Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Lord Phillips of Sudbury Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

I am glad to have given the Minister the opportunity to buy one group of amendments and get another free. I am sorry that he has not accepted the offer. He twice used the pregnant phrase that this does not “preclude” consultation. If I may say so, that is a very negative way of looking at the responsibilities of the Lord Chancellor and a rather worrying phrase. It is not a question of not precluding; the Bill should lay down what is expected of the Lord Chancellor and what he should do.

The Minister has repeatedly objected to the substitution of “must” for “may” in my amendments. The word “must” is in Clause 1, which states:

“The Lord Chancellor must secure that legal aid is made available in accordance with this Part”.

In some ways, this is a mirror image of another debate that I am involved in, with other Members of your Lordships' House, on the health Bill. Many of us, including some on the government Benches, have been trying to secure that the Secretary of State for Health has the duty to provide health services. That aspiration is one which, in respect of legal services and legal aid as defined in the Bill, is embodied in the government's wording.

Given that, it is not enough for the Minister to say that the LSC has those powers now. After all, the LSC effectively disappears. The Lord Chancellor becomes the authoritative body for the provision of legal services. It seems to me sensible and in fact desirable to protect the Lord Chancellor from succumbing to the temptation not to consult properly or to do things in perhaps a rather rushed or narrow way either of his own volition or at the behest of the Treasury or other organs of government, looking, for example, to make savings very quickly and perhaps very radically. I dare say that that may not be the intention of the present Lord Chancellor but it would be better to protect him from the possibility of judicial review, to which the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, referred, in the first place by providing a clear responsibility.

I was rather worried by the Minister’s reference to market forces. This is, I suppose, a reference to the sort of Tesco law that we are beginning to see happening. It rather worries me that, particularly in relation to Amendment 104, which deals with the criminal justice aspect, market forces might be deemed to be fit and proper effectively to run the legal aid service, whereas in the particularly important area of public policy and justice there is no requirement to consult such responsible bodies and persons as the Lord Chief Justice, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the three legal professions. I do not think it is good enough just to say that any Lord Chancellor would do this. One would hope that that would be the case but I am not sanguine enough to accept that it is proper in dealing with these matters to leave it to the potential good will of a future Lord Chancellor.

I would hope that the Minister would recognise that there ought to be a duty here. It is something that, in the absence of any movement before Report, we will have to come back to, as we might with regard to some of the other aspects to which he referred—in particular, the issue of charging for accreditation. I can see some case for making charges but I can also see a strong case in the realm of the voluntary sector for a different scheme. I give way to the noble Lord.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

Does the noble Lord not take some solace from the view expressed by my noble friend Lord Carlile and the noble Baroness on the Cross Benches that a Minister who ignored the obvious consultees would be susceptible to an effective judicial review? Is that not the best assurance that the noble Lord needs in order to rely on the present wording?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, I speak to Amendments 14 and 16, where my name is coupled with those of my noble friends Lord Thomas of Gresford, Lord Carlile of Berriew and Lord Macdonald of River Glaven—I am sure that the Committee will recognise that we are four hardened lawyers. I concur entirely with what has been said so far. There is no question but that the world we live in is more and more a legalised world, where law and politics are often hard to disentangle. Therefore, the need for absolute independence—not only actual independence, but perceived independence as well—must surely be to the benefit of all concerned, including the Government themselves, because if the director of legal aid casework is thought by the media to be in the pocket of the then Lord Chancellor, what good does that do anyone?

I shall add something that is a difficult point to make because I would not for one second wish any negative conclusions to be drawn vis-à-vis the Lord Chancellors whom we have had since the reform. As noble Lords will remember, in the late 1990s, holding that great post was made no longer the monopoly of a senior judge. I believe now, as I believed then, that there are some disadvantages attached to that constitutional change. I believe that it is possible to conceive of a Lord Chancellor who is not in all truth well equipped to deal with the issues implicit in this part of the Bill. That is another reason why I think that all the amendments in this group are to be supported, including Amendments 14 and 16.

I would also quickly add that Sir Bill Callaghan, who is chair of the Legal Services Commission, which is about to be abolished, has warned in very strong terms against there being any possibility of political influence on the difficult decisions that the director of legal aid casework is bound to have to take as time goes by. I think that we should listen to what that gentleman, who has been through this mill, is saying. It is a point of view supported not just by the Joint Committee on Human Rights but also strongly by my professional body, the Law Society, and, indeed, I think, by anyone else who has taken the trouble to consider this matter.

I end by briefly sketching out the purport of Amendments 14 and 16. Amendment 14 explicitly requires the Lord Chancellor to make available independent assistance to the director of legal aid casework in the work that he or she has to do, and Amendment 16 stipulates that the Lord Chancellor not only cannot give binding directions or guidance on individual cases but cannot do that in relation to arms of the state. The amendment makes it clear that there cannot be any direction or guidance in relation to,

“the Crown, Government department, executive agency or non-departmental public body”,

where any of those is a party.

I will rest my case at that, except to say that, having reviewed the Bill and the amendments down tonight—and we may want to look at this again on Report—I really wonder whether it is wise in these circumstances to allow the Lord Chancellor to direct the director of legal aid casework as to how he or she shall carry out his or her function other than in respect of a specific case. As far as I can see, although the directions to be given by the Lord Chancellor have to be published, they are not subject to any oversight by this place. In the extremely sensitive world of law, prosecution and legal aid, that power of direction seems dangerous. I hope that my noble friend will take all these amendments to heart and come back to us at the next stage with a concession that deals with the central issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend’s flow, but surely for him to argue, as he just has, that all is well on the independence front because Clause 4(4) states that the Lord Chancellor cannot direct the director of legal aid casework in individual cases is small comfort given that it leaves intact Clause 4(3), which enables the Lord Chancellor to give directions, which the director must comply with, on anything to do with the director’s functions except in an individual case. A whole wide sea of discretion is given to the Lord Chancellor by that provision, which goes to the heart of the independence of the director.

[Lord McNally]

The noble Lord is repeating the thrust of a number of contributions that I have heard today. My response indicates the Government’s position at the moment. Again, along with this response will be the comments that he and other noble Lords have made. Let us see where we go from there. It is an important safeguard to ensure the director’s independence in carrying out his or her functions in relation to individual cases, which in the Government’s view is not improved or added to by the amendment.

Amendment 14 seeks to amend Clause 4(2) by removing reference to other persons who may be provided to the director under arrangements to assist in the discharge of functions under Part 1. Again, this is an unnecessary amendment. To the extent that independent persons are envisaged under the new scheme, the current drafting of Clause 4(2) does nothing to prevent such individuals being engaged. The amendment also may have unintended consequences that could serve to undermine the efficient operation of the new scheme. Were this amendment to be accepted, it would limit the range of those individuals who could be engaged to assist the director to either civil servants or independent persons. It may of course be that the director will in future only ever need the assistance of civil servants and independent persons to discharge their functions. However, we cannot be sure with any certainty that this would be the case in all eventualities in the future.

The current formulation of “or other persons” provides the requisite flexibility to meet any future scenario, including the provision of independent persons. Accordingly, Amendment 14 merely limits the pool of people that might be available to assist the director, with potentially problematic unintended consequences for the operation of the scheme.

Amendment 15 to Clause 4 is intended to alter the provisions in relation to the independence of the director of legal aid casework. As I hope to explain, we believe the amendment, again, is unnecessary. I will briefly set out for the benefit of noble Lords the role and key functions of the director and why I believe that independence is important and why it is already enshrined in the Bill. Under Clause 4, the Lord Chancellor is obliged to appoint a civil servant as a statutory officeholder who will be responsible for making funding decisions in individual cases, including funding decisions in relation to exceptional funding applications under the Bill.

The statutory officeholder is to be known as the director of legal aid casework. The Lord Chancellor is also obliged to provide civil servants or other persons, or both, to assist the director in carrying out their functions. The director must make determinations in legal aid cases in accordance with the provisions of Part 1 of the Bill.

Under the new arrangements, Clause 4 is potentially the most important. It ensures that the director has independence in carrying out functions and is free from any political interference in making decisions in relation to individual cases. This independence is enshrined by the specific provisions within this clause, specifically subsection (4), which the amendment would delete. Subsection (4) prohibits the Lord Chancellor from giving guidance or directions in relation to the carrying out of the director’s functions in relation to individual cases.

There are provisions within Clause 4 that oblige the director to comply with directions given by the Lord Chancellor about the carrying out of the director’s functions, and to have regard to guidance issued by the Lord Chancellor about the carrying out of those functions, but crucially such guidance and directions cannot relate to the carrying out of the director’s functions in relation to individual cases. This protection of the director against interference when carrying out their functions in relation to individual cases is an important safeguard.

I would like to assure noble Lords that the protection of this independence is a fundamental tenet of the new arrangements, which provide the necessary safeguards that are required to make the new arrangements work. It should be noted that the director is a separate office from the Lord Chancellor created by statute. As I have said, under Clause 4(4), the Lord Chancellor cannot give directions or guidance to the director about the carrying out of the director’s functions in relation to individual cases. That is a very explicit assurance about independence. The protection offered by Clause 4(4) extends to anyone, including civil servants, to whom the director may delegate his or her decision-making functions in accordance with Clause 5 of the Bill. I believe that the Bill already establishes a proper role for the director, free from any political interference in relation to the carrying out of his functions in relation to individual cases.

I now turn to Amendment 16, which seeks to amend Clause 4(4) by specifying a category of case in relation to which the Lord Chancellor cannot issue guidance or directions. As I have said already, Clause 4(4) provides the director of casework with statutory protection against interference in individual cases; to seek to specify classes of case in a clause that bars interference in any individual cases cannot in my view add anything to the existing provisions. The Government’s policy has been consistently that proceedings where the litigant is seeking to hold the state to account by judicial review are important and should generally be retained within the scope of civil legal aid. This is expressly covered in paragraph 17 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Bill. As with other areas within the scope of civil legal aid, in a judicial review case that is within the scope of civil legal aid, the director’s functions under Part 1 of the Bill are to decide whether in each particular case the individual qualifies for funding.

--- Later in debate ---

This is a sensible amendment, which will not cost a huge amount of money. There are not thousands of these cases each year—only a couple of hundred. It is clear that if we switch, as the Bill will do, from a quango or non-departmental public body model to an internal department of the Ministry of Justice—a change that, as I hope I have already made clear, we on this side entirely support—there must be added checks and balances to the new model. We are sure that the Minister’s judgment and that of the Lord Chancellor are beyond reproach, but his civil servants are mere humans and they, as we all do on these Benches, make errors at times. All we are asking for in this amendment is that the Minister ensures that when those mistakes are made, as they will be in due course, we deal with them in the way that we deal with all aspects of administrative decision-making.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

Is one to read Amendment 18 as meaning that on any appeal from a refusal there will be an oral hearing, or is it possible that the initial appeal could be dealt with on paper? That might be a great deal quicker and cheaper in the first instance. One could then reserve an oral hearing for the really difficult cases.

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, I hope that I am correct in saying that our intention is that there should be a process whereby written applications can be made, but always with the provision that there can be an oral hearing in certain circumstances. The noble Lord makes a good point. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

Free? Oh my goodness. I withdraw that remark.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, this cannot pass. It must be in Hansard that on this occasion, rare though it is, lawyers acted pro bono.

[Lord McNally]

As I say so often, I am not a lawyer—thank God.

There was a question about how the independent funding adjudicator system is working. Some 11,560 reviews were received in 2010, of which about 3,500 were subsequently appealed to an independent funding adjudicator at a cost of about £18 per case. The total cost of these appeals was just over £63,000, so it appears to be a very cost-effective scheme. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, I understand that the Government are increasing funding for mediation by two-thirds, which is something that the Lord Chancellor has made considerable play of. But are the Government not at risk of putting rather too many eggs into this basket, particularly with the removal of legal aid, which is normally available in family dispute cases? Those on low incomes will be more or less forced into mediation. But you cannot force people to go to mediation. It will not work and, as my noble friend Lord Beecham has said, there is the danger of considerable inequality of power between the two parties whose dispute is being mediated.

I join other noble Lords in asking the Minister to look positively at the suggestion in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. It may be useful to provide some funding for collaborative law. It may well be that the legislation should reflect the positive view that the Government take of the availability of this means of resolving disputes in a variety of circumstances.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, my name is on this amendment. As persuasively put by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, it seems to be an unarguable proposition. The only fiddling point I would make about calling it “collaborative law” is that it is not the law that is collaborative but the process. It might be better to call it “collaborative resolution”, but that is a detail. I hope very much that my noble friend will feel that this is an advance.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, we are approaching the witching hour, as the opposition Whip moves stealthily to consult the government Whip. I do not want to give any clues as to whether this is going-home time, but if it is I am very grateful to my noble friend for ending our evening on a matter on which there is some hope of collaboration. I do not want to raise his expectations too much, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, that this concept, which is new to many of us, seems to have great potential. Again quoting from the noble Lord, it appears to be adaptable and flexible. It now has the not inconsiderable badge of approval from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, as an admirable scheme run by an admirable organisation. Like book reviews, I am sure that Resolution will have that as a strap-line.

How does this fit in with what the Government are trying to do? In response to the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Howarth, I should say that we have never seen mediation as a cure-all. The Lord Chancellor has made it very clear that he wants to wean us away from almost automatic litigation at the taxpayers’ expense, which is one of the attractions of mediation. The collaborative law concept certainly has its attractions.

As the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, pointed out when he quoted from Resolution, the MoJ has said that the Bill as it stands does not exclude the possibility of funding collaborative law in the future. Clause 7 refers to funding,

“mediation and other forms of dispute resolution”.

The amendments are accordingly unnecessary in so far as they set out to make it possible, as opposed to requiring, for funding to be made available for collaborative law. However, given the reduction in the budget that we need to make and the additional costs of involving two lawyers, as would be required for collaborative law when compared with mediation, we cannot commit to the additional resources required to fund collaborative law at this stage. We would not, however, rule it out at some time in the future.

I should like to make one other point. The Government understand that some mediation cases are complex and need additional legal support. We will be providing further legal advice in such family cases where an agreement reached through mediation needs to be turned into a court order, with an independent fee set at this level of service at £200. This is in addition to the £150 fee for legal advice accompanying mediation as originally proposed, and taken together this means that there will be considerable scope for publicly funded legal advice to accompany mediation, especially in more complex cases.

As I have said, I cannot take out the chequebook this evening so far as collaborative law is concerned, but I assure my noble friend that by putting this on the agenda, as it were, there is no doubt that it will play a part in future. Again, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has said and as I have said a number of times from this Dispatch Box, legal services are on the move and I can very well see that the concept of collaborative law or collaborative resolution, if my noble friend Lord Phillips has his way, may well play a part in the future. At this time of night, however, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.