Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
Lord McNally Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Slim
My Lords, one word has been left out of our discussions—“veteran”. I refer to veterans of all ages. I respectfully remind the Minister that there are still disabled veterans from World War 2 and from right the way through until today’s campaigns and those that will come. The military covenant lays down that a veteran—man or woman—must be cared for. The right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State for Defence has to make a public report nationally at given times. I see nowhere that legal aid or legal advice is automatically offered or given to a disabled veteran in need. Has the noble Lord’s department discussed with the Ministry of Defence how they will handle this and make legal aid and legal advice available to veterans, as required by the military covenant? Is the noble Lord hearing me?
Viscount Slim
Thank you. My question is simply: have there been discussions between the Ministry of Justice and the MoD and a methodology put forward to ensure that free legal aid and advice will be given to disabled veterans where necessary?
Lord Bach
I rise to give my support, and that of my party, to Amendment 11, moved so brilliantly by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, now some time ago. My Amendment 88 is consequential on that amendment and deals with the other side of the coin. For me, Amendment 11 is the most important amendment in the entire Bill, and I shall try to explain shortly why I believe that. I want to speak also to my own Amendment 12, which is not an alternative in any sense to Amendment 11, but refers to the appeals process as opposed to the earlier process. Perhaps I may also briefly say how much we support the other amendments that have been spoken to in this debate, namely Amendments 21, 45 and 46.
We pride ourselves that our legal system is among the best in the world. We encourage rich foreign litigants to try their legal disputes in English courts and say that our system is fair, is not corrupt and has a very high class of judges and advocates. All that is true, but what underpins and guarantees our system is that there is access to justice for everyone. The law is there to help everyone, including the poor, the disabled and the marginalised, and we have a system of helping the poor that is both practical and principled—it is not perfect, but it works. If that system is decimated, as I fear the Bill as it is presently constituted will do, then as many as 650,000 people who have access to justice now will no longer have it. That fact alone should make us pause for thought. It is as serious, stark and uncomfortable, I am afraid, as that.
We all know that citizens with legal problems in the complex fields of welfare benefits, debt, employment and housing—which often involve the organs of the state, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, emphasised—can at present obtain expert legal advice, and “advice” is the key word here, so that those problems can be resolved. Legal advice of this kind helps people keep away from the courts and the tribunals; it does not urge them towards the courts. One of the myths that I am afraid has been rather put about by the Government in this Bill is that doing away with legal aid for social welfare law will reduce the number of cases going to the courts. However, the exact opposite is true. It is the availability of early advice that keeps the numbers down for our tribunals and courts. The people who use these services are not those whom the Daily Mail might choose to call scroungers or the work-shy; these are ordinary people who lead good lives and come up against the complexity of the modern state. They may have served in the Armed Forces; they may have been in all sorts of professions; they may not have led particularly successful professional lives. However, they are our fellow citizens, and if a system of law is to have any justice at all, it must look after them as much as it looks after us. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, made this point a few minutes ago.
This is not an expensive type of law. My noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith made it clear that no cat gets fat on welfare legal aid. Also, it works. If early advice is not available, we all know what the other side of the coin will be; things will get worse; a welfare problem will become a debt problem, then a housing problem; people will become homeless and unemployed; families will break down; and some people will fall into criminality. This should be a no-brainer. The changes will cost so much more than they will save. We have all seen studies that tell us that. Alas, the Government have not seen fit to contradict the statistics. They will not give us any figures—and I doubt that they could—to counter those arguments.
The consequences will not just be that many clients will not get access to justice; there will be a knock-on effect of making it impossible for CABs and law centres to continue to function in the way that they do now. They depend on legal aid money to attract other funds to do other work. If the legal aid money dries up, so may other sources—and then we will be deprived of them in our country.
Amendment 101—rather aptly named, if I may say so—is a brave attempt, but only an attempt, to try to move us away from what we as a House must come to grips with today. We must quite legitimately put pressure on the Government and say to them: “Look, you should not be withdrawing legal aid in this field. Just think again about this”. This is the attitude taken by Citizens Advice, for which the House has a huge feeling of respect. In its briefing, it states clearly:
“We therefore strongly support Baroness Doocey’s amendment that legal aid for casework advice on review and appeals should be retained within scope”.
It could not be clearer.
I will say a brief word about Amendment 12 because I will not have another opportunity to speak to it. It follows Amendment 11 and concerns appeals. The matter should be one of common sense. Very few of these cases—involving very little taxpayers’ money—get to the upper-tier tribunal, where at the moment there is no representation, only advice and assistance. Although I think that there should be representation, I am not asking for it in Amendment 12 because I do not want to add to existing costs. However, of course representation in the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court should be granted through legal aid because it is quite ridiculous to suggest that claimants should get to that stage, in matters that are about law only, and have to argue their case. It would be impossible and would not help the court in any way. It is common sense that we should ask the Government to say that those matters should be legally aided. That is what Amendment 12 is about. It is quite separate from Amendment 11, which is about advice at a much earlier stage.
I have a quotation from the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. On the matter that Clause 12 deals with, he said:
“Seriously, however, it is not reasonable to demand a citizen even to decide whether he or she has a point of law which can be taken before a tribunal. It is simply unrealistic. One could almost say it is cruel to pretend that we are creating rights for those citizens most in need when they cannot even get advice and representation on points of law at appeals”.—[Official Report, 20/12/11; col. 1725.]
Precisely; that is exactly the point, and I hope that the House will support Amendment 12.
I return briefly to Amendment 11. The proposal to take legal aid out of scope is wrong in three ways. First, it is wrong because it picks on those least able to defend themselves, and not on others whose opposition would be much more powerful. Secondly, it verges on the unconstitutional because it directly attacks access to justice for a large number of people. Finally, and this is one of the crucial points, the cost of not providing advice will be outweighed by the cost down the line. That point has been made by many noble Lords on all sides. We have heard that the House has a tradition of protecting the interests of the poor and the powerless in our society. If we decline to do so on this occasion, we will be diminishing our legal system and making our country a less civilised place. I very much hope that the House will support the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey.
Lord McNally
My Lords, if we have a debate about how we help the poor then it is bound to be emotive and emotional. We have had such a debate, and it has been emotive and emotional. If we have a debate about the rule of law, and we had such a debate on Monday, then it will certainly be high minded—although even on Monday I thought that the line was blurred between access to justice as a basic right. a right with a long history in our country, and access to justice funded by the taxpayer, where there have always been limitations and where lines have always had to be drawn. By all means we can have the broad-based debate, and I understand the motives and emotion behind a lot of what we have heard.
The noble Lord, Lord Bach, said that this is the most important amendment in the Bill and he is right. I make no complaint—it is nothing to do with me anyway—but those who grouped these amendments together did so very sensibly, because these amendments, separately and collectively, tear out the heart of the rationale of the Bill. Be under no dubiety about it—that is what this collection of amendments does.
Let me, in making my case, go back to the beginning, as it were. One of the few advantages of being around a long time is that you remember things. I was a junior official in the Labour Party in 1976 when the then Labour Government had to devalue the pound. A great deal of pain and anguish followed as various departments had to undertake cuts. I was actually in Downing Street—in the Cabinet Room, with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer—when the pound went from $1.95 to $1.47 in a single afternoon, and we sent for the Governor of the Bank of England and then for the IMF. Painful cuts followed. I can see sitting round this Chamber people who had ministerial responsibility or senior Civil Service responsibility. They know that even the most high-minded and principled Government sometimes have to face difficult decisions and make difficult choices and cannot simply rely on the emotion of the moment.
When we came into office we inherited an economy that was out of balance and faced a historically large public deficit. In more prosaic language, that meant that we were all a lot poorer than we thought we were. As a result, across government, we have had to take some very tough decisions on public expenditure. As I have said before, my department had to make cuts of £2 billion out of a total budget of £10 billion. It is easy to say—I have heard it today—that £1 million, £10 million or even £16 million is not so much. Of course, the House has got used to dealing in the rather larger sums of the Welfare Reform Bill. But for a smallish department with a small budget, and with a very restricted number of areas where cuts can be made, that involves taking tough decisions.
The noble Lord, Lord Bach, has indicated that he is going to divide the House. I hope that those who are going to go into the Lobby—many of whom have had to take responsibility for budgets, for making cuts and drawing lines—will not do so simply in the cavalier view that this will send a message to the Government.
Lord McNally
And I have heard a lot. The House has to move on. We want to get through Schedule 1.
This is not a debate about who cares most; it is about whether this House is willing to take the tough decisions that our economic situation requires, or whether it is simply going to push the problem down the corridor for the other place to take those decisions. That is it, because the other place will have to take those decisions whether we do so or not.
I believe that these amendments dismantle the central architecture of the Bill and our reform programme. As a result, as I have said many times, it will come as no surprise to the House that we have had to make these difficult choices about legal aid, as we have done with every aspect of MoJ expenditure. I know that we are debating issues about which noble Lords care deeply; I do not think there is any monopoly on that. There will be noble Lords who will follow me into the Lobby tonight who have just the same—if I may use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile—“determinations of principle and conscience” as those who will not.
I remind noble Lords that the reform programme is specifically aimed at protecting the most vulnerable. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, talked about the social welfare programme being “decimated”. We will still be spending an estimated £120 million a year on funding for private family law; £50 million on categories of social welfare law; an extra £10 million a year on mediation; £6 million on clinical negligence; and £2 million on education.
We are keeping legal aid for child parties in family proceedings. We have retained legal aid for child protection cases, civil cases concerning the abuse of a child, and for cases concerning special educational needs assistance. We are keeping legal aid for people with mental health problems or who lack capacity for cases that determine their vital interests, and for advocacy in front of mental health tribunals. Legal aid will be retained for judicial review of welfare benefit decisions, and for claims about welfare benefits relating to contraventions of the Equality Act 2010. We will agree to extend funding to victims of human trafficking and domestic child abduction—something I know that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, is interested in.
Our reforms have been deliberately designed with these cases in mind. Crucially, as I said in the House on Monday, we will amend the Bill to enable the Lord Chancellor to bring areas of law back into the scope of legal aid. When the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, rose, everyone groaned that there was nothing more that could be said. But I congratulate him on being the first to mention what was a very significant concession by the Government, in that what was a ratchet in the Bill is now a regulator. If some of the doom and gloom is proved to be true, the scope is there to respond to those facts.
While we are clear that our reforms are the right ones, we believe that this is an important amendment. As has also been said, the Treasury has announced that additional funding in this spending period will be available for the not-for-profit sector. As noble Lords know, we believe that in many social welfare cases it is not legal advice that people want; it is simply advice. We will support the advice sector to do just that. While we appreciate that many people rely on welfare benefits, these decisions are made in a tribunal, which is a court especially designed to ensure that claimants do not require legal representation. They are also primarily about financial entitlement and do not raise such fundamental issues as cases concerning liberty or safety.
As I have mentioned, the Government are committed to ensuring that not-for-profit advice, as well as other forms of welfare benefit advice, remains to ensure that claimants are clear about what they are entitled to claim and how they can seek redress. However, as those colleagues who have sat in another place and have advised constituents in these areas can testify, legal advice is not required in all these cases. That said, legal aid will be retained for the judicial review of welfare benefit decisions and for claims about welfare benefits relating to a contravention of the Equality Act 2010.
Amendments 21 and 46 concern legal aid for children and vulnerable young people but, as I have already said, it is simply not true to suggest that there will be no funding for cases involving children and young people. These amendments seek to bring into scope certain civil legal services for any person aged 24 or under who has a disability, is a former care leaver or a victim of trafficking, or has other vulnerabilities as prescribed in regulation. I should at this point tell the House that the Government intend to table an amendment at Third Reading on legal aid for victims of trafficking and claims for compensation.
The Bill also has important safeguards for children and adults who lack capacity or require treatment for mental health issues. Paragraph 5 provides for advocacy before the Court of Protection where there is to be an oral hearing and the case will determine the vital interests of the individual: that is, medical treatment including psychological treatment, life, liberty, physical safety, the capacity to marry or enter into a civil partnership, the capacity to enter into sexual relations or the right to family life.
Paragraph 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 provides that legal aid may be made available for cases arising under the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Capacity Act 2005, including cases concerning the medical treatment of patients or those who lack capacity. Paragraphs 9 and 15 of Part 3 of Schedule 1 provide for legal aid for advocacy for mental health cases before the mental health tribunal. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Part 3 of Schedule 1 provide legal aid for advocacy for any onward appeals to the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court on a mental health or capacity issue that is within scope. The exceptional funding scheme will ensure the protection of an individual’s rights to legal aid under the European Convention on Human Rights as well as rights to legal aid that are directly enforceable under European Union law.
On Amendment 46, about children, we are already keeping legal aid for child parties in family proceedings. Therefore, part of this amendment is superfluous. The rest of the amendment seeks to keep funding across the board for children in all civil disputes without regard to their relative priority or alternative methods of resolving them. I have already mentioned that the Government recognise the importance of funding in a range of cases where children’s interests are key. That is evidenced in how we have proposed to allocate legal aid funding by protecting funding in those areas that specifically involve children.
I am very willing to meet my noble friends and others who have asked to meet me between now and Third Reading, but I cannot make promises or give guarantees. We have retained legal aid for child protection cases and civil cases concerning the abuse of a child, as well as for cases concerning special educational needs assistance. We have also made special provision so that legal aid is available for children who are made parties to private family proceedings. In civil cases, claims brought in the name of a child are usually conducted by their parents acting as the child’s “litigation friend” rather than the child themselves. This is a normal part of the rules on civil litigation; the civil justice system as a whole does not generally require children to act on their own behalf.
We have also made it clear that one of the key criteria for the exceptional funding scheme is the ability to represent yourself. This will obviously be relevant where a child is bringing an action without a litigation friend. We must also ensure that we do not create a loophole in the system through which lawyers might encourage parents to attempt to bring civil litigation in their children’s name purely to secure funding that is otherwise outside the scope of this area of the law.
Amendment 45 seeks to make legal aid available for private family law cases where, in the course of mediation, the mediator has identified issues pointing to potential child abuse, a point addressed by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. Legal aid will remain available on a means and merits free basis for public family law proceedings where a local authority seeks to take a child into care, at a cost of around £300 million a year. Legal aid would also be available in private family law proceedings where a child was at risk if those proceedings were an alternative to public law proceedings. An example of this would be legal aid for a special guardianship order for grandparents where the local authority had decided that this would be a preferable solution to taking a child into care. We have also expanded our original proposals on providing legal aid for private family cases where domestic violence is present to include evidence of child abuse.
The child-specific evidence here is the fact of a child protection plan as put in place by a local authority, although other types of evidence relevant in domestic violence cases would also apply. This is particularly relevant in respect of Amendment 45, which would use the evidence of a mediator to qualify someone for legal aid. It is of course important that a mediator reports any suspected child abuse to the local authority, and mediators are obliged to do so under their code of conduct. The local authority would then investigate, and if the mediator’s suspicions were confirmed, where relevant it would put a child protection plan in place. Alternatively, the authority may start immediate public law proceedings. Either way, legal aid would then be available either for private or public proceedings. Such a system ensures the well-being of the child, which must be the priority, but it would seem slightly strange to pre-empt the results of a local authority investigation by granting legal aid for a private family matter. Of course, if there was an emergency and the local authority for whatever reason was not taking action, legal aid would be available, with the benefit of a financial eligibility limit waiver, for someone to take out a protective injunction. Legal aid would also be available where a subsequent local authority investigation found that the issues were substantiated and a child protection plan put in place. The safeguards in the Bill are sufficient to secure the safety of children, and legal aid where it is needed.
Amendment 101—I see the humour in the number—seeks to include a power in the Bill to fund the not-for -profit sector to do work that is outside the proposed scope of the civil legal aid scheme. I can assure the House that we have been listening to the concerns raised about the sustainability of the not-for-profit sector, and we agree with many of them. As I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, I recalled one of the advantages of a long life. One of the few successful things I did when I was in the House of Commons was something that I think cost the then Tory Minister, Gerard Vaughan, his job. He tried to cut CAB funding. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Newton, was a member of the Government who sought to cut CAB funding at the time, but it just goes to show that what goes around, comes around. The Ministry of Justice already has the power to provide grants to not-for-profit organisations. For example, we are already funding the Money Advice Trust, a not-for-profit sector organisation that is responsible for running National Debtline.
Lord McNally
Oh look, they are all waiting. It is the responsibility of Cross-Benchers, who supposedly, I am readily assured, are deciding individually to consider, as I am sure they do, whether their experience of having to take tough decisions in tough times merits filleting this Bill, as this series of amendments would do. What I have said in this speech makes a mockery of the idea that we are decimating—
Lord McNally
No, I will not give way. Noble Lords have had a very good time. I have a right to point out that the attack that we have decimated social welfare law does not stand up. So much has been said in this debate, but it has been a matter of presenting doomsday scenarios and making predictions that may or may not come back. We have made many concessions, which makes this a better Bill, and I thank the House for that, but I hope that the House will not be lulled into taking a decision that will take the tougher responsibilities —the Budget responsibility and the public spending responsibility—down the Corridor. We should have the courage to make those decisions here and now.
Lord Laming
The House will realise that I rarely intervene in matters of this kind. In fact, I would go as far as to say that this is the first time that I have intervened. I hope that the noble Lord the Minister, for whom I have the highest regard, will withdraw any suggestion that if members of the Cross-Bench group go through the Lobby supporting these amendments, they are behaving irresponsibly.
Lord McNally
Cross-Benchers are individuals who make up their own minds. I am entirely right to say that decisions that we have taken in the context of this Bill relate to public expenditure and the need to bring this economy under control. I will also say this, because we have had enough examples in Europe in the past year: if you lose control of your economy you go into another round of public expenditure cuts. Part of the reason why we have been able to have this debate today is the success of the Government in stabilising the economy.
What we have never heard—and I hope that the Cross-Benchers will also put this into their minds when they make their decision—is that members of the party opposite were committed to making a similar round of public expenditure cuts. That is their right in opposition, but they did not have to spell out where or how or when. That is very comfortable in opposition, but I am proud that we in the Government have taken those decisions. I hope that those who are willing to accept that we have taken tough decisions will give us their support in the Lobby tonight.
Insurance: Payment Protection Insurance
Lord McNally Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to ensure consumers are getting good value for money from companies that are marketing services helping people make payment protection insurance mis-selling claims.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, the Government require claims management companies to follow conduct rules focusing on protecting the consumer. The Ministry of Justice’s Claims Management Regulation Unit will take action against companies which fail to comply.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Does the noble Lord agree that the mis-selling of payment protection insurance was a scandal? Does he agree that making a claim is relatively straightforward, that you do not need to use a claims management company, and that losing 30 per cent of your compensation in fees and charges is not very good value for money? Would he agree to meet me and consumers’ representatives to discuss how consumers can keep more of their money?
Lord McNally
My Lords, I would be very happy to have such a meeting, and I congratulate the noble Lord on his campaign in this area. It is an area where consumers have not been best served and where they are not aware that there are many simpler ways of reclaiming this money than paying exorbitant fees to claims management companies. I hope that as a department we are on the case but I would gladly meet the noble Lord and colleagues to discuss it further.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, is the Minister aware of an issue raised by the Building Societies Association—that these claims companies are pursuing claims supposedly on behalf of individuals but against lenders where the product in question was never sold? By the time a lender and the ombudsman have spent money proving no sale, future borrowers are out of pocket because of the cost created. Can something be done to stem this growing practice?
Lord McNally
My noble friend is right to draw attention to another example of abuse. Where such abuses are brought to our attention, we remove companies from the list of those which are able to offer these services. Again, I emphasise that regulations and protection for the consumer are in place. We possibly need greater awareness among consumers of their rights, and I shall certainly take that back.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, I declare an interest as a director of the Financial Ombudsman Service. My best guess is that the banks have provisioned about £9 billion for PPI. If about 80 per cent of cases going to the ombudsman come through claims management companies, then at least £2 billion is going to CMCs rather than going back to customers. Given that, will the Minister give the House an undertaking that his department will act to require CMCs to declare their fees up front and to tell customers that they are not required to use them as they could make a claim themselves for free?
Lord McNally
My Lords, those are exactly the regulations that pertain to these companies. However, because of the pressure of sales, there is no doubt that people are being misled in that way. We shall need to take further action because, as the noble Baroness rightly says, one does not need a pocket calculator to realise that these companies operate in an area where they can make a lot of money, which should quite properly go into consumers’ pockets.
Lord Campbell of Alloway
My Lords, why is the Minister of Justice concerned with this? If there is concern, why is not the Lord Chancellor asked to deal with this? What is the difference between the one and the other now that we do not have the old-style Lord Chancellor or Minister of Justice?
Lord McNally
I was halfway to agreeing with the noble Lord because one of the first things I asked was: why is the Ministry of Justice regulating claims management companies? I was told—I am looking at the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, although I do not think he was in post at the time—that the Office of Fair Trading was reluctant to take on this responsibility. The noble Lord nods his head. I still wonder whether there would not be a better home for this matter, but while we have it, noble Lords should know that our motto is “We are from the Ministry of Justice; we are here to help”. We certainly intend to ensure that, while we have a responsibility to regulate this industry, we will regulate it with all due diligence.
Lord Hughes of Woodside
My Lords, is the Minister aware that there appears to be a scam on the go? I have had about 12 phone calls, in which I have always been addressed by name, saying that they will help me to get money back under the payment protection scheme. Is the Minister saying that this is a vicious and misleading practice by companies or that we are in danger of a scam? If so, should not the public be warned one way or another?
Lord McNally
I would take the name of the company and report it to the Ministry of Justice. Cold-calling in person is banned; high-pressure telephone calling is banned; and unsolicited text messaging is banned. I am sure that noble Lords to whom this has happened for the first time have already realised that this is an industry where a lot of consumers’ money is at stake because of the success in making the banks take responsibility for this mis-selling. As the noble Baroness said, there is something like £8 billion or £9 billion that could be returned to consumers and, to put it no higher, there are some very dodgy practices at work with people trying to get their hands on that money. I can assure noble Lords that the Ministry of Justice will accept its responsibility in this area. We are talking to the Financial Ombudsman Service as well and we shall pursue this matter in the best interests of consumers.
Lord Flight
My Lords, would it not be appropriate for the head of the Financial Services Authority to warn consumers on this front? The whole point of having a financial regulator is to protect the public and, in the past, the head of the FSA regularly gave warnings to the public.
Lord McNally
My Lords, the responsibility for this is with the Financial Ombudsman Service. The financial ombudsman has identified this and put out warnings. Both the Financial Ombudsman Service and the MoJ on their websites give clear directions to consumers about how they can make claims in this area without using these companies and at no cost to themselves.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
Lord McNally Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Howarth of Newport
That certainly increases the case that I am rather lamely seeking to put forward. My noble friend is deeply expert in this field. It is, therefore, the more regrettable that the Government have sought to save only 8 per cent on the much larger criminal legal aid budget while taking 53 per cent from the funds provided to support people in poverty seeking to establish their claims for social welfare benefits.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, said in our earlier debate that there had been difficulties with the equality impact assessment. I think he argued that it was methodologically very difficult to pursue it to the point that we were arguing it should be taken to. However, we know from the evidence of that assessment, unsatisfactory as it was, that the effect of these cuts will be disproportionate on some of the most disadvantaged people—ethnic minorities and disabled people, for example. Although it was found to be intellectually too difficult to complete the investigation initiated in that assessment, it clearly established that the risks of social injury were very great, and I do not think that a more prudent Government would have wanted to go further down that avenue. I was pleased to hear from the Minister that there is going to be a revised equality impact assessment in the light of any amendments that may be made to the Bill and, moreover, that the Government intend that there should be another impact assessment—I think that that is what the noble Lord said—in due course. Therefore, the Government’s thinking is beginning to concur with thinking on this side of the House.
If a post-commencement review is to take place two years after the commencement of Part 1 of the Bill, when enacted, there will by that time have been an opportunity to assess progress that may have been made in other regards to reduce the costs of the legal system and the courts, and that may leave a little more margin to restore legal aid to the levels that I am sure we would all wish to see it at. There are all sorts of ways in which costs in the system could be reduced in principle: the law could be made clearer and procedures could be made simpler. Perhaps lawyers could be paid less, although I do not think that lawyers doing legal aid work ought to be subjected to those kinds of savings. However, we could hope that there would be more pro bono work and that charities would provide more support to people in need. We could hope that the tribunals might indeed become more user-friendly, although I noted that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, in her Sir Henry Hodge Memorial Lecture earlier this year, discussing the question of whether tribunals could really be user-friendly, as their authors have always hoped they would be, and looking at the system of law they administer and the procedures that they developed in employment law and immigration cases, said that such a concept was, frankly, laughable. We might hope for better decision-making by public agencies so that fewer people have a need to appeal. We might also hope that alternative dispute resolution makes more progress, and that mediation, as the Government hope, will indeed lead to more expeditious and economical ways of resolving disputes.
All those things may develop and there may be progress, but I think it is unlikely in the extreme that we are going to see such appreciable economies or a system made so much more attractive and beneficial to disadvantaged people in those ways that we can reconcile ourselves to the loss of legal aid for welfare benefits claimants. Lord Bingham wrote judiciously in his book, The Rule of Law, that,
“the goal of expeditious and affordable resolution of civil disputes is elusive, and likely to remain so”.
However, if we have the post-commencement review that my noble friend has asked for, we can look at the progress that has been made on all those fronts. As a corollary of having this review, I think that my noble friend Lord Beecham is right to propose that there should be a sunset clause and that Part 1 would need to be positively revived in the light of the evidence that would have become available by then. Therefore, I am very happy to support the amendments proposed by my noble friend.
Lord McNally
My Lords, let me make it absolutely clear from the start that my spirits are lifted when I see the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, rise to his feet. In all seriousness, I believe that he is a very effective parliamentarian. I say that as a compliment. He researches his interventions, his arguments are well marshalled, and it is always a pleasure to respond to him. That is particularly the case this evening, when we have had a glimpse of what might have been: the Howarth Chancellor of the Exchequer Budget. There would be all the savings and cuts and the only thing that would stop Chancellor Howarth getting the country a triple C rating would be the presence of a triple D rating. Nevertheless, it is always a pleasure to respond to him, and that is why I intend to take at least 25 minutes to deal precisely with the points that he has made.
As the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, very frankly, pointed out, Amendment 7A would require a post-commencement impact assessment in the same terms as the pre-commencement impact assessment, which we discussed under Amendment 6. I do not propose to rehearse the same arguments again here, as the real issue of this amendment concerns its relationship with Amendment 161. That amendment would, as has been explained, place a time limit on the effect of the primary legislation, and any revival of its provisions would require the approval of both Houses.
I ask the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, to consider for a moment the legal, contractual and practical implications of the legal aid scheme under this Bill lasting for only three years unless Parliament’s approval were reaffirmed at that point and thereafter annually. That would undermine the approval that Parliament may give by seeking re-approval inside a period shorter than most governmental terms. I do not really think that this proposition for a sunset clause in this Bill is practical. I hope that the noble Lord will reconsider the wisdom of this amendment and withdraw it.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, it is a profoundly wise amendment, but nevertheless I beg leave to withdraw it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I come in on an amendment that is rather dear to my heart, after the powerful speech by my noble friend Lady Hayter, because we both worked on the Welfare Reform Bill.
What struck me in that particular debate on the Welfare Reform Bill was that it is surely folly to withdraw legal advice at the time that you are bedding in a new system of welfare benefits, which will probably have greater effect on claimants than anything since the Second World War. I do not know whether I have the Minister’s attention but perhaps I could suggest to him that the one thing you do not do is withdraw legal advice about entitlement and eligibility at the very same time that you are introducing a major, vast set of changes to benefits.
As my noble friend Lady Hayter indicated, in discussions on the Welfare Reform Bill, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Freud, who had genuine respect for evidence, agreed to accept three major reviews post-implementation of the Bill: first, what would happen to private sector rented housing; secondly, what would happen to public sector rented housing; and thirdly, what would happen to disabled children. This is in respect of being informed by evidence and seeing what the effect of changes will be.
The Government are taking a leap into the dark on the Welfare Reform Bill and a leap into the dark on withdrawing the ability to seek legal advice at the time claimants are most likely to need it. At the very least, therefore, the Minister should follow in the footsteps of his noble friend Lord Freud and put in the basic safety net of a review to see whether the Government’s expectations will be fulfilled.
Lord McNally
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to have an intervention from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. I hear what she says and of course I defer to the judgment of my noble friend Lord Freud about the Welfare Reform Bill. However, if she had been with us through the passage of this Bill, she would have seen the number of pre-legislative and post-legislative inquiries, independent reports, consultations—it does seem a little bit like overkill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has confessed that this is a second go at this issue, previously raised without success in the Welfare Reform Bill. This time around she would require the Lord Chancellor to conduct a review of the combined effects of Part 1 and what is now the Welfare Reform Act on a range of measures relating to advice provision and demand for advice.
Lord Bach
I was not sure whether the Government were minded to adjourn the House now, it being 10 o’clock. Clause 8 has always taken a considerable amount of attention from those inside and outside the legal profession. People are very struck by the fact that it was very much a one-way ticket; namely, that the Lord Chancellor would have the power to take extra matters out from legal aid by regulation but not have the power to put them back in. Many people felt that that was very unsatisfactory.
The solution was to do it the other way around; namely, that he could put things into legal aid but could not take them out by regulation. But we see the virtues of the amendments, which are not quite the same in wording but come to the same thing, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and my noble friend Lord Hart. Although I will move my amendment, I would be more than happy to accept either of their amendments. I very much hope that the Government will be happy to accept one of their amendments. I beg to move.
Lord McNally
My Lords, the principles underpinning this Bill include the need to establish very clearly the scope of civil legal aid services. We need to ensure that the funding of the scheme is sustainable in the light of the historic expansion of the scheme and the cost to the taxpayer. We have made difficult choices in order to focus legal aid in our priorities and therefore we will resist amendments that seek to expand the scope of the scheme. However, I accept that a case has been made by my noble friends Lord Thomas and Lord Phillips, and indeed by the noble Lord, Lord Bach. If they do not press their amendments this evening, I give a clear undertaking to the House to bring back our own amendment at Third Reading which I think will meet the concerns that have been expressed. I can reassure noble Lords that the Government accept the amendments in principle in so far as they would provide the Lord Chancellor with a power to add new civil legal services to Part 1 of Schedule 1. I hope that will allow the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment and await the government amendment at Third Reading.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
Lord McNally Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, before the House receives this Report, may we have an assurance from the Leader of the House that we will not be wasting our time as we scrutinise the Bill and offer our advice to the House of Commons by way of amendment? Will he confirm that there is no necessity for Ministers to advise the House of Commons to claim financial privilege in relation to Lords amendments that may have public expenditure implications, which in the case of this Bill would be modest at the most? Will he assure us that this time the Government will not hide behind 17th century resolutions of the House of Commons to prevent the House of Lords in the 21st century from doing its proper job as the revising Chamber of a bicameral Parliament?
Lord Bach
Indeed—I fully concede that; but I have to say that I do not concede the point that I am about to make, which is that if the noble Lord were in opposition and a Bill such as this was brought in by a Government whose party was not his party, he would oppose the Bill with all the great force and passion that he could and support the amendment 100 per cent.
Some noble Lords in Committee thought that the amendment did not go far enough and did not follow the words of the Constitution Committee. This is a very modest amendment that could have gone further. We think that it catches the right note, does not try to go further than it should and is very much in the context of Part 1. If it is the position of some noble Lords that the amendment does not go far enough, that is surely an argument in the context of this debate to vote for the amendment, because its position is closer to their position than if they were against it. If the view is that the Bill should reflect the Constitution Committee’s opinion and nothing else, this is certainly the amendment to vote for.
There is nothing wrong at all with this statement of principle occurring at the start of a major Bill that if passed in its present form will transform the legal aid system, particularly as it affects the very poorest, who rely on civil justice in order to get their rights. It is therefore important that we set off in the right way. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter—if I may say so, with respect—caught the mood absolutely correctly when he talked about the function of the law, which is to look at worst-case scenarios. He is absolutely right; the Bill does not do that. It takes a very rosy view of what will happen when, for example, there is no legal aid for social welfare law. What will happen then? I know that we will debate that in the days ahead, but it is a matter that we should consider in relation to the amendment.
I have gone on for longer than I had intended. We support the amendment completely and we very much hope that the House will, too.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, let me begin with the comments of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter. The worst-case scenario for me would be if this Government lost control of the economy and were forced by circumstances to come back with even more draconian cuts in public expenditure than those that we were forced to make when we came into office, and which the Labour Government in their last months were also planning. That is the reality, a reality that has been faced by every department of government. If we had not taken those tough decisions, we could indeed be facing that worst-case scenario in which control of the economy was lost and even more draconian cuts were asked of our citizens.
I recall saying that I would reflect on what was said in Committee. I have done so, and so has my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I must say that the more I have reflected on it, the less convinced I have been by the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. Many speeches—although I do not accuse the noble Lord, Lord Hart, of this—have wandered very far in the direction of seeing access to justice as a concept of legal aid blank cheques signed by the taxpayer. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, will say, “Ah, but look at my amendment. See the limitations that I recognise”. Once you have said that there are limits to expenditure, some of the high-flown phrases used by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, or the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, have to be run up against that hard decision. You are drawing lines. You are not giving everyone access to justice financed by the taxpayer. We are trying today to see, as my noble friend Lord Thomas said, whether the amendment adds anything to our debate.
Amendment 1 relates to the supply of and demand for legal services. I accept that its purpose is very similar to the purpose for community legal services in Section 4(1) of the Access to Justice Act 1999. I also accept that the duty that the amendment would place on the Lord Chancellor would be qualified by the reference to the duty being subject both to the resources available and to the provisions of Part 1.
However, against the backdrop of the Bill, we believe that Amendment 1 is unnecessary and inappropriate in the context of Part 1. The provision in the Access to Justice Act relates to how civil legal aid operates on an exclusionary basis. By that I mean that it specifies what services cannot be funded under civil legal aid and leaves open the question of services that might be funded. In that context, a provision such as that in Section 4(1) of that Act, which provides a basis for determining which services might be funded, is a useful and appropriate addition where those services are undefined.
However, in the context of the Bill, the amendment is not appropriate. The provisions of Part 1 that relate to the general scope of civil legal aid are drafted on an inclusionary basis, where the services capable of being funded under civil legal aid are detailed explicitly in Schedule 1. As such, there is no question as to what services might be funded; they are in the Bill for all to see. Consequently, the amendment based on Section 4(1) of the Access to Justice Act is not appropriate.
That tension—some would say contradiction—is underlined by the amendment itself, the intention of which is to make the provision subject to the wider provisions of Part 1, which of course includes Schedule 1 and its description of the range of services to be funded under civil legal aid. We therefore believe that the amendment is not appropriate in the context of the Bill.
Outside those technical and definitional issues, the debate has raised questions about whether there should be a duty on the Lord Chancellor to secure access to justice. I shall briefly explain why we think that that is also unnecessary in the context of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, quoted the Guardian article of my right honourable friend. I repeat again that the Government consider that the rule of law and access to justice are a fundamental part of a properly functioning democracy and an important element in our constitutional balance.
It is true that the legal aid reforms are aimed in part at achieving savings. In our view, the current legal aid system is unaffordable, has expanded far beyond its original scope and is not sustainable in its present form—as I think was recognised by the Labour Party when it referred to cuts in legal aid in its election manifesto. However, the reforms are also aimed at encouraging people to use non-adversarial solutions to resolve their problems where appropriate and to speed up and simplify court processes where not. As such, we consider that our reforms should strengthen the rule of law by making the justice system more effective.
The Government believe that financial assistance from the state in accessing the courts is justified in certain areas, and that is why we have retained categories of cases within the scope of civil legal aid. I noticed that the noble Lord said that there was no social welfare spending on legal aid but that is simply not true, as he knows. We have also made provision for legal aid to be granted in the limited circumstances justifying exceptional funding under Clause 9. The exceptional funding scheme will ensure the protection of an individual’s rights to legal aid under the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as rights to legal aid that are directly enforceable under European Union law.
The Government do not dispute that it is a principle of law that every citizen has an unimpeded right of access to a court. However, they do not accept the proposition that there is a constitutional right to legal aid in all circumstances and at all times. Once that is conceded, the debate is about how and where we draw the line. The Government consider that the common law right, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Thomas, of unimpeded access to a court of law means having the assistance of the court to assert legal rights and obtain remedies to which one is entitled, having the right to challenge a decision in the courts if one wishes to do so, and not being prevented from issuing court proceedings because of an inability to pay the court fee.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others seemed to be moving very close to arguing for a legal aid scheme at the point of need—a kind of National Health Service for the legal profession. I think I have mentioned before that I talked to Jeremy Hutchison—Lord Hutchison—who is on leave of absence from this House and is now in his 90s. He was one of the lawyers who made up the legal aid scheme. He said, “Our ambition was a National Health Service for the legal system”. However, the truth is that successive Governments have backed far away from that ambitious concept. Although I know that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, would have made savings in other parts of legal aid, even the Opposition have said that there would be limits to legal aid. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said that he was brought into the legal profession by the idea of access to justice. However, even when he came into the legal profession, and every day that he was in the legal profession, the kind of access to justice that he was referring to was never available. Access to justice with legal aid has always been restricted. We have always had to draw lines and we always will, as he well knows.
Lord Clinton-Davis
Of course. The whole legal aid system is based on that; you have to conform with certain priorities. However, I repeat that the basic principle that brought many of us into the profession in the first place was fairness and justice, and that is being denied.
Lord McNally
It is not being denied; it is still there. However, in very difficult economic circumstances, we are making tough judgments and drawing lines, as successive Governments have had to do about where legal aid applies and where it does not.
Lord McNally
The noble Lord will probably continue for the next five days to make his debating points, but we are not depriving them and he well knows it. As the Bill proceeds we will make further comments about help on advice.
The Government also consider that case law does not establish that in order to have access to a court, it is a necessary precondition that an individual has received legal advice. A common law right that requires access to legal advice and beyond that to state-funded legal advice and assistance, would also go beyond the approach laid down by the European Court of Human Rights in its case law on Article 6 of the ECHR.
The Government considered very carefully from first principles which cases should continue to attract publicly funded legal advice and representation in the light of the financial constraints that I have mentioned. As reflected in the Bill, the Government reached the view that exceptional funding under Clause 9 of the Bill should be limited to ensuring the protection of an individual’s rights to legal aid under the ECHR as well as those rights to legal aid that are directly enforceable under EU law.
In addition to this the Lord Chancellor would be required in carrying out his functions to protect and promote the public interest and to support the constitutional principle of the rule of law. These considerations are inherent in the Lord Chancellor’s functions as a Minister of the Crown and do not require specific reference here. In addition, the Lord Chancellor has some specific duties under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.
We have also been clear in the response to consultation that we will work in conjunction with the Legal Services Commission and its successor executive agency to develop and put in place a procurement strategy that reflects the demands and requirements of the new legal aid market.
In light of the practical barriers in operating this amendment and the fact that the more principle-based concerns are addressed in the Bill, I would urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment. Many speeches today have gone far beyond what legal aid means in the scope of legal aid under successive Governments. The Bill is honest about what we can do and, as such, it deserves the support of this House.
Lord Campbell of Alloway
Perhaps I may ask my noble friend a question, as I am rather confused. To implement this question as put surely you need to have an elastic available resource—you need something that from time to time meets the circumstances. Is that not right? If you look at Clauses 2 and 4, you will see that they are all involved. It is all a question of legal aid and legal resources. I am not trying to be difficult but I just do not quite understand how it will be paid for.
Lord McNally
As we continue to point out, it is being paid for by taxpayers via my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, my noble friend does put a point. This amendment creates a warm glow. It is a general declaration which the noble Lord assures us will not really affect the workings of the Bill. I am telling him that the Bill, in its structure, covers all the important commitments that he seeks without misleading the public or Parliament about the very real constraints that we and previous Governments have had to put on the limits of legal aid.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke in this important debate. I am also grateful to the Minister for his thoughtful response. However, I am as puzzled now as I was when moving the amendment as to why the Government are resisting it. I am puzzled in particular because the Minister very helpfully repeated what was stated by the Justice Secretary in his Guardian article: namely, that the Government are committed to access to justice as,
“a fundamental part of a properly functioning democracy”.
Therefore, nothing is in dispute on this subject between the Minister and those of us who spoke in favour of the amendment. There is no issue of principle.
The Minister spoke about the need for the Government to take tough economic decisions. Many noble Lords will be very sympathetic to him on that. We will debate very contentious issues as we go through Report. However, I say to noble Lords that the point has no relevance to this amendment, which expressly inserts,
“within the resources made available and in accordance with this Part”.
This is not a partisan amendment. The case for it—and indeed the case against it—does not depend on the views that noble Lords may have on the merits or otherwise of the Government’s proposals on the scope of legal aid.
I will make two further points. The Minister made the point that there is no constitutional right of access to legal aid in all circumstances. Of course, he is right. Access to legal aid has always been subject to conditions, criteria and limitations. We will come on to debate whether there should be further restrictions, conditions, criteria and limitations. However, a provision in the terms that I propose has always been part of legal aid legislation, even though it has never in absolute terms provided legal aid in all circumstances.
Lord McNally
Would the noble Lord not concede that the difference between this Bill and previous Bills is that previous Bills have been open-ended, so the kind of commitment that he talked about was reasonable, whereas Schedule 1 to this Bill specifies what we will do? He wants to insert a warm glow in the Bill, but putting warm glows into Bills is not good.
Lord Pannick
The Minister may disagree, but I take the view that because the Government now wish to specify areas where legal aid will continue to be available, it is all the more important that the statement of constitutional principle about access to justice continues to be part of the legislation, subject to available resources and the provisions of this part.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said that the statement of purpose was unnecessary since access to justice was not being abolished. He also suggested that the amendment contained unnecessary verbosity—a surprising allegation about an amendment that is 23 words long. I take the view that when Parliament redefines the scope of legal aid, and does so in provisions that will inevitably be controversial, it is vital that it should restate its recognition of this important constitutional principle. I hope that noble Lords on all sides of the House will feel able to support the amendment, which does no violence whatever to the Government's general objectives in relation to the Bill. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord McNally
My Lords, in a way, this mirrors the previous debate, in that we are discussing how under the Bill we intend to deal with private family legal aid and its relation to domestic violence. A number of speeches have ranged wider than that; certainly, remarks made outside the House in the press, on the radio and elsewhere suggest that somehow the Government are turning their back on the subject of domestic violence.
Let me make it clear from the start that the Government are absolutely committed to supporting action against domestic violence and supporting the victims of domestic violence, whether through legal aid funding or other means. I do not think it serves the interests of those suffering from domestic violence to suggest otherwise. Our record is good. We have provided more than £28 million of stable funding until 2015 for specialist local domestic and sexual violence and support services, and are providing £900,000 to support national domestic violence helplines and stalking helplines.
The Ministry of Justice contributes towards the funding of independent advisers attached to specialist domestic violence courts—a total of more than £9 million up to the end of 2012-13. In addition, the victim and witness general fund will provide a total of nearly £15.5 million in grant funding over the next three years to voluntary sector organisations that support the most seriously affected and vulnerable and persistently targeted victims of crime. Of that, nearly £4.7 million will be used to fund 44 court-based independent domestic violence advisers across England and Wales over the next three years. We will also allocate £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. They are designed to give immediate protection to victims by banning a perpetrator from returning to the house and giving the victim the breathing space they need to consider their next steps. Just today, we announced a one-year pilot which will take place from this summer to test domestic violence disclosure schemes, known as Clare’s law. The pilot will test a process for enabling the police to disclose to the public information about violent offending by a new or existing partner where that may help to protect them from further violent offending.
So the claim that we are turning our back on the problem of domestic violence is simply not true. Thankfully, there has been a real change in attitudes in this country towards domestic violence over the past 30 years. Of course, the party opposite can take its share of the credit for that progress. We still have some way to go—some would say a long way to go. The Government will continue to give priority to this issue but on the basis of the facts, not fantasy. For example, I make it absolutely clear that we are retaining legal aid for the purpose of seeking an order or injunction to prevent domestic violence, exactly as at present, although that was not the gist of the letter referred to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter. This means keeping the power to waive the upper financial eligibility limits and a relaxed merits test, so that those who need help can get it. Defining domestic violence or what evidence is needed to show domestic violence to qualify for legal aid simply does not arise in these cases. Legal aid is, and will remain, available in these cases on the non-means-tested basis that applies at present. These are the cases which are about protecting someone’s safety, about not revealing where someone lives and about ensuring that the abuser is excluded from the family home—the cases that we all agree need prioritising.
Lord McNally
The forms of evidence that will be accepted for this purpose are not set out in the Bill. Instead, our intention is that they will be set out in regulations under Clause 10. We believe that it is appropriate to set out these detailed provisions in secondary, rather than primary, legislation, which can be amended to respond to particular issues which may arise in the practical operation of the scheme.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
I am very interested in what the Minister is saying, but perhaps I might ask him to explain whether the points in Amendment 43 will be covered in regulations. If they are, then this amendment is not necessary, but if the intention is not to cover all of those, then the amendment would remain necessary.
Lord McNally
If I go on, all will become clear.
We indicated the intended forms of evidence in consultation and listened to views expressed in response. As a result, we widened the range of forms of evidence to include evidence from a multi-agency risk assessment conference, a finding of fact by the courts and the fact of a child protection plan being in place. This last point is particularly important because we moved from an intention just to protect adult victims of domestic abuse to include victims of child abuse by this means.
The allegation that we heard again today was that the Government’s criteria will still miss a great number of genuine victims, and various pieces of evidence were adduced to support this. However, the evidence referred to domestic violence victims as a whole—highlighting their difficulties in dealing with the civil or criminal justice systems, for example. We are dealing with a subset of that group: those who seek private family law legal aid. They will have slightly different characteristics from domestic violence victims as a whole. By definition, they will be engaged in the civil justice system. A significant number—there were nearly 10,000 in 2009-10—will seek civil legal aid for a protective order or injunction at the same time as they seek it for their private family law matter. They will all meet the evidential criteria.
We know that in total there were 70,000 legal aid family cases in 2009-10. I will compare that figure to the prevalence of the types of evidence that we are requesting. Around 24,100 domestic violence orders were made in 2010—the great majority with the benefit of civil legal aid. Around 74,000 domestic violence crimes were prosecuted in 2009-10, and there were 53,000 domestic violence convictions. Around 43,000 victims of domestic violence were referred to multi-agency risk assessment conferences in the 12 months to June 2010. In future there will also be those with ongoing criminal proceedings for domestic violence, and those in whose cases a finding of fact in the courts has occurred. Clearly the figures will overlap. However, what this points to is that a significant proportion of the 70,000 private family law cases that we currently fund will continue to be funded. We think that the proportion will be around one-quarter, which matches our rough estimate of the prevalence of domestic violence.
With this in mind, the Government consider that we have got the balance on evidence requirements about right. The forms of evidence we intend to accept will meet a high standard of objectivity. However, I have heard what has been said during the debate, and of course respect the wisdom and experience of those relaying their views to me. We are therefore prepared to go further and accept undertakings as evidence. We are satisfied that undertakings are sufficiently objective and fit with what we consider the right approach. We remain of the view that these forms of evidence are better left to regulations rather than placed into primary legislation. They are points of admittedly important detail, but ones that may be subject to change as the scheme settles in.
I hope that my noble friend Lord Thomas will be reassured by what I said and will not press his amendment, so that we can deal in regulations with the matters covered by it. I also hope that, now she has seen how far we have gone on that matter, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, will be persuaded to withdraw her amendment.
As I said, it was extremely useful in the debate to put on record the Government’s determination to combat domestic violence with the entire panoply of services and funding at our disposal. Here we are dealing with a subset of those affected by the issue—a fact that not all speeches today covered. We have tried in our amendments and in the concessions that we made to re-emphasise that we understand the importance of the issue and are determined to make sure that we get the balance right. I hope that neither my noble friend nor the noble and learned Baroness will press their amendment, on the understanding and assurances that I gave of using my noble friend’s amendment as the template for what we will do in regulations.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
I thank the noble Baroness, although, of course, it is always a delight to do battle with the noble Lord across the Dispatch Box.
I shall deal with the second issue raised by the noble Lord. He referred to the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, and spoke about what has happened in the past 10 years. I shall remind him of what the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, said. He said:
“I have a major problem with an approach that risks rolling back decades of progress in our understanding of a crime that is an absolute scourge, not least in the way that it condemns so many of the children who live with it to disordered and chaotic later lives of their own. Talking of cost, that brings its own very high cost, which all of us have to pay”.—[Official Report, 18/1/12; col. 591.]
Therefore, I absolutely agree with what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said about the impact on children. It affects 750,000 children in our country every year, and that is a price too high to pay. We can save money, and we can also save lives. The system that we implemented, which was agreed to by all parts of the House, saved £6 for every £1 we spent, and we saved £7.5 billion a year, so what we propose in these amendments will save lives and costs. There is no reason why we should be retrogressive and go back to where we were before 1997 when the previous Government came in. I do not believe that that is really what the coalition wants. I would like to believe that it, like us, believes that we have come a long way in supporting victims, and we do not want to go back. That is why I will be seeking the opinion of the House.
Lord McNally
I did not want to interrupt the noble and learned Baroness’s peroration, but for the assistance of the House, if a Division is called, if Amendment 2 is carried, we do not accept that Amendments 41, 43 and 44 are consequential. However, we will not divide the House when they come up. I assume that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, will not move Amendment 39. We wait with great anticipation. I will be moving the government amendments in the usual way. You lot have had a lot more experience at doing this than me. I hope that is of help to the House.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
I thank the noble Lord for that helpful indication. I agree with him. I would argue that my amendments are consequential, but I am very grateful for his gracious indication that he will not press that point.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, I put my name to the amendment for one simple reason: it drew attention to impact assessments, which are a very important part of legislation. I have mentioned in connection with other legislation that has come before the House that impact assessments in general are not well done. What has been said from around the House during this debate proves the point that in this Bill it does not appear that the impact assessments on all these aspects have been carried out sufficiently well to satisfy Members of the House that we are launching in a direction in which we ought to go.
Lord McNally
My Lords, where am I to begin? It is probably best to begin with the unknown unknowns. Government can paralyse itself with inquiries and reports. Sometimes Ministers have to take decisions. As I said at the very beginning of the debate today, we had to take decisions against the background of a bleak economic situation. The brutal fact is that we were a whole lot poorer than we thought we were in 2008. That is the brutal fact and it means that bringing our public finances back into balance has required hard decisions. My department, with a £10 billion spend, has a commitment to cuts of £2 billion—not just to legal aid but to real people doing good jobs in the public service.
Sometimes when I listen to debates in this House, I think that there is no concept of the truth and consequences of what is happening. If not legal aid, where, who and what should be cut? We as a Government are willing to take responsibilities and will be tested by the outcome of our views. I am not sure that any inquiry would produce things that would settle all the arguments raised in the debate. We published a consultation paper more than a year ago, at the beginning of this process. We listened to the arguments put forward by a variety of bodies. The provisions on social welfare are not just a money-saving exercise. My right honourable friend was this morning referring more to the Jackson reforms in terms of expenditure on legal fees, and most people would agree that certain inflationary processes were caused by the reforms that the previous Government made.
We are trying to make a number of decisions. Perhaps I may say again—I think I have said this before in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Judd—that when the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, talks menacingly about people being driven to anti-social behaviour and criminality, I emphasise that people have a choice. I come from a background where people in real deprivation chose not to break the law. That should always be kept in mind, and no justification should bypass that.
As to the NAO, the Permanent Under-Secretary gave evidence to the Public Accounts Committee, in which he maintained that the MoJ had met government standards. Her Majesty’s Treasury has confirmed that carrying out the kind of study that was being proposed would be an extension of the NAO rule.
The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, asked when the Bill would come into effect. I will write if I am wrong, but I think that it is April 2013—in about a year’s time.
The amendment and the related Amendment 160 are unnecessary. As noble Lords will be aware, the Government already conduct impact assessments against a recognised standard that is determined by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and deployed consistently across all government departments. The scope of the impact assessments required under the BIS standard is, I acknowledge, narrower than that proposed in the amendment. However, setting aside the amendment’s references to groups with protected characteristics, to which I shall return in a moment, the impact assessments produced to date already touch on many of the areas that the amendment covers. However, the impact assessments necessarily quantify only costs and benefits where there is evidence that allows such quantification. Where quantification is not possible, the impact assessments consider the risk of given impacts materialising. Recognising that there are potential risks associated with making changes does not mean that such risks will be realised.
I have been disappointed with the way that the product of the analytical rigour that features in the published impact assessments, in considering every feasible risk, has been used in debate to paint a disingenuous doomsday scenario. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, claims that there is a theoretical risk of, for example, reduced social cohesion or criminality. However, that does not mean that the changes will automatically lead to such outcomes in the way that some have sought to present the assessment. Impact assessments allow policymakers to identify risks as a matter of good practice so that all possible eventualities are considered. Identification does not guarantee that such a risk will become a reality.
Turning now to equalities, the amendment also seeks a pre-commencement impact assessment on specified groups sharing characteristics that are protected under the Equality Act 2010. Public authorities are already under a public sector duty to have due regard to the impact of their policies on those protected groups. I have already invited noble Lords—and I do so again—to consider the equality impact assessment published alongside the Government’s response. This considers the potential impacts of the reforms on legal aid clients by race, gender, age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, religion or belief, and sexual orientation. This is more comprehensive than what is required by the amendment, and the equality impact assessment is open about the nature and extent of those potential impacts.
The existing statutory framework has due regard to equalities impacts. The fact that the ministry has had due regard to, and has published, its assessment of potential impacts suggests to me that what the amendment seeks in respect of equalities consideration is ill conceived. In respect of the assessment of wider social impacts sought by the amendment, it may well be that there are those in this House who have powers of foresight beyond mine, because this is almost certainly what would be required were any government department to be able meaningfully to deliver what these aspects of the amendment require.
Taking an emotive example, I ask this House carefully to consider if it is realistic, or even possible, to predict the expected impact of these reforms, or indeed any government policy, on something as complex as suicide. We have absolutely no reason to believe that there would be any relationship between these changes and the incidence of suicide. However, it would in any event be analytically impossible to predict such a relationship in a reliable way. The same tension exists regarding other impacts listed in the amendment that would undoubtedly have a multitude of complex causational factors. Ultimately, it is possible to identify only the risk of an impact, and the Government have been as comprehensive as possible in their assessment of those risks.
In respect of the types of advice organisations specified in the amendment, the equality impact assessment considers impacts on the not-for-profit sector, as well as solicitors and barristers. Of course, such analysis can describe only what the financial impacts are likely to be; the question of continued service provision will be dependent on a range of factors such as other funding streams, possible reorganisation of business structures, and diversification or contraction of services based on expertise. None of these can be either predicted or generalised across hundreds of offices.
Put simply, the amendment cannot achieve what it sets out to do. We are of course committed to assessing the true impact of the Bill, once it has materialised, as part of an established process of post-implementation review of legislation. The Ministry is working hard to improve its evidence base on legal aid clients and providers to get maximum benefit from the review process. In short, much of what the amendment seeks has already been addressed in the material published to date, and we are confident that we have measured that for which evidence is available. On the remaining aspects, it is possible only to identify risk, and we have done that in accordance with the Government’s accepted standards.
Lord Bach
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply and what assurances he was able to give—not satisfactory from our point of view, but he gave what assurances he could, particularly about another impact assessment later. I thank in particular the noble Lords, Lord Ramsbotham and Lord Pannick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, for their support for the amendment and all noble Lords who spoke during this important and interesting debate. Important issues have been raised both here and in Committee, and the House obviously believes that. I am delighted to have so much general support around the House for the amendment, although the Minister insisted that it was unnecessary and misguided.
Of course we accept that difficult decisions have to be taken by the Government. The Government think that they will save about £61 million a year, a rough figure, by abolishing legal aid for social welfare law. Our problem—I think it should be one for the House—is: how much are they actually going to save by what they intend to do about the scope of legal aid? We believe—reports suggest that we are right—that other departments will have to pick up the pieces of those cases that would otherwise have been solved or sorted but which will not be because people will not have anywhere to go to get the advice that they get now. The system that works pretty well—not perfectly, but pretty well—will have gone. We believe that the cost to the Government, whichever Government, will be much higher than any savings that the ministry will make. That is why we wanted to know more detail and hoped that the department could help us with more detail about what it believes the costs will be.
We believe that the cost to society will be very high indeed. It will not help the Government's deficit cuts plan; it may actually add to it in the end. I know that that is not what the Government intend, but we believe that that may be the consequence, which is why I have raised this issue again this evening.
I hope that the Government listened to the 5,000-odd responses to the consultation. As I understand it, 90 per cent of them were opposed to what the Government intended to do, so they may have listened, but not very carefully, I fear.
I end by saying that the cuts that the Government have decided to make cut 53 per cent of the social welfare law budget, 27 per cent of the family law budget and 8 per cent of the criminal legal aid budget. Those figures were given by the Government in a Parliamentary Answer in another place last week. They are staggering. Why has the criminal legal aid budget, which is already much the largest, been allowed to escape almost scot-free?
Lord McNally
My Lords, as the noble Lord knows well, shortly before leaving office, he introduced cuts to criminal legal aid which we agreed should be absorbed by that sector before any further examination of the criminal legal aid side. Criminal legal aid has not been free from cuts, but those cuts were his.
Lord Bach
They were, and they were opposed by the noble Lord, his party and other parties when we made them, but so be it. They were opposed during the general election campaign. I know; I was the Minister at the time. I can tell the noble Lord that, if we had been re-elected, which we were not, we would have looked further on the basis of the White Paper we produced in March 2010 for further cuts. They would have been controversial cuts, I do not dispute that. I very much hope that they would have had the support of the noble Lord if he had been in opposition at the time; somehow I doubt it.
There is much scope to have cut more from criminal legal aid. Still, 49 per cent of criminal legal aid is spent on 1 per cent of cases. The Government are taking 53 per cent away from social welfare law, which is not well resourced anyway; 27 per cent from family law; and 8 per cent from criminal law. We say that the Government are right to look for savings; they have just chosen completely the wrong savings. It is not too late for them to change their mind.
Do I ask the House for its opinion on my amendment? I have thought long and hard about whether I should do so this evening but, in all the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment tonight.
Legal Aid: Social Welfare Law
Lord McNally Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Campbell-Savours
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what arrangements they are making to ensure that there are adequate numbers of police to deal with any consequences for social cohesion and criminality of the withdrawal of civil legal aid for social welfare law cases.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, it is incumbent on government to consider all eventualities when conducting risk assessments. Recognising risks does not mean that they will materialise. We are confident that the police will continue to have the resources and the numbers to carry out their responsibilities.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords: Toxteth, July 1981; Brixton, September 1985; Tottenham, August 2011—have they not all got one thing in common? They all followed severe cuts in family welfare support systems for the most impoverished in society. Have the Government really thought through the consequences of their actions in denying people justice and making people angry?
Lord McNally
I do not believe that the Government are denying people justice. As to the exact correlation to which the noble Lord refers, there will always be studies on these matters, and I am not going to predict whether we have seen the last of social disturbances—it would be very foolish to do so. His Question is about whether there are adequate numbers of police, and in my Answer I have explained that we will continue to have the resources and the number to carry out our responsibilities.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, the social welfare law is widely acknowledged to be too difficult for even the most eminent lawyers. Is there not an important argument for ensuring adequate funding for citizens advice bureaux, law centres and so on to deal with social welfare legal issues in the splendid way that we know they have been able to in the past?
Lord McNally
My noble friend brings attention to a matter that has been raised a number of times during the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. She will be well aware that my noble friend the Lord Chancellor has made it clear that he believes that CABs and law centres play an important role. We have already made interim arrangements for funding and, as those who attend the LASPO Committee will know, we are in discussions with the Treasury and other departments, including the Cabinet Office, to see if such funding can be put on a more permanent basis.
Lord Bach
My Lords, the Government’s impact assessment for the LASPO Bill accepts that legal aid cuts will lead to “reduced social cohesion” and “increased criminality”. Can the Minister remind the House how many Bills go forward when it is thought that their implementation will lead to “reduced social cohesion” and “increased criminality”, and why do the Government think that this measure will lead to “increased criminality”?
Lord McNally
My Lords, one problem with treating Parliament as a group of grown-ups is that such exercises will be open to abuse. The Government have never said that this would happen. What the civil servants did, quite properly, in their impact assessment was put forward a range of possibilities. Throughout the Bill—and I presume now that we are moving to Report he will continue on his merry way—the noble Lord has been looking at worst-case scenarios, saying that worst-case scenarios are inevitable and therefore, “Woe is me”. That is not what the impact assessment is about. It is about trying to take an intelligent and rational view, but, as I have said before, a view that these are not inevitable. This impact assessment is not an almanac; it is a look at a range of options that could happen. As such, it was a reasonable way of approaching the task ahead.
Lord McNally
He is certainly my friend. I will leave the nobility to the opinion of the House.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall
My Lords, going back to the question of the risk assessment, does the Minister agree that the purpose of a risk assessment is indeed to look at the worst-case scenario under a number of headings, and to propose what should be done in mitigation should such a scenario eventuate? Can he say what measures the Government have in place should those worst-case scenarios eventuate? There is no point in writing them down if there is not at least some risk that they will.
Lord McNally
That is why we have to take a holistic view of these matters. Much of what is being talked about here will be impacted by the reform and simplification of the welfare system that is being carried out, as well as a whole range of other measures, many of which we will be discussing in the next few hours, that will prevent the worst-case scenario from coming to pass.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, has my noble friend read The Spirit Level, which demonstrates that there is a close correlation between levels of serious criminality and inequalities in society? If so, will the Government put into practice the recommendations of the Equality Trust to secure greater equality in society and thereby diminish not only levels of criminality but many other social evils that follow from high levels of inequality?
Lord McNally
My Lords, the Government get a wide range of advice, and The Spirit Level does make a strong case for the linkage between inequalities, poverty and criminality. Nevertheless, as I have said quite often from the Dispatch Box, poverty and criminality are not inevitable—people do have a choice. The range of measures that the Government are taking is aimed at dealing with some of the unfairnesses in our society and giving people a proper and rational choice in how they lead their lives.
Lord Prescott
My Lords, does the Minister accept that the massive cuts in police resources and manpower are to be replaced by privatised security companies that will do the work of constables but with private personnel? Does he accept that this is more than an operational matter to be discussed with ACPO—that it requires discussion with this House and, indeed, with the community? Does he agree that the elections to be held in November for police and crime commissioners were specifically intended to serve as the voice of the community? The Government are rushing forward this decision before November and denying the people a say in this fundamental change in our police forces.
Lord McNally
No, my Lords: the police forces can look at outsourcing various parts of the service but they cannot outsource the fundamental responsibility of the police, which will remain a public service. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Blair, said in today’s Guardian that police need to modernise their budgets and reduce unit costs. I am sure that the police commissioner for Hull will have that high in his or her priorities when he or she is elected.
Crime: Reoffending
Lord McNally Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether a reduction of reoffending is one of their key priorities.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, the Government have made it clear since first taking office that we are committed to breaking the cycle of crime and reducing reoffending. We set out our proposals on how we will achieve that in the sentencing and rehabilitation Green Paper, Breaking the Cycle, and in subsequent government proposals and initiatives.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury
I thank my noble friend for that Answer and declare an interest as I am involved with the Rehabilitation for Addicted Prisoners Trust. Given that we know that treating drug and alcohol dependence is one of the most effective ways of reducing reoffending, what is my noble friend’s department doing to ensure that spending on drug recovery programmes will remain at the levels we have seen in recent years once responsibility for this funding moves to the Department of Health in the form of Public Health England, and that that will not result in a decreased emphasis on these vital programmes?
Lord McNally
My noble friend raises a problem that always emerges: if you go for localism, do you lose the central control on an issue? She is quite right that spending, or the commissioning of drug treatment services in the new public health system, will move to local authorities. However, the public health grant will be ring-fenced and the public health outcomes framework will include specific indicators on the completion of drug treatment and reoffending to make sure that my noble friend’s fear, that somehow there will be no spending on drugs programmes if left at the local level, will be averted. It is always a risk that localism will make its own decisions, but I hope that the priorities in funding and the checks on how it is spent will mean that her fears are unfounded.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate
My Lords, I preface my question by inviting the Minister to join me in paying tribute to the life of PC David Rathband, who paid the ultimate penalty for preventing crime. Does he agree that the best way to prevent reoffending is through creating a fear of being caught, and that that is achieved by the presence of police officers on the street? Will this be achieved by reducing budgets to such an extent that the number of front-line police officers will be reduced?
Lord McNally
My Lords, I probably experienced the same feelings as every Member of this House, and indeed every member of the public, when I heard the news this morning about PC Rathband’s death. It is an immense tragedy that reminds us of the risks taken by everyone who dons a police uniform in our service—and some pay the ultimate price. I gladly share the noble Lord’s sentiment.
Of course the fear of being caught is one factor that deters crime. That is why we continue to give full support to our police services. The rehabilitation revolution attempts to address another problem: that of persistent reoffending. We are considering whether measures can be put in place to break the cycle. Evidence from various initiatives and pilot projects suggests that we can.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, on the theme of reducing reoffending, does the Minister agree that for women who have committed petty offences, the use of community sentences, combined with other forms of support, is more likely to be successful and is far less expensive than short prison sentences—not least because often children are involved who need to be taken into care and home-supported as well? If the Minister agrees, and with the Corston report already five years old, what steps are the Government taking to promote and adopt this approach urgently as a crucial part of their penal policy?
Lord McNally
My Lords, I fully support what the noble Baroness said about the treatment of women offenders. I have said before at the Dispatch Box that we have far too many women in our prisons. We will shortly launch a consultation on community sentencing. We are also, as the original Question suggested, moving a lot of this treatment to local authorities, with the funding and encouragement to take a holistic approach. As the noble Baroness rightly said, it is better that drug and alcohol dependency and other factors should be treated holistically.
Baroness Trumpington
Will the Minister very briefly tell me whether he agrees that the lack of reading and writing abilities among prisoners makes it difficult for them to get jobs when they leave prison? Will he therefore encourage more educational facilities in prison?
Lord McNally
I assure the noble Baroness that that is high on our list of priorities and that we intend to do so.
Lord Bach
My Lords, I think the House will be very pleased with the Minister’s comments in response to the Question today. I will ask him about Project Daedalus, which he will know about. It is an excellent scheme aimed at helping inmates at Feltham young offender institution not to reoffend after their release. It was set up under the previous Government and has the great support of the present Mayor of London, who said that it looked as though there had been a “substantial reduction in reoffending”. In these circumstances, why have the Government decided that this excellent scheme will not continue after May this year?
Lord McNally
It is true that the Mayor of London made claims for the success of the scheme. He was a little too broad-brush in his claims, but the scheme was successful. We are piloting a number of projects and trying to draw lessons from them that we will roll into future projects. Not all pilots can be kept going permanently. We try to learn from them and develop them into national policy.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
Lord McNally Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McNally
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 8, Schedule 1, Clauses 9 to 23, Schedule 2, Clauses 24 to 30, Schedule 3, Clauses 31 to 37, Schedule 4, Clause 38, Schedule 5, Clause 39, Schedule 6, Clauses 40 to 59, Schedules 7 and 8, Clauses 60 to 65, Schedule 9, Clauses 66 to 83, Schedule 10, Clause 84, Schedule 11, Clauses 85 to 99, Schedule 12, Clauses 100 to 104, Schedule 13, Clause 105, Schedule 14, Clauses 106 to 114, Schedule 15, Clause 115, Schedules 16 and 17, Clauses 116 and 117, Schedules 18 and 19, Clause 118, Schedule 20, Clause 119, Schedule 21, Clauses 120 to 124, Schedule 22, Clauses 125 to 127, Schedule 23, Clauses 128 to 133, Schedule 24, Clause 134, Schedule 25, Clause 135, Schedule 26, Clauses 136 to 143.
Health: Mesothelioma
Lord McNally Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alton of Liverpool
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what has been the cost to the Exchequer of mesothelioma cases heard in British courts in the past five years.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, based on the data available to us, it appears that the vast majority of mesothelioma claims against the state settle rather than proceed to the courts. While we do not collect centrally data relating to costs in individual categories of cases, there is no evidence to indicate that these cases differ markedly from other personal injury cases, either in cost to the Exchequer or in the costs of bringing them.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
I am grateful to the Minister. Will he demolish two myths? The first is that these cases are legally aided, which they are not, and, secondly, that they are part of a compensation culture, which they are not—given that there have been 30,000 deaths from mesothelioma. Would it be possible in any circumstances to fake such a disease? Instead of confiscating, as the Government intend to do, some 25 per cent of the modest compensation awarded to a terminally ill victim, why not consider other ways, such as fixing success fees—as has been done for industrial disease claims—without using asbestos victims as a rod to discipline solicitors or to aid and support the insurance industry?
Lord McNally
My Lords, the noble Lord uses strong words. Of course I do not believe that victims of this dreadful disease are in any way part of a compensation culture. He is quite right to say that legal aid for these kinds of cases was removed by the previous Administration in 2000. However, his strictures on what we are trying to do on this are too harsh. First of all, there is no compulsion on solicitors to charge any success fee, let alone 25 per cent, which is the maximum they can charge. The reforms that we are proposing upgrade the costs awarded by 10 per cent and protect a large amount of that compensation for future care. It is therefore not fair to term our reforms in the way that the noble Lord described, but I am pleased to make the clarifications that he asked for.
Lord Bach
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the Government’s civil justice proposals mean that mesothelioma sufferers may have to pay 25 per cent of their general damages, plus their special damages for past loss, which, because of the length of these cases, can be very significant? Given that these sufferers may die in a short period of time, why will the Government not back the principle that hard-working people who have done nothing wrong should receive their full damages and not a penny less?
Lord McNally
The noble Lord keeps on picking these cases to support. The fact is that the previous Government removed legal aid from these cases, as was pointed out—not many cheers for that. As to the package that we have put together, as I said before there is no compulsion on solicitors to demand a 25 per cent success fee from these people. Solicitors still get their full fee; we are talking about the maximum success fee that they can get. We are putting in place a system that deals with a real abuse in the costs of these cases that crept in after the reforms that the noble Lord’s party introduced in 1999. We are simply returning to the system as originally brought in by the previous Government. We think that that worked well and will work well again.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, it is clear from their response to the Jackson committee report on civil litigation that the Government’s main objective is to save money. Does my noble friend acknowledge that in the case of mesothelioma sufferers, they do that by deterring people from making genuine claims? Does he also accept the estimate in the London Economics report on the fiscal impact of the Jackson proposals in the area of employers’ liability that the net loss to the Exchequer of the proposals is £70.2 million a year? If not, can he place a note in the Library of the figures that the Government would substitute for those in the Jackson committee report?
Lord McNally
My Lords, we are in no way deterring people from making claims for this terrible disease. We fully acknowledge that a large number of people have been diagnosed as sufferers. Even more tragically, the estimate is that many more will be diagnosed over the next 30 years. That is the terrible nature of this affliction. We have been trying to lower the bar to litigation. As I said, most cases, certainly against government bodies, are settled before they get to court. The Department for Work and Pensions has undertaken various initiatives to make it easier for claimants to trace their employer's insurers. Discussions are being held with stakeholders to determine what more can be done for sufferers. The High Court is introducing a fast-track procedure so that these cases can be dealt with more easily.
I understand why noble Lords are campaigning on this, but I do not think that the charge that we are trying to victimise the sufferers in some way really sticks.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the landmark judgment won in the Supreme Court recently by the president of the Liverpool Law Society about compensation for this disease? Is he further aware that Mr Jones commented afterwards that, had it lost the case, his firm would face bankruptcy? Will not the Minister reconsider the policy in the light of that experience?
Lord McNally
My Lords, the Supreme Court has removed some of the hurdles for sufferers of respiratory diseases in bringing claims, and that is all to the good. We are also progressing with the primary legislation brought forward under the Compensation Act 2006. As I said, Senior Master Whitaker, who oversees these cases in the High Court, has helped to introduce a fast-track procedure, which has been incorporated into a practice direction, ensuring that claims are dealt with as quickly as possible. These are terrible cases. It is right that noble Lords and others, such as the Daily Mirror, campaign for sufferers, but I reject the claim that we are in any way penalising or victimising them by what we propose.
Lord McFall of Alcluith
My Lords, as one who represented many hundreds of mesothelioma sufferers from local shipyards in Scotland, I give the noble Lord some examples of what happened there. Given that court cases were taking two years and the average life of sufferers was 18 months, the Lord President was approached and he decided to designate a judge to look at those cases in particular, thereby cutting down the waiting time in courts. Also, the Scottish Parliament passed the Rights of Relatives to Damages (Mesothelioma) (Scotland) Bill, which took away the iniquitous choice of either sufferers claiming while they were living or their relatives waiting until they died before making a claim. By adopting these two measures, the Government could, at a stroke, save themselves money, save court time and produce a more humane way of treating the sufferers of this terrible disease.
Lord McNally
I fully appreciate the noble Lord’s concern arising from his experience as a Member in the other place. One thing that we have been trying to do—the previous Administration also initiated this—is to speed up these cases. As I mentioned before, perhaps taking the lead from the Scottish example, Senior Master Whitaker oversees these cases in the High Court and brings his expertise to the whole matter. However, perhaps I may give one example of misinformation. The Daily Mirror suggested that up-front insurance of £2,300 would have to be paid. The reforms that we are bringing in remove that burden on sufferers. Therefore, I think that a proper, balanced look at our reforms would make some of the accusations made today seem very unfair indeed.
Business of the House
Lord McNally Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McNally
That the debate on the Motion in the name of Baroness Verma set down for Thursday 1 March shall be limited to five hours.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend on the Order Paper.
Lord Barnett
My Lords, before we turn to the instruments, which I am sure are very important, perhaps I could ask the noble Lord about an Urgent Question that I raised some weeks ago on car park access for Members of the House. I was promised then that there would be a review on 7 February. I gather that the committee met on that day but we still have not seen exactly what happened. Can the Minister tell us why it is being kept secret?
Lord McNally
My Lords, I think that the term “secret” is rather emotive. As I understand it, the Chairman of Committees, who is a paragon of open government, held a meeting and the minutes will be published in the usual way.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, perhaps I can raise an issue with the Deputy Leader. I have put down a Written Question on this but this is the first opportunity I have had to put an Oral Question to him about the Business of the House.
For a fortnight, we shall be in the rather bizarre situation of having our bicameral Houses of Parliament effectively sitting as a unicameral system as there are separate recess dates for the Commons and the Lords. I find that inexplicable, partly on the grounds that we are at the stage of business when a lot of ping-pong takes place, which is inevitably delayed because of this, and partly because there are occasions when we cannot get Royal Assent to Bills because the two Houses are not sitting. There is also a cost involved and a lot of inconvenience to people who have not been able to arrange the normal cross-party and cross-House meetings during this period. Can the Deputy Leader give us an explanation for what, on the face of it, seems to me to be a rather bizarre decision to have made?
Lord McNally
The noble Lord is right that it is usually good to synchronise the dates. However, I am informed that they were announced last October and that there were no objections in either House. As the noble Lord put down a Written Question, I am sure that a considered Written Answer from a higher grade than mine will give him the explanation.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Was the director of facilities not consulted before the decision was taken? Surely he works to a budget and should know—and should have been asked—whether this was an efficient use of resources.
Lord McNally
I have an explanation here. The Lord Chairman has already made it clear that no extra costs are involved; the two Houses can sit independently. Clearly, the matter will be best dealt with by hearing the Answer to the Written Question of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, rather than by lobbing a verbal question at me on a Thursday morning.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
Lord McNally Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, in a debate. I can only say that if the initial speech she made was 19 years ago, she must have started very young. I am sorry that circumstances prevent the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, being with us but, as I have said before in this House, the Government—and I personally—have tried to continue the road map that she set out for the treatment of women prisoners.
I am not sure that I am going to be entirely helpful to the Committee this evening, partly because, although I was certainly very happy that the YJB survived, I sometimes get a little worried that this House becomes obsessed with the solution to a problem being a commission, a committee, a tsar or some structure outside the problem. I am old fashioned enough to believe that the report to Parliament should come from the Minister and that the Minister should have responsibility. I also profoundly disagree with the disdain that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, frequently shows for the capacity of public servants to carry out responsible roles.
Lord Ramsbotham
I do not in any way disparage civil servants in what they are required to do. I simply point out that it is wrong to use civil servants for things that they are neither trained nor competent to do. That has been my concern all along. They have their place and I absolutely support them and welcome what they do in their own job.
Lord McNally
I am delighted to have that on the record. Their own job includes some of the issues that we are discussing tonight.
I go back to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Gould. I understand that my colleague—my noble friend Lady Northover—has visited the Brighton project to which the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, referred and that she firmly endorses the opinion that was expressed about its success. This point also goes back to the position and role of public servants—the people doing this tough job—and the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, gave some graphic illustrations. I was also pleased that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, mentioned that the people working in our Prison Service do an amazing job in difficult circumstances. Good care and support from staff saves many lives, and many such instances go unreported. In any given month, prisons successfully keep safe approximately 1,500 prisoners who are assessed to be at particular risk of suicide or self-harm.
When people say, “You don’t have a women’s strategy”, I dispute that. I think that we do and perhaps we should shout louder about it. As has been mentioned, my honourable friend Crispin Blunt in the other place is the Minister with responsibility in this area. On 24 January he made a speech to the Corston funders, setting out a report on progress in this area. He set out the Government’s strategy for women offenders, which ensures that women will benefit in key areas such as mental health, drug recovery, tackling violence against women, troubled families, employment and women’s community services, reflecting the good work by the National Offender Management Service to implement many of the recommendations in the Corston report.
In that context, I am afraid that we do not believe that the amendment seeking a published women’s strategy is necessary. We also believe that, as I said, accountability for a women’s strategy should remain with Ministers. Perhaps they are better placed to influence policy across Government and we will ensure that other departments play their part too in supporting vulnerable women in the criminal justice system.
Lord McNally
“CHAPTER 7ARehabilitation of offendersEstablishment or alteration of rehabilitation periods
(1) The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 5(1)(b) and (d) (sentences excluded from rehabilitation) for “thirty months” substitute “forty eight months”.
(3) In the opening words of section 5(1A) (references to provisions of the Armed Forces Act 2006) for “subsection (1)(d)” substitute “this section”.
(4) For section 5(2) to (11) (rehabilitation periods) substitute—
“(2) For the purposes of this Act and subject to subsections (3) and (4), the rehabilitation period for a sentence is the period—
(a) beginning with the date of the conviction in respect of which the sentence is imposed, and(b) ending at the time listed in the following Table in relation to that sentence:
Sentence | End of rehabilitation period for adult offenders | End of rehabilitation period for offenders under 18 at date of conviction |
|---|---|---|
A custodial sentence of more than 30 months and up to, or consisting of, 48 months | The end of the period of 7 years beginning with the day on which the sentence (including any licence period) is completed | The end of the period of 42 months beginning with the day on which the sentence (including any licence period) is completed |
A custodial sentence of more than 6 months and up to, or consisting of, 30 months | The end of the period of 48 months beginning with the day on which the sentence (including any licence period) is completed | The end of the period of 24 months beginning with the day on which the sentence (including any licence period) is completed |
A custodial sentence of 6 months or less | The end of the period of 24 months beginning with the day on which the sentence (including any licence period) is completed | The end of the period of 18 months beginning with the day on which the sentence (including any licence period) is completed |
Removal from Her Majesty’s service | The end of the period of 12 months beginning with the date of the conviction in respect of which the sentence is imposed | The end of the period of 6 months beginning with the date of the conviction in respect of which the sentence is imposed |
A sentence of service detention | The end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which the sentence is completed | The end of the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which the sentence is completed |
A fine | The end of the period of 12 months beginning with the date of the conviction in respect of which the sentence is imposed | The end of the period of 6 months beginning with the date of the conviction in respect of which the sentence is imposed |
A compensation order | The date on which the payment is made in full | The date on which the payment is made in full |
A community or youth rehabilitation order | The end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day provided for by or under the order as the last day on which the order is to have effect | The end of the period of 6 months beginning with the day provided for by or under the order as the last day on which the order is to have effect |
A relevant order | The day provided for by or under the order as the last day on which the order is to have effect | The day provided for by or under the order as the last day on which the order is to have effect |
(4) There is no rehabilitation period for—
(a) an order discharging a person absolutely for an offence, or(b) any other sentence in respect of a conviction where the sentence is not dealt with in the Table or under subsection (3),and, in such cases, references in this Act to any rehabilitation period are to be read as if the period of time were nil.(5) See also—
(a) section 8AA (protection afforded to spent alternatives to prosecution), and(b) Schedule 2 (protection for spent cautions).(6) The Secretary of State may by order amend column 2 or 3 of the Table or the number of months for the time being specified in subsection (3).
(7) For the purposes of this section—
(a) consecutive terms of imprisonment or other custodial sentences are to be treated as a single term,(b) terms of imprisonment or other custodial sentences which are wholly or partly concurrent (that is terms of imprisonment or other custodial sentences imposed in respect of offences of which a person was convicted in the same proceedings) are to be treated as a single term,(c) no account is to be taken of any subsequent variation, made by a court dealing with a person in respect of a suspended sentence of imprisonment, of the term originally imposed,(d) no account is to be taken of any subsequent variation of the day originally provided for by or under an order as the last day on which the order is to have effect,(e) no account is to be taken of any detention or supervision ordered by a court under section 104(3) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000,(f) a sentence imposed by a court outside England and Wales is to be treated as the sentence mentioned in this section to which it most closely corresponds.(8) In this section—
“community or youth rehabilitation order” means—
(a) a community order under section 177 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003,(b) a service community order or overseas community order under the Armed Forces Act 2006,(c) a youth rehabilitation order under Part 1 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, or(d) any order of a kind superseded (whether directly or indirectly) by an order mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c),“custodial sentence” means—
(a) a sentence of imprisonment,(b) a sentence of detention in a young offender institution,(c) a sentence of Borstal training,(d) a sentence of youth custody,(e) a sentence of corrective training, (f) a sentence of detention under section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 or section 209 of the Armed Forces Act 2006,(g) a detention and training order under section 100 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 or an order under section 211 of the Armed Forces Act 2006,(h) any sentence of a kind superseded (whether directly or indirectly) by a sentence mentioned in paragraph (f) or (g),“earlier statutory order” means—
(a) an order under section 54 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 committing the person convicted to custody in a remand home,(b) an approved school order under section 57 of that Act, or(c) any order of a kind superseded (whether directly or indirectly) by an order mentioned in any of paragraphs (c) to (e) of the definition of “relevant order” or in paragraph (a) or (b) above,“relevant order” means—
(a) an order discharging a person conditionally for an offence,(b) an order binding a person over to keep the peace or be of good behaviour,(c) an order under section 1(2A) of the Street Offences Act 1959,(d) a hospital order under Part 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (with or without a restriction order),(e) a referral order under section 16 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000,(f) an earlier statutory order, or(g) any order which imposes a disqualification, disability, prohibition or other penalty and is not otherwise dealt with in the Table or under subsection (3),but does not include a reparation order under section 73 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000,“removal from Her Majesty’s service” means a sentence of dismissal with disgrace from Her Majesty’s service, a sentence of dismissal from Her Majesty’s service or a sentence of cashiering or discharge with ignominy,
“sentence of imprisonment” includes a sentence of penal servitude (and “term of imprisonment” is to be read accordingly),
“sentence of service detention” means—
(a) a sentence of service detention (within the meaning given by section 374 of the Armed Forces Act 2006), or a sentence of detention corresponding to such a sentence, in respect of a conviction in service disciplinary proceedings, or(b) any sentence of a kind superseded (whether directly or indirectly) by a sentence mentioned in paragraph (a).”(5) In section 6 (subsequent convictions to extend the rehabilitation period applicable to a conviction)—
(a) in subsection (5) (exception to rule for certain orders imposing disqualifications etc.) for “in accordance with section 5(8) above” substitute “by virtue of paragraph (g) of the definition of “relevant order” in section 5(8) above”, and(b) omit subsection (6) (other exceptions to the rule).(6) After section 8A (protection afforded to spent cautions) insert—
“8AA Protection afforded to spent alternatives to prosecution
(1) The following provisions of this Act apply, with the modifications specified in subsection (3), to a spent alternative to prosecution as they apply to a spent caution—
(a) section 9A (unauthorised disclosure of spent cautions), and(b) paragraphs 2 to 6 of Schedule 2 (protection relating to spent cautions and ancillary circumstances). (2) An alternative to prosecution becomes spent for the purposes of this Act when it becomes spent under the law of Scotland.
(3) The modifications mentioned in subsection (1) are—
(a) references to cautions are to be read as references to alternatives to prosecution (and references to cautioned are to be read accordingly),(b) references to the offence which was the subject of the caution are to be read as references to the offence in respect of which the alternative to prosecution was given,(c) paragraphs (e) and (f) of paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 2 are to be read as if they were—“(e) anything done or undergone in pursuance of the terms of the alternative to prosecution,”,(d) references to cautions for an offence are to be read as references to alternatives to prosecution in respect of an offence, and(e) the reference in paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 to the rehabilitation period applicable to the caution is to be read as a reference to the time at which the alternative to prosecution becomes spent.(4) In this section “alternative to prosecution” has the same meaning as in section 8B as that section has effect in the law of Scotland but disregarding subsection (1)(f) of that section.”
(7) In paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 (protection for spent cautions)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (1)(a) (when conditional cautions to be regarded as spent cautions) for “, at the end of the relevant period for the caution;” substitute “—(i) at the end of the period of three months from the date on which the caution is given, or(ii) if earlier, when the caution ceases to have effect; and”, and(b) omit sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) (meaning of “the relevant period for the caution”).”
Lord McNally
My Lords, we now turn to a group of amendments which include the reform of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. The primary purpose of the Act is to support the effective rehabilitation of ex-offenders. It seeks to support routes into employment while maintaining an appropriate balance towards public protection. It does this by allowing ex-offenders who have stayed on the right side of the law for a certain period not to have to reveal their previous convictions. At the same time, the exceptions order to the Act entitles employers in certain areas of work such as work with children and vulnerable adults, or in certain sensitive financial or legal positions, to see information about spent convictions.
I have received today a letter from Mr Nick Starling, the director of general insurance at the Association of British Insurers, raising some concerns that it had about our proposals. He says in the letter that he would like to meet me to discuss the issues that he raises. I am certainly very happy to do that before Report.
The Act, therefore, is intended to balance public protection with efforts to rehabilitate offenders. However, it has not been reformed since it was introduced 38 years ago. Sentencing practice has become more punitive, but the scope of the Act and the rehabilitation periods have stayed the same. We also aware that studies have shown a positive association between employment and a reduced risk of reoffending. In considering reform, we have considered the responses to the government Green Paper Breaking the Cycle: Effective Punishment, Rehabilitation and Sentencing of Offenders, and wider support for change from organisations that work with ex-offenders. In that respect, I would particularly like to acknowledge the work of my noble friend Lord Dholakia, who has worked tirelessly over the years to reform the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.
Amendment 185F extends the scope of the Act to include custodial sentences of up to and including four years in length. Sentences more than four years in length will never become spent. We believe that this approach is a sensible and balanced one that extends the scope of the Act but recognises the seriousness of offences attracting custodial sentences of more than four years. Many more reformed offenders will have improved employment prospects, while public protection is maintained.
We are also shortening the rehabilitation periods that apply. Evidence shows that offenders are most at risk of reoffending during the first 24 months after they are released from custody. These new periods take greater account of this evidence so that they are more proportionate to the period of risk of reoffending. However, offenders will still be required to show over an extended period in the community that they can remain free of convictions before being considered rehabilitated. The rehabilitation period for community orders will also be directly linked to the length of the order itself. An offender will first have to complete the order and then remain conviction-free for an additional year.
The table contained in Amendment 185F lists the end date of the rehabilitation period for each sentence. For individuals who are under 18 when they are convicted, rehabilitation periods that run beyond the end of sentence will continue to be halved in relation to adults, with the exception of one. It is necessary to have an additional period of 18 months to apply at the end of custodial sentences of less than six months for juveniles, otherwise, for example, a six-month custodial sentence would become spent before an 18-month community order. It is important that we maintain the requisite balance in dealing with the hierarchy of sentences.
There is significant confusion around what happens when an offender commits a further offence when they are still subject to a rehabilitation period for another. Different rules apply to different types of offences—whether summary only, either way or indictable only—resulting in individuals either not revealing what they should, or revealing too much.
Subsection (5) of the new clause proposed by Amendment 185F, therefore, will introduce a single rule when an offender commits a further offence. All rehabilitation periods applicable at any given time will remain for the duration of the longest rehabilitation period. This reflects the fact that a prolific offender should be required to prove that he has truly put his life of crime behind him before he benefits from the protections of the ROA.
Amendment 185G inserts a new clause into the Bill that exempts immigration decisions from the effect of the ROA. Information about an individual’s character and conduct are essential to establishing if an individual should be given permission to enter or remain in the UK, including being granted British citizenship. This amendment means that both spent and unspent convictions can be considered when making these assessments. This will allow the UK Border Agency the appropriate level of discretion in its decision-making.
Amendment 187ZA introduces a schedule that preserves the position in Scotland as the ROA is a devolved matter. These amendments, other than the immigration and nationality exemption, apply to England and Wales only. The Scottish Government are aware of these reforms and are keeping their legislation under review.
I turn now to Amendments 185FA, 185FB, 185FC and 185FD, in the name of my noble friend Lord Dholakia. Amendment 185FA would extend the scope of the Act so that custodial sentences of up to and including 10 years could become spent. This amendment would, we believe, tip the balance too far away from public protection.
When the Act was first introduced, some 10 per cent of offenders sentenced at the Crown Court were excluded from it. Now that figure is more like 20 per cent. The government amendments increase the scope of the Act to four years, which would mean that around 93 per cent of adult offenders sentenced to custody in 2010 would fall broadly under the Act—a return to the position established in 1974. We do not believe that going beyond that is appropriate given the seriousness of offences that would attract sentences of over four years.
Amendments 185FB to 185FD would see sentences of between 30 months and four years attract a rehabilitation period of four years from the end of sentence, in line with sentences of between six and 30 months. The government amendment proposes a period of seven years from the end of sentence. This recognises that, as offending behaviour gets more serious, it should be treated more seriously. Serious offenders should have to prove for a longer period of time that they are no longer at risk of reoffending before they can benefit from having their conviction spent. If we are to get the balance right towards properly protecting the public, then I believe that this is the right approach.
The final amendment, supported also by the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Carlile, would mean that any offender convicted under the age of 18 would, upon turning 18, have their conviction spent provided they had completed their sentence. The Government recognise that younger people have a greater capacity to reform and change. For that reason, we propose that, for young offenders, the rehabilitation periods that run beyond the end of sentence will in most cases be half that of adults. We believe that is the right approach. We must remember that many disposals for young offenders are spent immediately or on completion of the relevant order. It is the more serious penalties that carry rehabilitation periods beyond the end of sentence. These reflect the period when the risk of reoffending is at its highest.
The Government consider that it is important that offenders of any age should be able to show that they have put their offending behaviour behind them before their convictions meriting serious disposals can become spent. However, under the proposed amendment, the older the young offender, the sooner the conviction would become spent. That does not seem to us to be right, nor does it reflect reoffending evidence.
I have no objections to my noble friends pressing me to go further on these matters, but politics is the art of the possible. I hope I can persuade my noble friends not only not to press their amendments but to go further and recognise and support our amendments as a significant step in supporting the rehabilitation of offenders. Together with the wider reforms aimed at tackling reoffending in this Bill, they will help deliver the right balance between public protection and the freedom for a person to put their past behind them. This will in turn contribute to a reduced level of reoffending through getting offenders into work. I beg to move.
Amendment 185FA (as an amendment to Amendment 185F)
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, briefly, I support the government amendments that have been tabled and echo the many warm things that have been said about the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for his persistence in pursuing this matter.
I merely mention that in 2001 I was invited to inspect the young offender institutions in the Caribbean. In Barbados, I found a system in which, at the age of 18, every child automatically had their convictions looked at and the slate wiped clean of all except those that it was deemed in a schedule should be carried forward. I brought that information back and fed it into the team studying Breaking the Circle at that time. Given all the points that have been made by the noble Lords, Lord Dholakia and Lord Thomas, it seemed particularly important that this should apply to young offenders so that they were not hampered, particularly in their further education, by crimes that they had committed as children.
Lord McNally
My Lords, in introducing this series of amendments, I covered our responses to the questions. Perhaps I should repeat that politics is the art of the possible. My noble friend Lord Dholakia prayed in aid the 2002 report Breaking the Circle. The difference between that and this Government’s consultation, Breaking the Cycle, is that Breaking the Circle did nothing, while we brought in Breaking the Cycle through an amendment. I have tried to find out from my researchers whether it was the Labour Government of 1974 or Ted Heath’s Government, who went out of office that year, who brought in the original Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. Perhaps that shows what has happened to the attitude towards penal reform in that it has taken 37 years to reform that Act. Successive Governments have ducked this issue. I am proud that this Government have taken the decision to amend that Act. We will monitor the effectiveness of the Act and the impact these changes have on offenders and their ability to secure employment.
As I said in my opening remarks, I have no objections to campaigners continuing to campaign but when a Government tackle an issue that has been ducked for 37 years, they are entitled to a little of the credit.
Lord McNally
“No rehabilitation for certain immigration or nationality purposes
Before section 57 of the UK Borders Act 2007 (and after the italic cross-heading before that section) insert—“56A No rehabilitation for certain immigration or nationality purposes
(1) Section 4(1), (2) and (3) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (effect of rehabilitation) do not apply—
(a) in relation to any proceedings in respect of a relevant immigration decision or a relevant nationality decision, or(b) otherwise for the purposes of, or in connection with, any such decision.(2) In this section—
“immigration officer” means a person appointed by the Secretary of State as an immigration officer under paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971,
“relevant immigration decision” means any decision, or proposed decision, of the Secretary of State or an immigration officer under or by virtue of the Immigration Acts, or rules made under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971 (immigration rules), in relation to the entitlement of a person to enter or remain in the United Kingdom (including, in particular, the removal of a person from the United Kingdom, whether by deportation or otherwise),
“relevant nationality decision” means any decision, or proposed decision, of the Secretary of State under or by virtue of—
(a) the British Nationality Act 1981,(b) the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1990, or(c) the Hong Kong (War Wives and Widows) Act 1996,in relation to the good character of a person.(3) The references in subsection (2) to the Immigration Acts and to the Acts listed in the definition of “relevant nationality decision” include references to any provision made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972, or of EU law, which relates to the subject matter of the Act concerned.””
Lord Bach
My Lords, knife crime has been a scourge on communities throughout Britain. I think my party, when in government, did quite a lot to tackle this appalling problem and yet it persists. Of course, some would say that the answer is to deal with the causes of such crime, particularly where young people are concerned. Yet the Government say that the answer is to create a new crime that is entirely covered, as the noble and learned Lord has just made abundantly clear, by existing crimes. For my part, I cannot see any logic behind it at all. Frankly, someone who uses a bladed weapon to threaten another person is guilty of a very serious criminal act, but that act is covered by existing statute law. More than that, there is guidance on sentencing and, of course, there is case law.
For our part, we will not be drawn tonight into the game that we fear the Government are playing with this legislation. It is legislative public relations, no more and no less. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to the points that have been made so well by the two previous speakers. I wonder whether he is as proud of this piece of legislation as he was of the last piece of legislation concerning rehabilitation of offenders. I rather feel that he is not.
Lord McNally
My Lords, we believe that currently there is no offence that specifically targets the behaviour covered by this clause; namely, the most serious of threatening behaviour where people carrying a knife or an offensive weapon use it to threaten and cause,
“immediate risk of serious physical harm to that other person”.
We believe that we are sending a clear message to those who behave in that way that they cannot expect leniency.
I understand, and very much respect, where my noble friend Lady Linklater is coming from. I want to make two points, one of which I have made before to the noble Lord—I am always tempted to say “my noble friend”—Lord Judd, who I am glad to see in his place. I make them to the noble Baroness as well. I understand that these under 18 year-olds, these children, may have various and complex difficulties in their personal lives. I did not. I was brought up on an ICI estate, where there were children who had difficult and complex lives but they did not adopt crime or violence. My simple point is that even children have choices and many do not adopt a path of violence.
I speak as the parent of three young children who have just come through their late teens. I know the fear in the hearts of parents of teenagers who go out on a Friday or Saturday night. The fear is always there that one piece of bad luck, one act of disrespect, will end up in their child being severely injured or perhaps even killed by someone carrying a knife. We are addressing that fear. All speakers have acknowledged that knife crime is a serious problem. I am as pleased as anyone that there has been some decrease in knife crime, but I do not think that it does any harm, particularly in the 16 to 17 year-old age group, to do a little bit of public relations and to send out a message that it is not fashionable—it might even be plain stupid—to carry a knife, to brandish it and to threaten people with it. I do not belittle any of the examples that have been given of people who deal with the problems of violence in our society but, in putting forward this law, we are addressing a real issue and making it clear that knife crime is unacceptable. It is not the first example of a minimum sentence. Nor is it the first example of a minimum sentence for 16 and 17 year-olds. There is a minimum sentence of three years for certain firearms offences committed by 16 and 17 year-olds. That measure was brought in by the previous Labour Government in the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
The Government believe that it is right to have minimum sentences specified in law where a certain offence warrants a strong and clear message that a certain type of behaviour will not be tolerated in a decent and law-abiding society. That is why we are legislating for the courts to be able to apply a minimum custodial sentence of four months' detention and training for 16 and 17 year-olds. However, as was pointed out, the legislation builds in discretion concerning the welfare of the offender, which is sensible. The amendments tabled by my noble friends would remove the minimum sentence not only for 16 and 17 year-olds but for adults. The Government cannot accept them. They would undermine our firm intention to stamp out these crimes. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment and the noble and learned Lord will not oppose the Question that the clause should stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone
My Lords, I listened with interest and not a great deal of surprise to what my noble friend said. We talked about fear and fashion, and I will reiterate that anybody who works with young people knows that the predominant cause is fear. We need to address why these things happen. It is not at all likely that having such a new sentence on the statute book will do anything to deter young people. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, said, what we do and say in this House will not percolate down, or mean very much, to a 16 or 17 year- old. However, taking account of the hour—I am about to catch my sleeper to Scotland—I will certainly not pursue the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McNally
“Rehabilitation of Offenders: consequential provisionPart 1Rehabilitation of Offenders: generalRehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974: England and Wales1 The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 is amended as follows.
2 In section 1(4)(a) (references in Act to a conviction) for “Great Britain” substitute “England and Wales”.
3 In section 2(5) (rehabilitation of persons dealt with in service disciplinary proceedings) for “Great Britain” substitute “England and Wales”.
4 Omit section 3 (special provision with respect to certain disposals by children’s hearings under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968).
5 In section 4(1)(a) (effect of rehabilitation) for “Great Britain” substitute “England and Wales”.
6 (1) Section 7 (limitations on rehabilitation under the Act) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2)(a) for “Great Britain” substitute “England and Wales”.
(3) In subsection (3) for “Great Britain” substitute “England and Wales”.
7 Omit section 8(8) (defamation actions: application of section to Scotland).
8 In section 8A(2)(d) (definition of “caution”) after “Wales” insert “and which is not an alternative to prosecution (within the meaning of section 8AA)”.
9 (1) Section 9 (unauthorised disclosure of spent convictions) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (3) omit “(or, in Scotland, the accused person)”.
(3) In subsection (8) omit “, in England and Wales,”.
10 After section 10(1) (orders) insert—
“(1A) Any power of the Secretary of State to make an order under any provision of this Act includes power—
(a) to make different provision for different purposes, and(b) to make incidental, consequential, supplementary, transitional, transitory or saving provision.(1B) The power of the Secretary of State to make an order under section 5(6) includes power to make consequential provision which amends or repeals any provision of this Act or any other enactment.”
11 Omit Schedule 1 (service disciplinary convictions referred to in section 6(6)(bb) of that Act).
Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974: Scotland12 The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 is amended as follows.
13 In section 1(4)(a) (references in Act to a conviction) for “Great Britain” substitute “Scotland”.
14 In section 2(5) (rehabilitation of persons dealt with in service disciplinary proceedings) for “Great Britain” substitute “Scotland”.
15 In section 4(1)(a) (effect of rehabilitation) for “Great Britain” substitute “Scotland”.
16 (1) Section 7 (limitations on rehabilitation under the Act) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2)(a) for “Great Britain” substitute “Scotland”.
(3) In subsection (3) for “Great Britain” substitute “Scotland”.
17 (1) Section 9 (unauthorised disclosure of spent convictions) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (3) for “defendant (or, in Scotland, the accused person)” substitute “accused person”.
(3) Omit subsection (8).
Part 2Rehabilitation of Offenders: consequential repeals
Short title | Extent of repeal |
|---|---|
Armed Forces Act 1976 | In Schedule 9, paragraph 21. |
Criminal Law Act 1977 | In section 63(2), the words “Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974;”. |
In Schedule 12, the entry relating to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. | |
Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 | In Schedule 7, paragraph 134. |
Armed Forces Act 1981 | In Schedule 4, paragraph 2(2). |
Criminal Justice Act 1982 | In Schedule 14, paragraph 37. |
Mental Health (Amendment) Act 1982 | In Schedule 3, paragraph 49. |
Mental Health Act 1983 | In Schedule 4, paragraph 39. |
Criminal Justice Act 1988 | In Schedule 8, paragraph 9(b). |
Children Act 1989 | In Schedule 14, paragraph 36(7). |
Criminal Justice Act 1991 | In section 68, paragraph (c) (but not the word “and” at the end of the paragraph). |
In Schedule 8, paragraph 5. | |
In Schedule 12, paragraph 22(2). | |
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 | In Schedule 9, paragraph 11. |
In Schedule 10, paragraph 30. | |
Armed Forces Act 1996 | Section 13(3) and (4). |
Schedule 4. | |
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 | In Schedule 8, paragraph 35. |
Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 | In Schedule 4, paragraph 6. |
Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 | In Schedule 9, paragraph 48(3) to (10). |
In Schedule 11, paragraph 13. | |
Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 | In Schedule 7, paragraph 49. |
Criminal Justice Act 2003 | In Part 1 of Schedule 32, paragraph 18(3). |
Armed Forces Act 2006 | In Schedule 16, paragraphs 65(4) to (8) and 66. |
Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 | In Part 1 of Schedule 4, paragraph 21. |
In Schedule 10, paragraphs 2 and 5. | |
Policing and Crime Act 2009 | Section 18(2).” |
Lord McNally
Lord McNally
My Lords, the point of creating this offence is that the Government want to send a clear message to existing and would-be squatters that occupying somebody else's house without permission is unacceptable, whatever the circumstances of the rightful owner or the state of the building. It does not suddenly become acceptable to squat if the owner of a property happens to go away for six and a half months. Amendment 188 is designed to protect people who squat in residential buildings that have been empty for more than six months, where no significant steps are being taken to refurbish them.
Lord McNally
Oh! I have jumped a group. Sorry. I hope I did not shock my noble friend Lady Miller.
Amendments 187B, 187C and 187D are being made consequential to the application of a minimum custodial sentence of a four-month detention and training order to 16 and 17 year-olds convicted of offences of threatening another person with a bladed article or weapon causing risk of serious physical harm. Amendments 187B and 187C amend references in the insertion to Section 100 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. These amendments are consequential to the debate we have just had and form part of the new offences in Clause 128. I beg to move.
Lord McNally
Lord Bach
My Lords, the Committee owes a debt of thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for having brought this difficult subject to our attention. It is not her fault that we are discussing it in the watches of the night and she has no need to apologise for taking the time of the Committee in explaining her point of view. As she said, the provision on squatting was introduced in another place with very little opportunity for scrutiny even on Report. The debate was pretty short. So this represents the first chance, and I hope not the last, for Parliament to get its teeth into these proposals.
Prima facie, the new criminal offence will demonise the absolute poorest, those with mental health issues and those who, frankly, have no other option than to shelter in properties that are, for the most part, unfit for habitation. Of course, we take the view, as does everyone else of sensible mind, that lifestyle squatting is quite beyond the pale and absolutely unacceptable—we oppose it as a principle as much as anyone else.
However, there is a big difference, as the noble Baroness demonstrated, between those few who jump carelessly into properties owned by others with the intent of abusing—severely abusing in some cases—the rights of ownership and those who have no other option unless they want to live on the streets. Anyone who lives in central London, for example, knows that the number of people living on the streets is going up as we speak. A large number of those people have no doubt, from time to time, “squatted” in the terms of what will become this legislation.
Our media, of course, are quite happy to remind us of the instances of outrageous behaviour by lifestyle squatters, but they are curiously quiet when it comes to telling us about, for example, a veteran with severe post-traumatic stress disorder who is addicted to drugs and alcohol and shelters in a property riddled with asbestos. Is he the sort of squatter whom the Government are out to get?
Squatting for the main part is already illegal and, in most instances, criminal, too. The Criminal Law Act 1977 makes it a criminal offence for any person to leave premises when required to do so by “a displaced residential occupier” or “protected intended occupier” of the premises. Parts 55.1 and 55.3 of the Civil Procedure Rules allow for owners to evict someone in a residence they do not occupy. Moreover, an interim possession order, backed up by powers in Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, means that a criminal offence is committed if an individual does not leave within 24 hours of such an expedited order being granted. So given that all homeowners are protected by the criminal law, unless their property has lain empty for a substantial period and no one is imminently moving in, where does this need for reform of the law lie?
Perhaps a hint came in the signature leaks to the media. A series of reports leading up to the unveiling of this government policy focused on the very sad case of Dr Oliver Cockerell and his pregnant wife who, the ministry briefed, were thrown out of their house by squatters. However, in that case, it emerged that the police, for once, had wrongly stated that the case of the doctor and his wife was a civil issue and not one for them. In fact, as Mr Cockerell and his wife were protected intended occupiers, it is more than arguable that the police should have intervened under the current law. Their failure to do so was not atypical and the position does not require the kind of legislative, heavy-boots intervention that the Government intend.
The Welfare Reform Bill and the legal aid Bill that we are debating tonight both deal in parts with impecunious and very vulnerable people. The two Bills together will increase the number of people who have to resort to living in condemned housing out of desperation. We know, thanks to social welfare researchers, that there is a significant prevalence of mental health problems, learning difficulties and substance addiction among those who are homeless. In fact, the Government’s own impact assessment, referred to in passing by the noble Baroness, tells us who is forced to squat. It said:
“Local authorities and homelessness … charities may face increased pressure on their services if more squatters are arrested/convicted and/or deterred from squatting. Local authorities may be required to provide alternative accommodation for these individuals and could also face costs related to increases in rough sleeping in their areas. An increase in demand for charities’ services”—
food or shelter—
“may negatively impact current charity service users”.
It goes on:
“There may also be a cost to society if this option is perceived to be unfair and/or leads to increases in rough sleeping”.
When the costs are identified, as the noble Baroness said, they are reasonably substantial.
We do not believe that the Government have a clue how many people actually squat. The reason for bringing in this new piece of criminal legislation is pure populism. It is demonisation of the poor by another method. We had concerns and said so on Report in another place. Those have been reinforced, frankly, by the way in which the Welfare Reform Bill and the legal aid Bill have been carried through by the Government. We have heard much more about opposition to the plans as they now stand.
I am not saying that we agree precisely with the amendment of the noble Baroness. It may be that six months is too little. I hope that when she withdraws her amendment tonight and there is time between now and Report there will be some discussion as to what the right amount of time should be and whether the wording is appropriate.
However, if the noble Baroness were to bring back her amendment in a different form, perhaps with a longer period of time, we would be sorely tempted to support it on Report. I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, in her brief intervention. We were criticised incredibly strongly and sometimes with justification for bringing in too many new criminal offences by just those people who are bringing them in now. This debate and the previous one introduced two new criminal offences that are frankly not needed. What is the explanation for that?
It is very telling that the Metropolitan Police, the Bar Council and the Law Society, none of which are natural friends of the squatting community, all think that bringing this particular legislation is completely unnecessary. We look forward to hearing the noble Lord's justification for it.
Lord McNally
My Lords, beware the caveat about being sorely tempted to support the amendment. We will wait until Report to see how sorely tempted the noble Lord is. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said that this is a knotty and difficult problem, and so it is, but let me put it simply; the Government believe that the criminal law can and should go further to protect homeowners and occupiers. There should be a specific criminal offence that protects people from those who squat in their residential buildings.
Many residential property owners have described the anguish that they experience when discovering that squatters have occupied their properties. I say to my noble friend that local authorities too have expressed concern about this problem. The huge expense and incredible hassle of getting squatters evicted has been described.
The Government believe the harm that can be caused by squatters is unacceptable and must be stopped. The new offence would be committed where a person is in a residential building as a trespasser, having entered it as such, knows or ought to know that he or she is a trespasser and is living in the building or intends to live there for any period.
The whole point of creating this offence is that the Government want to send a clear message to existing and would-be squatters that occupying someone else's house without permission is unacceptable, whatever the circumstances of the rightful owner or the state of the building. It does not suddenly become acceptable to squat if the owner of a property happens to go away for six and a half months. Amendment 188 is designed to protect people who squat in residential buildings that have been empty for more than six months, where no significant steps are being taken to refurbish, sell or let the property.
Lord McNally
“( ) In section 17 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (entry for purpose of arrest etc)—
(a) in subsection (1)(c), after sub-paragraph (v) insert—“(vi) section 130 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (squatting in a residential building);”;(b) in subsection (3), for “or (iv)” substitute “, (iv) or (vi)”.( ) In Schedule 10 to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (consequential amendments), omit paragraph 53(b).”
Lord McNally
My Lords, these are consequential amendments to debates that we have already had. Clause 130 creates a new offence of squatting in residential buildings, and I will explain the consequential amendment needed there. Rather oddly in the same grouping, Amendment 188B contains the transitional provisions for Clause 131, which deals with reasonable force for the purpose of self-defence. Amendment 188A amends the provision in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to ensure that the police have the necessary powers to enter and search a residential building for the purpose of arresting someone for the new squatting offence.
Such an amendment is necessary because the offence that we are creating is summary only, which means that it can be tried only in the magistrates’ court. PACE does not normally provide the police with the powers to enter and search premises for a summary-only offence, unless a specific provision is included in Section 17(1)(c) of PACE. This amendment adds this specific provision to PACE.
The amendment to Clause 131 regarding self-defence makes transitional provision in relation to the amendments made to Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. The amendment will ensure that the amendments that we are making to that section can be applied retrospectively where appropriate, making matters simpler for the courts. The amendment to Clause 135 is minor and technical. I beg to move.
Lord McNally
“( ) Paragraph 27 of Schedule 27 to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (which provides for section 76 of that Act to apply whenever the alleged offence took place, but not in relation to certain proceedings if they began, or the arraignment took place, before that section comes into force) applies to any amendment made by this section to section 76 of that Act as it applies to that section, but as if references to the date on which that section comes into force were references to the date on which the amendment comes into force.”
Lord McNally
“( ) sections (No rehabilitation for certain immigration or nationality purposes) and (Transitional and consequential provision: Chapter 7A),”
Lord McNally
It was decided that this was more descriptive of what the Bill was intended to do. I also draw the attention of the House to the fact that, late yesterday, I tabled Amendment 198, which added to the Long Title,
“to make provision about the rehabilitation of offenders”.
It is probably the only criticism that I would make of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, but I sometimes think that—rather like his desire for committees in the structures we were talking about yesterday—he gets obsessed with form rather than substance. The rehabilitation of offenders is in the Bill. What is more important, it is in the daily action of the Ministry of Justice. Ever since I became the Minister, every day I have emphasised the importance of rehabilitation, for exactly the same reasons as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, gave. It is a win-win. If you can rehabilitate, you save the public purse from having to put someone in prison again at a cost of £40,000 or £50,000 a year. You save future victims from the crimes that that person would have committed. Actually, it is a triple whammy, because if you can really rehabilitate, you get a taxpaying, constructive member of society. Everything that we have been doing, especially in Part 3 and the piloting programmes, is aimed to get effective rehabilitation.
I am very much impressed at the attention paid to my speeches at Liberal Democrat conferences. I shall take even more care over them in future. As for the rest, you will have to wait for my memoirs. I do not think that changing the Short Title at this stage of the process is helpful or will have an effect.
On what the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, said right at the end, this is an extra half day in Committee for the Bill. Perhaps if we all made a resolution to make shorter speeches, we would not find ourselves debating these issues at 23.33. In the mean time, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord McNally