord McNally
We are talking about a Bill that does not come into effect until 2013. Given that defamation legislation is in process, I do not think the fact that there is a slight lacuna is a major problem in terms of the issues that the Bill will deal with. If it takes a little longer, that is a problem, and I will return to that.
That Bill and associated measures seek to reduce the costs of litigation and discourage unnecessary litigation in the area of defamation. We seek to do so, very broadly, by introducing a range of substantive and procedural changes and also by focusing on alternative dispute resolution, which is quicker, at lower cost, and offers more meaningful redress.
Any exceptions for defamation or privacy cases from the changes in Part 2 are unnecessary because our CFA reforms should not prevent strong cases being brought. I share the concern that individuals who are not wealthy or powerful sometimes need to bring defamation or privacy cases. Nothing in our proposals should prevent that where a case is a good one.
The noble Lord, Lord Bach, sometimes makes me gasp when he starts lecturing our Benches on consistency. The noble Lord, Lord Prescott, asked why this was happening now. Perhaps I may quote an expert on these matters:
“CFAs will remain available for defamation cases; thereby, lawyers will still be able to use them in deserving cases”.—[Official Report, 25/3/10; col. 1157.]
Those were the words of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, as Justice Minister, when he rushed attempts to reduce success fees before this House just before the election. We have already heard what happened in the grand coalition that was the Labour Government when the proposal went down the other end. Nevertheless, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, told this House:
“There is a substantial body of opinion that 100 per cent recoverable success fees should not continue in defamation cases”.—[Official Report, 25/3/10; col. 1156.]
He was backed up by a consultation which said,
“immediate steps are needed in respect of defamation proceedings”.
Lord Bach
My Lords, I stand by those remarks. If the Minister thinks that there is something wrong—for example, the difficulty in relation to damages where, under his Government’s scheme, claimants will have to pay up to 25 per cent of the damages they get—what is he going to do to change that? He is in government now.
Lord McNally
We are doing what they did not do. We are bringing forward a Defamation Bill that will address many of these problems. The noble Lord says that he does not know what is in the Defamation Bill. A Defamation Bill was brought into this House by my noble friend Lord Lester two years ago, when this Government first came in. In reply to that, I said from this Dispatch Box that we would take up this Bill. We went into a consultation, which has been published. We produced a draft Bill, which the noble Lord may have noticed. We also had pre-legislative scrutiny under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, and we have responded to that.
We have played this by the book. We have not tried to rush through legislation, as the noble Lord did in the dying days of his Government. We have carried out a sensible look at defamation. The noble Lord knows the conventions. I am very hopeful that we will find parliamentary time in the very near future.
As I have already said, the legislation in this Bill does not come into effect until 2013. The Defamation Bill and the procedural reforms that we intend to take forward with it are of course about reducing the complexity and therefore the expense involved. In order for those aims to be achieved, we will look at the rules on costs protection for defamation and privacy proceedings for when the defamation reforms come into effect. I can give the House the assurance that we will do so. Bearing that in mind, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw these amendments. We are on course for a reform of our defamation laws.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My noble friend the Minister accused me of asking questions to which I knew the answer, but this question I do not know the answer to. Is the Minister saying that there will be adequate powers, either under existing law or the future legislation, to create any cost changes that are needed to secure a level playing field and equality of arms? If that is what he is saying, I am completely satisfied.
Lord McNally
That is precisely what I am saying. I have not brought this Bill this far to score such an enormous own goal. Noble Lords, particularly those who have been in government, know full well how these processes are carried forward. Nothing will happen that will not be fully and thoroughly debated in both Houses of Parliament. I know that various groups have been briefing and arguing for action now. I do not think that these amendments carry us forward in any way.
I give noble Lords as full an assurance as I can. Bills have to go through Cabinets and Cabinet committees, et cetera, but they also have to go through two Houses of Parliament, where this issue is extremely live. I cannot imagine that the kind of issues that the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, has raised tonight will not be dealt with fully in that Defamation Bill. With that, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Prescott
I certainly do not withdraw the amendment and I hope that the House will vote on it.
Lord McNally
“( ) the legal services relate to any other claim or potential claim for damages arising out of circumstances involving personal injury or death,”
Lord McNally
My Lords, I committed on Report to bring back at Third Reading amendments to address issues raised by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral in respect of Clause 57. Amendment 29 addresses situations where the referral fee for an ancillary claim, such as for damage to a motor vehicle involved in a road traffic accident, in addition to a personal injury claim, may be inflated to include a payment for a referral fee for the personal injury claim. Amendment 30 makes it clear in the Bill that the payment of referral fees to a third party, whether or not they are regulated, will not avoid the prohibition on the payment of referral fees. This gives both practitioners and regulators a clear marker and removes doubt as to the effect of the clause. We do not wish to place additional burdens on regulators and these amendments will remove the potential for confusion on what is and what is not covered by the ban.
I wish to put on record my thanks to my noble friend for tabling his amendments, which have enabled the Government to strengthen and clarify the ban on referral fees in personal injury cases. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
My Lords, I thank the Minister and declare my interest as a partner in the international commercial law firm, DAC Beachcroft LLP, and my other interests in the register.
I warmly applaud the coalition Government’s intention to ban referral fees in personal injury cases. The amendments establish greater clarity around the operation of the ban on referral fees to ensure that there must be no side-stepping of the intention to ban them. I thank him warmly for bringing forward these amendments at Third Reading.
Lord McNally
Lord McNally
“(9) In Schedule 9 to that Act (transfer of community orders to Scotland or Northern Ireland)—
(a) in paragraph 1(5), after “require” insert “an alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirement or”, and(b) in paragraph 3, after sub-paragraph (4) insert—“(4A) The court may not by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) or (3) require an alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirement to be complied with in Northern Ireland.” (10) In Schedule 13 to that Act (transfer of suspended sentence orders to Scotland or Northern Ireland—
(a) in paragraph 1(5), after “require” insert “an alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirement or”, and(b) in paragraph 6, after sub-paragraph (4) insert—“(4A) The court may not by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) or (3) require an alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirement to be complied with in Northern Ireland.”(11) In the Armed Forces Act 2006—
(a) in section 180 (transfer of service community order to Scotland or Northern Ireland), in subsection (2), after “3(1)” insert “and (4A)”, and(b) in section 204 (transfer of suspended sentence order to Scotland or Northern Ireland), in subsection (2), for “6(5)” substitute “6(4A) and (5)”.”
Lord McNally
My Lords, Amendments 33, 34, 35, 42 and 43 are minor and technical consequential amendments, which provide clarification of the provision of the alcohol, abstinence and monitoring requirement introduced by an amendment on Report. Our intention is that new requirements should be available to the courts in England and Wales but not to the courts in Scotland or Northern Ireland. The amendment therefore ensures that the new requirement will not be capable of being imposed by a court in England and Wales on a person who is resident in Scotland or Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, I welcome these amendments. I am grateful to the Government for addressing an area that I overlooked in the amendments that I had drafted. I also should like to place on record my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, who, with me, met the domestic violence groups, as we had promised in the previous proceedings. We had a very useful and fruitful meeting with open discussion. At the end, everyone agreed that it was very clear that there was never any intention that the pilots should involve domestic violence, particularly not at the beginning, because the issues around domestic violence are so complex. The organisations involved in domestic violence very much want to be consulted at every stage of further development and the programmes in place to help people cope in situations of domestic violence are very important in trying to provide a safer and more stable society.
Lord McNally
(a) ”
Lord Bach
My Lords, I will be as brief as I can with this amendment. This is the third time that the issue has come before the House. The names put to the amendment on the first occasion were those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern—who made a very powerful speech—the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and mine. On Report it was just my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and he made a very powerful speech. Now it is down to one, and I intend simply to ask the Minister some questions.
The Minister will recall that, on Report, he stated that the Government accepted that “insolvency proceedings are untypical” and—stand apart as they are—that they are,
“one of the few areas where CFAs sometimes work to the advantage of government departments”,
and creditors generally. Despite that, and despite what I would argue are clear arguments in favour of it, the Government have decided against “a carve-out” for insolvency. The Minister announced that there has been,
“agreement across government, in respect of insolvency proceedings”,
and,
“that new ways will be implemented to deal with these cases without recoverable success fees and insurance premiums”.—[Official Report, 14/3/12; col. 358.]
The insolvency profession has apparently not been involved in any discussions with the Government about this new way of approaching insolvency proceedings and is concerned that the Ministry of Justice and HMRC may have decided that a contingency legal aid fund could be set up for insolvency cases.
My questions to the Minister are as follows. First, what are the Government planning with regard to insolvency proceedings and—to ask the same question as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, asked on Report—when will this be implemented? Is it indeed a contingency legal aid fund, or is it not? Secondly, if the Government are not going to exempt insolvency proceedings, will they agree to carry out a proper impact assessment to determine the impact that this will have on the taxpayer and business community? Thirdly, have the Government consulted the insolvency profession on how this might work in practice? Fourthly, will this measure help safeguard returns not just for HMRC but for private businesses as well? Fifthly, will this measure act as a fraud deterrent, as the current system does? Sixthly, if this new way does not work, what protections will the Government put in place to safeguard returns to HMRC and businesses? Could there be an exemption, for example, further down the line? Lastly, can the Minister assure the House that the Government will consult the insolvency profession on the details of these proposals? Those are the questions that I would like answered. I beg to move.
Lord McNally
My Lords, as I indicated on Report, we have reached agreement across government in respect of insolvency proceedings. In future these cases will need to proceed without recoverable success fees and insurance premiums. Alternative ways will be developed in time to deal with these important cases. We are working on a programme for implementing Part 2 of the Bill, and the details relating to insolvency proceedings will be set out in due course, before implementation. Insolvency cases will need to proceed without recoverable success fees and insurance premiums in the future. The impact of the Government’s CFA changes on those affected will depend on a number of unknown factors, including the volume of cases pursued in future, the number of cases which win, the levels of success fees and ATE insurance premiums negotiated, and the recoveries made in those cases. The Government will work with HMRC and others to further assess the impact of our changes. Policy discussions within government continue all the time, and remain confidential until the policy is agreed and announced. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Bach
Of course I am going to withdraw my amendment this evening, and I understand that the Minister could not answer all the detailed questions that I put to him just a few minutes ago. I would be grateful if he would be good enough to get his officials to write to me, through him, with the replies that he was not able to give tonight.
Lord McNally
To clarify, my Lords, we will engage as well with insolvency practitioners.
Lord McNally
“(3A) Section 78 extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, subject to subsection (10).”
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
Lord McNally Excerpts(14 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McNally
That the amendments for Third Reading be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 9, Schedule 1, Clauses 10 to 24, Schedule 2, Clauses 25 to 31, Schedule 3, Clauses 32 to 38, Schedule 4, Clause 39, Schedule 5, Clause 40, Schedule 6, Clauses 41 to 63, Schedules 7 and 8, Clauses 64 to 69, Schedule 9, Clauses 70 to 90, Schedule 10, Clause 91, Schedule 11, Clauses 92 to 106, Schedule 12, Clauses 107 to 111, Schedule 13, Clause 112, Schedule 14, Clauses 113 to 121, Schedule 15, Clause 122, Schedules 16 and 17, Clause 123, Schedules 18 and 19, Clauses 124 to 126, Schedule 20, Clause 127, Schedule 21, Clause 128, Schedule 22, Clauses 129 to 133, Schedule 23, Clauses 134 to 136, Schedule 24, Clauses 137 to 142, Schedule 25, Clause 143, Schedule 26, Clause 144, Schedule 27, Clauses 145 to 155.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, I beg to move the order of consideration Motion.
Baroness Trumpington
My Lords, I apologise. Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord McNally, whether the removal of the boards which have recently been erected in Parliament Square will have to wait until the Bill supported by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is passed. If so, I consider that the relevant authorities are wet.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I am not sure of the answer to that question. I know that I have just moved a formal Motion. In case the noble Baroness thinks that she will have to wait until about 11 o’clock to get an answer, I should say that all the Motions between this one and the Report stage of the Parliament Square (Management) Bill are formal. Perhaps she will let me move this formal Motion, and we can then move on very quickly to Parliament Square, when she might want to intervene again.