Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Lord Phillips of Sudbury Excerpts

Monday 23rd April 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Woolf]

My Lords, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has put before us. Doing my very best, I have found it very difficult to find any reason why this amendment should not be accepted. Attempting to rely upon what was said in the other place just does not wash. If the other place had understood the purpose of the previous amendment, I do not accept that it could have treated it in the way that it did. I do not need to go into detail about that matter because the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has, with his usual clarity, set out the position perfectly obviously. The situation is as he indicated.

In Bills of this nature, it is frequently the practice to assist those who will subsequently have to apply the legislation—or, if I may say so with feeling, interpret the legislation—by setting out the purpose of the legislation. The Bill makes that purpose clear in so far as there was any doubt about it. There cannot be said to be any financial commitment involved. I am at a loss to understand how the Lord Chancellor, having the responsibilities that he has for the administration of justice under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, can use that as an excuse for, without justification, trying to impede the proper consideration of this amendment. It reflects no credit to the way in which that office is now being handled for the Lord Chancellor to take that position. Every word that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has said with regard to the four points that were taken is of substance. I hope that, even now, the Lord Chancellor will consider whether it is consistent with his responsibilities to take the position that was adopted by the other place after very brief consideration.

I remind the Lord Chancellor of the oath that he takes when he takes office, which is laid down in the Constitutional Reform Act. I ask him to consider whether the position that he has now taken is consistent with that oath. Section 17 of the Act requires him to,

“swear that in the office of Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain I will respect the rule of law … and discharge my duty to ensure the provision of resources for the efficient and effective support of the courts for which I am responsible.”

The purpose of the amendment is to give the Lord Chancellor scope to do just that.

I would have thought that the proper course was to welcome the amendment, having regard to changes in the situation that can take place in the future. Again and again, in the course of consideration of this Bill, it has been said on behalf of the Government that they are following the course that they are taking because of the financial situation in this country. That argument demands the greatest respect, but as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has indicated, this amendment does not interfere with the Lord Chancellor doing precisely that. It is said that it may lead to increased litigation. If that litigation were to take place, as far as I can foresee, it would have to be by way of judicial review and it is well known that judicial review has built-in protections to avoid the litigation process being misused. The requirement of leave would mean that proceedings which are initiated without cause would have a very short life indeed. The Government of the day would be entitled to get the assistance of the courts, which they would receive, to ensure that there was no misuse of those proceedings in these circumstances. I suggest that, if full consideration had been given to this amendment, it would not originally have been objected to or objected to now.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

Given the noble and learned Lord’s huge experience in these issues, would he kindly tell the House whether he considers that this amendment does not place any Lord Chancellor in any jeopardy in respect of judicial review? If that is the case—that is what I understood the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, to say—does that not make the provision toothless?

[Lord Woolf]

No one can anticipate what might happen with regard to the conduct of a particular Lord Chancellor in the future. However, in regard to the fears that have been expressed, there would be no possibility of those being treated as appropriate cases for an application for judicial review on the facts that could be reasonably expected to occur.

On the purpose of the legislation, I would adopt what was said by the shadow Minister in the other place: that the amendment states a purpose because the provision is a statement of legislative purpose. As to having a statement of legislative purpose, in legislation of this nature it is done frequently, not for the purpose of providing an enforceable duty but so that it is known what the legislation as a whole is intended to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, I will be very brief. I supported the predecessor of this amendment as it went through the various stages in your Lordships’ House. I did so because, for the reasons that have already been given, I thought it was an important statement of principle that ought to govern the way in which we considered the Bill and ought to be part of the Bill. I remain of that view.

It seems that the real reason for the objection to this amendment is the fear of judicial review, or the rather vaguely described “satellite litigation”. I understand why government lawyers, who are not always right about everything, may consider that there is a risk of judicial review in all sorts of situations: because of the ingenuity of lawyers and perhaps the flexibility of the Human Rights Act. However, given the way in which it is currently framed, it seems absolutely hopeless to think that there could be judicial review in these circumstances. The amendment as formulated makes it entirely clear. We are all familiar with provisions with no such discretion or reference to the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State, in which case courts have sometimes said that it is an absolute duty. However, with this proviso it is almost as though the Government have had the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, advising them on how to make the matter proof from judicial review.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, I went to the other place to hear our amendments debated. As I am not a former Member of the other place, perhaps my noble friend will take it from me that its consideration of some of our amendments was cursory—and that is putting it quite generously. I admit to being very disappointed that, on such an important Bill as this, the other place allowed so little time for consideration of these amendments that one cannot say that they scrutinised the amendments with the seriousness with which we try to scrutinise.

Having said all that, I am still mystified by this amendment. I agree with my noble friend Lord Faulks, and consequently with my noble friend—well, he is a friend but he is not a friend—Lord Pannick. It seems clear—indeed it was part of the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—that there is no prospect of judicial review, and he has designed this amendment to cut out that prospect. However, to the extent to which he has been successful—and I think he has been—it makes the clause ineffectual. It has absolutely no practical effect. I am afraid that it is admirable in sentiment but ineffectual in purpose and therefore should not be in the Bill.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hart inadvertently stole my opening line about the time we have spent debating this amendment. I could also point out that we will take little less time to vote on this amendment than the other place took to discuss, and allegedly debate, all four of the amendments about which we have heard.

The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has entertained the House by conjuring up a vision of an army of devious lawyers mining the rich seams of the potential availability of legal aid for the purpose of pursuing claims for judicial review. Others of your Lordships have rather demolished the thrust of that argument, which in any case might be thought to be somewhat fanciful, especially in the light of the quite appropriate reference made by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, to the fact that the amendment incorporates specific reference to the discretion of the Lord Chancellor. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, there really is no substance in his objection to the amendment as it has been moved.

In relying once again on financial privilege—when it could have been waived and substantive arguments put in the form of a Motion asking this House to reconsider the amendment—the Government seem to be succumbing once again to the temptation of relying on this way out of a difficulty. They are becoming addicted to the use of financial privilege as a reason to reject amendments from your Lordships’ House, and that cannot be a satisfactory basis for dealing with significant matters of this kind. Therein lies the strength of an argument about financial privilege when, in dealing after a fashion with the amendment in the House of Commons, the Minister, Mr Djanogly, made one of his principle objections: that the Government,

“are concerned that the amendment replicates what is already in place”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/4/12; col. 201.]

If it replicates what is already in place, how can it conceivably add to the Government’s expenditure? It is a ludicrous proposition in an attempt to have it both ways.

For that matter, those who argue that judicial review is something to be avoided seem to have forgotten that when we were discussing the position of the director of legal aid casework—the DOLAC amendment; we will come later to a welcome acceptance of an amendment in that respect—it was argued that judicial review would be available to those who sought to make a case for legal aid in exceptional circumstances. At that point, it was to come to the rescue of people who were being denied legal aid and was something to be embraced. Today, however, for the purposes of this amendment it is an issue that could be deployed against the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.

There is no question that the purpose of this amendment is clear. It is declaratory, but it is important to be declaratory about important principles, and for that reason the Opposition wholly support the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, I listened carefully to what the Minister said and I am afraid that I am not satisfied that the arrangements she explained are anything like adequate to deal with the more difficult cases that will be presented to those on the telephone lines. Indeed, the problem is that they will not be presented at all. As one who spent a large part of his early days in the law trying to help ordinary people with their so-called ordinary problems, I know that there is much greater difficulty in getting instructions from inarticulate, anxious or unconfident people than well intentioned, middle-class people can believe.

It is simply unrealistic to say that when vulnerable people come on the phone there will be sympathetic people to direct them here, there or somewhere else because they will never get on the phone. The reason is that today the law is so complicated that the kind of people I am thinking about will never get to the point of understanding, in articulate terms or with any clarity, what their problem is. The only chance of them getting to that point will be if they get before a sympathetic person, in a sympathetic context, who has the skill—and it takes skill—to coax out of them just what is the problem. Everyone sitting in this place may say, “Well, for Pete’s sake, they all go to school and have got technology that can do this and do that”, but at least 10 per cent of our fellow citizens are not in that category—they are the most needy people—and a system which fails the most needy 10 per cent is simply unacceptable.

I do not mind how many reviews we have about this, this system will not work for those people. I know it. I worked with the Samaritans for years, and every Samaritan knows that for every one person who comes on the telephone there are many more who never even get that far.

I am afraid to say that I shall be in opposition to the Government’s response to Amendment 24, the beauty of which was that it was the Lord Chancellor’s duty to deal with people’s needs by a range of forms. Such a system would be much more flexible. Indeed, the Minister, quite rightly, said that the need for every person to have face-to-face advice, as is required by subsection (a) of the proposed new clause in Amendment 24B, is too inflexible. However, by the same token, her argument that every case will be dealt with by telephone is too monopolistic and will not work for a very important slice of the population.

I ask all noble Lords to think of someone they know who does not have the confidence to speak up, the analytical ability to know quite what their problem is and certainly not the confidence to use this facility, well intentioned though it is. I hope the Minister will reflect on what I have said and, if she doubts me, talk to others who know more than I. Perhaps she will say in summing up what is now the position with the CABs and law centres. At least they have the facility for people to go in and meet other members of the public who work voluntarily for the CAB and have time. It can often take half an hour to find out what the problem is. Is the funding of CABs and law centres now assured so that they can do that?

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

My Lords, I agree with what the noble Lord has said. I can remember that many years ago, when I undertook my surgery in my constituency, people came there who were all too often inadequate, vulnerable and inarticulate. I do not know how they could have possibly represented their case on the telephone; they were afraid of the telephone. All I wish to say in my brief remarks is that I have first-hand knowledge of what the noble Lord has said and that what is now being proposed will affect such people. The majority of people who sought aid and assistance that they would otherwise not have received were incapable of representing their perfectly justified remarks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their attention to this very important area and I especially thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for her kind words to my noble friend about his engagement with her concerns. I have a note that I need to correct the figure given for the costs of the noble Baroness’s amendment. The costs are likely to be in excess of £20 million per annum for both civil and criminal legal aid—I need to clarify that.

In reaction to what the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said, I point out that stage 1 is where people come in and it is decided whether they need to go through the telephone system. Stage 2 is the detailed case assessment of suitability.

To my noble friend Lord Phillips I point out that the kind of cases to which he points may well be those that are then directed towards face-to-face advice. It is extremely important to bear in mind the flexibility that is built into this system and to contrast that with the lack of flexibility of insisting that the advice is face to face. This system means that when people are taken into the telephone system their cases can be assessed to see whether they are suitable for phone advice or face-to-face advice.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I did not explain myself adequately. I was trying to get across the point that people will not get as far as a telephone. That is the problem. Once they are there, I absolutely think that what my noble friend has explained to the House is fine. However, I am talking about the people who, for the reasons I tried to explain, will not have the confidence or the competence to say what their problem is over the phone because it is often so damn difficult to do so.

[Baroness Northover]

I understand what my noble friend means about getting to that point. I ask him to ask himself how they would get to face-to-face advice. There they are with a major problem. They may very well end up in a CAB, in which case the CAB may assist them in phoning the telephone gateway and may indicate in its call that this is a suitable candidate for face-to-face advice. My noble friend needs to go back a bit and ask how the person who is in such circumstances will access any advice and then see how this may route them through to the kind of suitable, appropriate and flexible advice that I hope I have laid out.

[Baroness Northover]

Let us assume that that person has come to you as a constituency Member of Parliament—I think that is the kind of case the noble Lord is talking about. Again, the Member of Parliament could phone the helpline and say that, for the reasons given by the noble Lord, in this case the person is likely to need face-to-face advice. If someone else, such as a family member, were to phone up, it would become apparent that the person in question could not do this. For those reasons it becomes apparent that this person is going to need face-to-face advice.

As I said in my introductory remarks, there are clearly cases where, for all sorts of reasons—and noble Lords have experience of these kinds of cases—that person will not be best helped by the telephone. In other cases that might be exactly what a person prefers: the distance of telephone rather than face-to-face advice. They might not be able to get to wherever the face-to-face advice is, or they might find that Skype is what they want to use.

The other point to bear in mind is the provision of language translation. Some 170 languages can be provided on the phone line, and very few CABs or constituency advice surgeries have that kind of provision; so there are certain advantages to that provision that might be of help to other cases. The important thing to remember in all this is the equality duty—the diversity of people and their situations and our obligation to address those needs. Those needs will need to be met in different ways, and that is built into how the system operates. The very fact that the Samaritans have been involved in training the operators is an indication of how seriously we consider the responsibility towards people with those diverse needs. Of course, the Samaritans operate a phone system for their own advice line.

I assure the noble Lord that there will be no restriction on the length of time that a person can speak to a caller. If that is the problem—that it is a matter of time—it will not kick in here.

My noble friend Lord Phillips asked about the Budget, which announced £40 million and £20 million in each of the remaining years of the spending review. I think he sought assurance of provision for the CABs.

I have emphasised how operator service staff and specialist telephone advisers will be trained to be aware of the needs of callers, especially those with mental health and learning impairment problems. There will be reasonable adjustments and adaptations available to assist callers, including provision for a third party such as a family member to call on an individual’s behalf. As long as a person authorises someone to call on their behalf, the third party could equally be a member of a CAB or other support or advice service. If the caller is assessed as unsuitable for telephone advice, they will still have access to face-to-face assistance and be referred directly to that provider. That is an improvement over the current situation, in which they might be given three phone numbers of advisers whom they then have to contact. Again, they have to use the telephone to set up these appointments, whereas with this they could be referred directly to that provider and will not have to find the face-to-face provider themselves from those phone numbers, and those providers will have to make contact back to the person.

Noble Lords might bear in mind how flexible the system is within the new arrangements. In December, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, referred to the satisfaction rates with both the existing community legal advice helpline operator service and the specialist telephone advice service; 96 per cent of respondents found the operator service helpful, and the 2010 survey of clients advised by telephone showed that 90 per cent of respondents found the advice provided helpful. That is a very encouraging response.

As I emphasised, and as we will continue to emphasise, we will keep this under review so that we can make sure that it is working as effectively as possible. As my noble friend Lord McNally assured the House, I assure noble Lords that the telephone gateway will apply initially to only a limited number of areas of law and will be monitored from day one. Noble Lords have picked up on the review, but I assure them that we will keep a watching brief over this from the very beginning to make sure that it is working well. The engagement with stakeholders that has already taken place and the need to make sure that everyone’s needs are addressed is a reflection of that. I can give that further assurance.

I hope that noble Lords will support the Government in this area.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend again, but can she tell the House that the review will be undertaken by an independent experienced reviewer?

[Baroness Northover]

My noble friend assures me that we will review how this is working and publish the findings. I am sure that noble Lords will scrutinise that with the greatest of care. I reiterate that the operation of the system will be monitored from the very beginning. Therefore, noble Lords do not need simply to wait for the review at the end of two years to make sure that this is working in the way that we trust will assist people, as opposed to raising the concerns that noble Lords have expressed. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, I can be very brief on behalf of the Official Opposition. The Motion that was passed last time in this House was in my name, and it follows that we support the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, today. He has summed up the case extremely well, and in our view this amendment should be supported. It is quite wrong that any part of the damages awarded in industrial diseases should be taken from the successful claimant. In principle, it is wrong. Therefore we support the amendment.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, I can be very brief. There is a belief on this side that Amendment 32 would drive a coach and horses through the Jackson amendments, and we are broadly in support of the need to amend and reform conditional fee agreements and the like. I also draw the House’s attention to the fact that the wording of this amendment is extraordinarily wide. It will not apply just to cases of damages for industrial disease, as the heading would indicate; it will relate to any proceedings that include a claim for damages for a disease, condition or illness. That could be a minority part of the claim, and the rest, piggybacking on it, would also be outside the broad changes to these conditional fee agreements that have, in my view and in the view of the Government, had extremely unpropitious consequences for litigation generally, some of which we heard in discussion on the previous amendment. I am afraid that I oppose this amendment.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend’s support. We should move quickly to a decision on the matter. This is a very wide amendment. It ducks the issue that the Government have made central to this Bill and which I made in our debate on mesothelioma. Singling out a sector for special treatment is unfair across the board. We are looking in that case for non-legal solutions to the problems of the victims. The Government have taken action on a number of areas of specific industrial diseases and will continue to do so.

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, we will not undermine what most people saw in the system that is now in place: a very inflationary form of financing litigation where neither the claimant nor the lawyer has any need to concern themselves about cost. That is why Jackson was set up and why he came up with the solution that he has. As in previous cases, the idea that the 25 per cent is compulsory is not necessary. I should like to see much more competition and willingness to take these cases. Noble Lords have seen that it is easy to take very hard cases and then to say, “Well, we can’t go along with this”. If you do that, you dismantle the Jackson reforms. I believe that the debates in both Houses over the full period of this Bill have been mainly supportive of the central architecture of the Jackson reforms. I hope that when they vote on this amendment, noble Lords will see its flaws and will support what the Commons has proposed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, I regret to interrupt my noble friend at this time of night, but she mentioned the figure of 96 per cent remaining in scope. The figure of 13 per cent taken out of scope was just mentioned. I wonder where the reconciliation is between those two figures, because it is significant.

[Baroness Northover]

It is very straightforward. As I have just said, 96 per cent of current spend on cases is included, and in terms of numbers of cases 13 per cent are outside. So 4 per cent of spend is outside, which represents 13 per cent of the number of cases.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, flagged up great concern about children in this situation and referred to the Children’s Commissioner saying that if this happened, it would breach the ECHR. Indeed, we agree. I hope my introductory remarks reassured her that this is not in breach, because if there was a failure to provide funding in such a situation that it was a breach, that would be covered either within that 96 per cent that I have just mentioned or through the exceptional fund. Any child qualifying for that kind of protection would qualify, under the European Convention on Human Rights, for that exceptional funding. I hope that that reassures her. The Children’s Commissioner may say that it would be abuse of children’s rights if that were not to be the case but we are saying that that is covered because of that protection.

My noble friend Lady Hamwee flagged up the area of immigration, and here the child’s interests are generally represented by the parent or guardian. In most cases where a child is unaccompanied, the issue is usually an asylum claim and legal aid is of course remaining for these cases. My noble friend asked what would happen if the case was not accepted as an asylum claim. In these cases unaccompanied children would have a social worker assigned to them, whose role would include helping the child access the same advice and support as a child permanently settled in the UK. They could also, for example, offer assistance in filling in forms, explaining terms and giving them emotional support. As my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness outlined previously, the Home Office will be working with the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner on how best to ensure that local authorities can assist children in their care with immigration applications if necessary. This could, for example, mean exempting local authorities from Office of the Immigration Services—

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Lord Phillips of Sudbury Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, I rise to support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and apologise for missing her opening remarks. However, before briefly addressing the amendment, I would like to associate myself with the words in remembrance of Lord Newton. In another place I worked very closely with him, as Tony Newton, when I was vice-chair of the parliamentary All-Party Disablement Group. Even when he could not meet us in all our demands, he was always very positive and looked for ways to come at least some of the way towards us. He will be a great loss for all of us in this House as well as for the many thousands outside the House for whom he worked so hard.

I also thank the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for some of the concessions that he has been able to make at other times—particularly for those with learning difficulties—which I was unable to acknowledge earlier.

On this specific amendment, all of us who have had reason to work on behalf of disabled children will be aware of the need to ensure that they get fair play within the system. If there is any danger of them losing out and not being able to go to appeal on benefits then there need to be safeguards in legislation.

Many of us served for weeks on end on the Welfare Reform Bill. We hoped that some amendments would strengthen it and make it more easily understood. In reality, the amendments failed. There will be challenges to the interpretation of the legislation that will need to go to the courts. Unless provisions such as those in the amendment are included in the Bill, people will miss out. Therefore, even if some aspects—to which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, referred—are already covered elsewhere, others are not. Therefore, let us give another place a chance by agreeing the amendment. If there is then a need to pare it back, all well and good—but at this point, unless we agree the amendment we will lose everything.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, I was the constituent of Lord Newton of Braintree—Tony Newton—for nearly 20 years, and he was a close friend for the rest of his life. If I need a little courage in order not to follow the Whip today on at least one of the amendments in this group, I will get it from his memory. He was an extraordinary man of both first-class intellect and a really big heart. I do not know anybody who managed to marry intellect and heart in quite the effective way that he did.

I have practised law for more than 50 years. The memories that stick with me most are of trying to help—and often to help young people under 18 and their worried parents get fairness from a barbarically complicated legal system. I understand the extraordinary difficulty faced by my noble friend Lord McNally—and by the Government. They have the hugely difficult and unwelcome task of cutting back and saving on public expenditure. However, we are faced here with a balance between £6 million to £8 million, and justice for the particularly vulnerable and needy group of our fellow citizens who are under 18.

Looking down the list of issues that Amendment 3 covers, it is almost impossible not to believe that they are all essential elements of justice in the 21st century. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, made the point that the downstream costs of not addressing these sorts of issues with at least timely advice are likely to exceed any up-front savings. The King’s Fund report made that clear.

On balance, I am persuaded by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford that I need not support Amendment 4. In the same way, I will be able to compromise on Amendment 5, even with the shadow of Tony standing over me. To extend the age limit to 24 would have a dramatic effect. Those in the 18 to 24 age group are more likely than the younger group to be able to look after themselves when it comes to advice and a limited amount of representation.

Finally, I wish that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, was in his place. Those of us who have been practitioners in the law will remember the happy days ushered in by the Conservative Government of 1980, and the noble and learned Lord’s creation of the green form scheme, which meant that we could advise on all these things automatically, without reference to anybody and with a cap on how much we could charge. I wish we could get back to those happy days. In the mean time, I fear that I may be forced at least to abstain on Amendment 3 unless my noble friend Lord McNally comes up with a wholly unexpected concession —and I hope that he will.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Lord Phillips of Sudbury Excerpts

Tuesday 20th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

My Lords, I support the line taken by our Front Bench. Without any question, there are risks with referral fees but they are fairly minimal. The questions that the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and others should ask themselves are whether they believe that there will be more of the kind of litigants who at present benefit from the union offering these services, admittedly through using referral fees, especially given what we are doing to legal aid in this Bill; or whether there will be fewer people taking action. My view is that if these changes are put through, the likelihood is that unions will not be able to offer services on the same kind of basis that they have in the past. As a consequence, fewer people will pursue cases and the people who will not be pursuing those cases will be the ones at the bottom of the pile, and not those who are higher up with a fund of money to pursue the law without any trouble whatever. I put those very serious questions to those who are pursuing this line.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, I shall intervene briefly. I declare an interest in that a firm in which I was a partner had major arrangements with a number of trade unions.

I say to the noble Lord who has just spoken that the unions and the firms who do their work will be able to adjust their arrangements. For a start, by not paying the referral fee, the solicitors doing the work will be able to drop their charges to take account of that fact, and the trade unions will be able to adjust their arrangements with their members, although it will not be a major adjustment. The point that the noble Lord reasonably made is capable of adjustment in a way that will enable the abolition of referral fees—which, in general, are extremely deleterious to justice—to be effected.

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

My Lords, this proposal is not in any way union bashing and I am sorry that it has been caught up like that. I was pleased that when the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, opened the debate he joined with the Government in our general desire to ban referral fees. It is of course right that injured people should be able to pursue claims and under our reforms they will be able to do so. Costs will be more proportionate and the damages they receive will be increased.

However, it is wrong for third parties to be able to profit from referral fees for personal injury cases in this way. I found the intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, last Wednesday extremely powerful and I recommend noble Lords to reread it. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is right: it is not four-square with referral fees but it illustrates the danger of sweetheart relationships in this area. The Law Society was quite right—but rather belatedly so—to deal with a great injustice to miners who had already suffered much in their industry.

On the question of political funding, yes, I understand the difference between union general funds and the political fund and that it is the political fund that goes to the Labour Party. However, again, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, explained that she was referring to the party itself acting as a referee. Even as I speak, I wonder whether this merry thought has occurred to any other political party. I know political parties look for ways to earn funds and, if this has been thought up by the Labour Party, it is, at the moment, within the law. However, we do not think it is right.

I also welcome the intervention of my noble friend Lord Phillips. I do not always welcome his interventions but this time he has put his finger on it: we are not preventing solicitors taking on a case at reduced rates or for free; nor are we preventing solicitors from making donations to charities or other not-for-profit organisations. Charities representing injured people will still be able to offer advice and recommend the best law firms. However, they should do that in the claimant’s best interest, not on the basis of what fee they can get for that claim. The amendment would not only allow an exception for charities and unions but for all not-for-profit organisations. I fully appreciate that trade-union, charity and political-party referral fees can be nice little earners, but that kind of relationship is not in the best interests of the consumer.

I say to the noble Lords, Lord Monks, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe and Lord Martin, that I am well aware of the record of trade unions in legal advice and the help that they give to their members. I have no doubt of the accuracy of the figure of 50,000 a year given by the noble Lord, Lord Monks. However, I also take the point—which I did not know—that only two trade unions use referral fees. This suggests to me that this is not the universal attack on trade unions that anybody has suggested. We simply say that whether it be political parties, trade unions or charities, it is not healthy or in the consumer’s interest to have sweetheart deals between unions, charities or political parties and individual law firms.

The amendment goes further than earlier proposals. Some claims management companies are currently not-for-profit organisations and others could become not-for-profit bodies in order to get around the ban. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, tabled an amendment that would have made an exception for charities only. This amendment now makes a wider exception which would exempt unions, political parties and not-for-profit claims management companies as well.

We believe that referral fee arrangements are wrong in principle. Under the cloak of support for charities, the amendment would allow payments for the referral of personal injury cases by a wide range of organisations. This amendment would make a mockery of the ban on referral fees, which the Opposition have claimed to support in principle—and I believe they do support it in principle. I really think—and the more I listen to this debate the more I think it—that for the Opposition to press this amendment is simply wrong-headed. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, briefly, I support every word of the introduction by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, of this amendment. On behalf of the Solicitors Pro Bono Group, which is sometimes called LawWorks, of which I am founder and president, I wholeheartedly applaud this amendment to Section 194, which can only be beneficial to pro bono.

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, we congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, from these Benches. I thank him very much for his well deserved tribute to my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith. I have to say that I felt a slight tremor of envy when I saw this amendment on the Marshalled List. I have tried throughout the Bill to put forward an amendment that might have the name of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, attached to it, but have failed miserably. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, makes one attempt and it succeeds.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Lord Phillips of Sudbury Excerpts

Wednesday 14th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Grey-Thompson]

My Lords, the amendment is also in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Bach, Lord Newton of Braintree and Lord Pannick. It seeks to remove the provisions for both a mandatory telephone gateway and the delivery of legally aided services exclusively by telephone. Instead, the amendment would insert a duty to promote the plurality of provision and the delivery channels in order to have regard to the needs of clients when procuring services.

The Government have said that they will introduce the mandatory gateway initially in four areas of law. However, the Bill gives the Government wide powers to make legal aid services available exclusively by telephone or other electronic means in the future. I move the amendment for several reasons. A telephone-only service may work for a large number of people. However, it may adversely impact the most vulnerable clients, who may struggle to explain complex problems over the phone. I should like to ask the Minister to share with us how the coalition Government will identify the groups of people for whom this service is not suitable, and the criteria that will be used, given that the Government acknowledged the difficulty in their impact assessment, which stated:

“Disabled people may … find it harder to manage their case paperwork through phone services. They may also find it harder to communicate via the phone or manage any emotional distress more remotely”.

Indeed, it may be hard for many people even to access a telephone suitable for dialling in. Many people in current times do not have a land line but only a mobile. Accessing a telephone gateway via a mobile could be expensive. Due to waiting times, credit may even run out before a conclusion has been reached. Also, fewer public phones are available, and they are perhaps not the best way to try to resolve issues. I am also concerned that people with language or speech difficulties may be deterred from seeking advice. Without early intervention, it is likely that their problems will become more complex and costly to resolve at a later date, and their problems will be pushed to another area.

We must also think carefully about training operators. It is my understanding that they will receive some training, but there will be no formal legal training. As a result, operators may not be able effectively to interpret the nuances of complex cases put to them, let alone cases put to them by clients who may be confused or have some difficulty in communicating.

The Government’s savings from their proposals will be negligible, and they may in fact cost more. The June 2011 impact assessment predicted savings of between just £1 million and £2 million—a relatively small amount. In fact, a study by the Legal Services Research Centre found that telephone advice can take longer to resolve problems than face-to-face advice. Face-to-face advice is important in many cases for fostering trust and building relationships in order to get to the right resolution.

We could also lose the current streamlining. Much good work has been done by local advice agencies, which collaborate to streamline advice, whereby clients need to go through the advice journey only once. The mandatory telephone gateway will fracture this again, because clients would need to phone in first and then be referred to special advice elsewhere.

During the Bill’s Second Reading and Committee stage in your Lordships’ House, Peers from all sides expressed the view that a telephone-only legal aid service would not be appropriate for all users. While I accept that it may suit many, those with language difficulties, learning difficulties or mental health problems may be disadvantaged. Vulnerable clients, perhaps those experiencing bereavement, loss of a job or debt, or those with low self-esteem or poor literacy or numeracy, are much more likely to be disadvantaged.

The Government risk excluding vulnerable people from accessing meaningful and effective legal advice. I beg to move.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, I started in a Suffolk solicitor’s office in the late 1950s. As was common then and now, a lot of preliminary advice, particularly to people who could not pay anything, was given by junior members of staff. Ever since, I have been imprinted by early recollections of how difficult it is for some people to give instructions at all. Later, I became non-executive director of a company that ran the first telephone helpline in the country, and observed first-hand, as one might say, how that worked. Of course, a great many people in the present age feel perfectly comfortable with telephones. Provided that there is no cost factor, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, referred, that may prove an adequate way to give instructions. However, we know that there are many, even now, who are not comfortable with telephonic communication and for whom, if the matter they are seeking advice on is painful to them or arouses great emotion, it is not a satisfactory way to try to impart instructions.

If one thinks of poor people—perhaps I should not have said poor people, because they can be highly articulate, but inarticulate people and those who cannot begin to analyse their problem and do not know quite what it is—the telephone is unlikely to be an effective means to impart information without which the adviser cannot hope to help them to best effect. We are all wholly aware of the Government’s need and wish to save expenditure on legal aid, but I put it to my noble friend that this is the falsest of false economies. Anyone who has given such advice will readily say that the cost in the adviser’s time is released when the client is in front of them, when they can help the client, who is often confused or emotional, to give them the precious information without which they cannot hope to do a satisfactory job. On cost grounds, the savings assumed for the telephone helpline as an exclusive channel of advice are misconceived. More importantly, I think we all agree, so it does not need emphasising any further, that justice cannot be done if there is no alternative to deliver advice by face-to-face means.

I end by saying that where the person needing help is poor, confused and deprived, the notion that one should add to that catalogue of disadvantage the inability to access the only advice that will work for them—face-to-face advice—would be a terrible indictment of our claim to be a democracy where we are equal before the law.

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly in support of Amendment 119, moved so persuasively by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. The amendment removes the provision contained in Clause 26 for the Lord Chancellor to make legal advice services available by telephone gateway or other electronic means. It would instead place a duty on the Lord Chancellor to ensure that individuals eligible for legal aid advice are able to access that advice in the forms most suited to their needs, including initial face-to-face contact.

Clause 26 is perhaps one of the most controversial elements of the Bill and has attracted widespread criticism from disability groups and campaigners. The clause contains provisions to establish a compulsory telephone gateway and to make this gateway the only method by which advice in certain categories of law is available. These proposals will in effect disfranchise individuals with learning difficulties or disabilities that impair their ability to communicate efficiently from being able to access advice. As Scope has pointed out, many legal aid clients experience complex and multifaceted problems that would be difficult to explain over a telephone, while those with limited English or with language or speech problems may be deterred from seeking advice at all. Common sense suggests that cases that are not dealt with at an early stage will be more costly to resolve at a later stage.

The proposals represent a retrograde step that would put up shocking barriers to equal access to justice. The Government acknowledged this in their own impact assessment, recognising that:

“Disabled people … may find it harder to manage their case paperwork through phone services. They may also find it harder to communicate or manage any emotional distress via the phone”.

What is more, as pointed out once again by Scope, these proposals could end up costing the Government more money, as opposed to making savings. The impact assessment published in June 2011 predicted modest savings of about £1 million to £2 million, while a study compiled by the Legal Services Research Centre found that advice provided over the telephone can unnecessarily prolong cases, as was mentioned a moment ago, and thereby make them more difficult to resolve.

In summary, Clause 26 adds further stress to already distressing situations and risks excluding vulnerable individuals from accessing legal advice altogether. The proposals go against the principle of equality of arms before the law and, frankly, display a cavalier attitude towards the needs of those with disabilities or impairments. Individuals with disabilities should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity in all areas of society. It is our duty to ensure that they are not disfranchised by a scheme that aims to provide justice on the cheap.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Lord Phillips of Sudbury Excerpts

Monday 12th March 2012 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

101A: After Clause 11, insert the following new Clause—
“Report reviewing claims for clinical negligence
(1) In discharging his or her functions under section 1(4) above, the Lord Chancellor shall have regard to the provisions of this section.
(2) The Lord Chancellor may appoint an independent person to review claims for clinical negligence and means of improving the modes, procedures, financing and outcomes relating to the same as he or she shall specify.
(3) Such a review may in particular address the accessibility, cost, effectiveness, openness, fairness, proportionality and speediness of such claims.
(4) After the reviewer must compile a report of his or her conclusions.
(5) As part of those conclusions the reviewer may propose such scheme or schemes (voluntary or otherwise) as he or she shall see fit.
(6) In this section “claims” shall mean claims and complaints made by patients receiving services provided or commissioned in England in respect of a liability in tort or contract owed in respect of personal injury or loss arising in connection with breach of a duty of care owed to any person in connection with the diagnosis of illness, or in the care or treatment of any patient of an NHS body, or of a primary care or independent provider.
(7) The Lord Chancellor must lay before Parliament a copy of a report compiled under subsection (4).”

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, I am supported in this amendment by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and my noble friend Lord Faulks, who is a QC. Both noble Lords apologise for not being in the Chamber at this hour.

The general point of the amendment is to allow the Government at some future time, but I would hope earlier rather than later, to institute an independent review of clinical negligence claims, given that within the legal profession they are generally accepted as being uniquely difficult, complex, expensive and long-winded. Very briefly, the fulcrum of any decision in these cases revolves around medical experts’ reports, often not one, two or three, but a series of such reports depending on the seriousness of the injuries or defects. They are extremely complex when one comes to try to assess the course that an injury may take over the rest of a person’s life. There are huge problems of what lawyers call causation. There are particular problems in relation to the very young and the very old, who are disproportionately affected by cases of clinical negligence, and those who are mentally impaired, whether prior to the alleged negligence or as a result of it. There are particular complexities around the funding and expenses related to clinical negligence claims and around insurance, particularly what is called “after the event” insurance. I should declare that I was a non-executive director of a company providing such insurance for a number of years. There are problems in relation to the cost of the medical reports, which can be extraordinarily high, and of the insurance itself. One has after the event policies known as qualified one-way cost-shifting insurance. In fact, there is no aspect of these wretched claims that is straightforward and simple. I suppose that that is why one sees the sort of extraordinary cases of which I gave an example in Committee, given to me by the Welsh NHS legal department, where the award of damages was £4,500. The cost of the insurance, of the medical reports and of the lawyers came, believe it or not, to £98,000. That may not be typical, but this is an area of notorious expense, complexity and long-windedness.

The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, who is an expert practitioner in this field, dropped me a note earlier in the day in which he said:

“Clinical negligence has always been an area of particular complexity calling for both experience and expertise, in that it involves the evaluation of expert evidence … When legal aid was removed from personal injuries generally”—

that was, I think, 10 or more years ago; it might even have been in the Access to Justice Act 1999—

“it remained for clinical negligence—in recognition of its especial challenges”.

That is absolutely the point.

I shall not repeat the short account that I gave in Committee of the various attempts made in this country and in Wales to grapple effectively with the problems of clinical negligence claims. If anybody is interested, that was in relation to Amendment 99A, which was debated on 24 January at col. 1016 of Hansard. As long ago as 2003, there was a report by the Chief Medical Officer for England, called Making Amends, which related specifically to the slowness, complexity and cost of these claims. That does not seem to have been actioned. Similarly, Wales has had two pieces of legislation directed specifically at this area, the outcome of which is the Speedy Resolution Scheme. Wales is still in the process of evaluating that. One has to conclude that, because of the difficulties of getting to grips with the various aspects of this type of litigation, it is a sore that runs, unhealed, year to year. That is why we have proposed this power—we propose a power and not a duty. Out of deference to what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said in Committee, we have made it an option for any future Administration.

I shall quickly deal with a couple of arguments against the amendment which were produced last time. One argument was that there is already a post-legislative scrutiny regime which is the subject of Cabinet Office guidance. There is also a post-implementation review plan. The trouble with this is that it is very general and entirely discretionary. With a Bill of this scale and breadth—there are 270 pages of primary legislation with probably as much again to come in secondary legislation—we are into a massive reform right across the face of legal aid and it is expecting too much to think that there will be a review of this particularly difficult area of litigation in order to arrive at the best conclusion for all concerned.

This issue affects not only the people who claim to have been clinically damaged but the National Health Service itself, which currently spends a great deal of time, effort, energy and funds in dealing with it. That is why we feel that the present informal Cabinet Office guidance does not go far enough. We want something that is nearer the Charities Act 2006 which provided for specific post-legislative review, which is now going on.

That is the bones of what I want to say. The Government have nothing to lose and everything to gain in agreeing to this amendment. It will lead to better justice in a field where the present injustice is felt keenly. People who are unluckily damaged in the course of medical treatment feel further damaged by the byzantine system we are currently left with. The amendment, which has been redrafted since the Committee stage, takes note of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, from the Labour Benches. We hope, therefore, that Amendment 101A will introduce a provision that can do nothing but good for an area of litigation that desperately needs reform. I beg to move.

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, we are grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, and his co-signatories have taken note of what my noble friend said last time. We support the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

The amendment could lead to a burden or an expectation that we are unable to meet, and I therefore urge my noble friend to withdraw it.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, to say that I am disappointed in that response is, I am afraid, an inadequate estimate. The whole point of amending the resolution from last time was to make this discretionary. For the Government to say that they do not even want to be under an expectation of having such a wide review seems wayward. I also find it wayward that the amendment is rejected on grounds of cost. It is to save massive waste in this area that this amendment is put forward. I will withdraw the amendment, as there are only a dozen of us here, but I do so with disappointment.

Amendment 101A withdrawn.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Lord Phillips of Sudbury Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia]

My Lords, I speak in support of the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, as regards delegating to the mediator whether a person should be eligible for legal aid. I speak from my interest as a practising lawyer in this area. By delegating to the mediator, the lawyer cannot possibly be encouraged to take on work which would otherwise not be fit for purpose and it will simply be too late unless someone responsible can take the case on and protect the child in question.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, there is very little to add in what has been a remarkably unanimous debate—“Sit down”, says one voice. It is extraordinary that not a single dissentient voice has been heard in an hour and 48 minutes. I hope that the Minister, who has the unenviable task of summing up this group of amendments, will take on board the passion with which the House has spoken. Nearly everyone has been saying, in one way or another, that for us as a Parliament to legislate benefits for the most needy, the poorest, the least articulate and the most vulnerable and then to deny them the means of accessing those rights is not right. That will undermine a society which is already in tension. We live in difficult times. I put it to my noble friend, who I know would agree with what I have said, and to the Lord Chancellor, that for a Government to cut the lifeline—for that is what it is—of millions of our fellow citizens in getting the modest help that the state has provided for them must be the most bizarre form of saving.

Perhaps I can add a word about the advice centres. Not enough has been said today about the 60-odd law centres and the 100-odd independent legal advice centres. Together with the 200 CABs that have a specialist adviser, they deliver value for money which I suspect you could not find in virtually any other part of our nation state. That is because not only do they do that work for rates of pay that those of us in the private profession would spurn, but they are backed by an army of volunteers. The CAB movement has hundreds of thousands of people who turn out to give generalist advice which, frankly, does not achieve its purpose without the specialist trained advisers at their backs, who currently are getting contracts from the legal aid scheme. I realise the problem for the Government in trying to match the need for cuts with what society needs and I realise that my noble friend has already conceded the amendment which we put forward to allow the Lord Chancellor to bring back into scope legal aid areas that will be cut out by this Bill, but the profoundest issue here is the nature of the society to which we want to belong. Is it still to be a welfare state, or is it not? Is it right that a couple of years ago two bankers whom I can think of earned more than the entire sum that is being spent on legal aid for all the law centres and CABs? Is that the society that we want to be part of? No, say I; and no, I suspect, say all of us.

As a signatory to Amendment 101, I hope that, with all the difficulties, my noble friend will make some solid commitments that enable those advice centres to continue doing their phenomenal job—the CABs alone deal with more than 100,000 tribunal cases—because, frankly, if they cannot, I fear for the consequences.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Lord Phillips of Sudbury Excerpts

Monday 5th March 2012 Lords Chamber

I hope that my noble friend will be able to accept our amendments, which are stronger in some ways than that of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, and perhaps covering a wider area than she does in her group of circumstances.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I am sure that I am not the only one who wonders about the point eloquently made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, about informal undertakings given in magistrates’ courts, for example. Can I presume that that is covered in heading (iv) of his Amendment 39?

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

Yes, that is certainly the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords, I had not intended to speak in this debate but was moved to do so by not only my noble and learned friend Lady Scotland but the reference made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, to the danger to children. Far too many women struggle to keep children in the family home in the teeth of abuse that can be very severe. The impact on the lives of those children tragically often continues to a stage where they become abusers because they have been kept in a situation where violence is seen by them as the norm.

My second point goes back to the early 1970s. I want to speak about false claims, reconciliation and the 12-month limit. I remember being approached by the wife of a Conservative councillor when we were trying to raise funds for a hostel for women and children who were the victims of domestic violence. This woman said, “You’ve got to keep on fighting. My daughter is the victim of abuse. My husband will oppose you in trying to get provision because he says her husband cannot possibly be abusing her because he is a barrister”. The daughter was a woman who had been forbidden to work, had no money, and was a victim of violence. Fortunately, her mother believed her but her father absolutely refused to do so. His only argument was, “Try for reconciliation so that you can see what a good husband you’ve got”.

I cannot understand the Government’s position in the light of experience being brought forward not only by those who work with women and men who are the victims of domestic violence but the UKBA and ACPO. This really is an amazing refusal to listen to the experience of those who work in this field, day after day. I hope that the Minister will be able to say that he will take this matter away. As the right reverend Prelate said, and as I say—drawing on my memory of that young woman who went back to be even more severely attacked—you cannot draw the line so tightly. This is not an area where you can say, “Twelve months and no more”. You have to have a flexible approach, and I look forward to the Minister saying, in answer to the question of my noble friend Lady Gould, what factual evidence there is that this matter relates to false evidence and false allegations. We can find no justification for that position.

I suggest to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, who asked about financial deprivation, that he contacts some of those who I mentioned. It is not a question of spending money that should not be spent on the household, but of people who are victims to the point where they do not have the bus fare to find somewhere to get advice and help. This is a group of people who do not need to have their rights restricted and they look to us to ensure that they are protected.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, I commend the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote. It seems to me that the notion of financial abuse in the context of the amendments is rather bizarre. It is interesting that the government amendment contains that word. I thank my noble friend the Minister for having tabled an amendment which goes a very long way to meet the proper concerns of those who have sponsored the amendments. I also commend to my noble friend the point made by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford about the importance of presumption being the consequence of any indication in the categories mentioned in his amendment, because that seems to me to give greater strength and practicality of operation. I merely make those two points in support of the general tenor of this group of amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Mallalieu]

My Lords, I support both this amendment and the amendment that the Government have tabled. For reasons that have already been given, it is crucial that the figure who is the director should not be political in any way and should not, in so far as it is humanly possible, be susceptible to political pressure. That is not only because he will be dealing, as has just been said, with cases that may have political undertones but also because—and I say this as a clinical practitioner—there may very well be a serious crisis in criminal legal aid in the not too distant future which may have repercussions that go far beyond individual cases. It may be necessary that whoever is in the role of the director is prepared to stand up to pressures that might be placed on him in relation to the funds that are available. It is important that he should report, and I welcome that amendment, but that does not go quite far enough. The amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Hart and others does.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, I concur with everything that has been said. As time goes by the role of the director is liable to get more rather than less sensitive. It seems to me that the law in this country is getting closer and closer to politics more and more often, particularly in relation to the development of judicial review. Public confidence is vital. I do not think that it needs repeating as to why it is so vital, not just in terms of the judiciary but in terms of this very sensitive office. The director will have to make some extraordinarily sensitive and difficult decisions. As we all know, because we have been debating this Bill for some while, some fine judgments will have to be made by whoever is the director.

I also note that the director is to be appointed from among the Civil Service, which strikes a rather odd note. Why should the director not be appointed from anywhere? Why should he or she not be the most appropriate independent-minded person? As the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, said, it is a pity that Clause 4(4) restricts the power of the Lord Chancellor to direct to individual cases rather than to classes of cases. I wish that I had put down an amendment to that.

In all the circumstances—although the publishing of an annual report is extremely beneficial; and my noble friend the Minister may say that because of this and because of that it is superfluous to express on the face of the Bill the need for independence—if ever there were a need for a single simple statement in what is already 200-plus pages of legislation, it is that this person should be absolutely independent of government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The noble Lord indicated that in his contribution to the debate. I am seeking to reassure noble Lords that that reassurance is there on the substance. In individual cases it will be unlawful for the Lord Chancellor to interfere in any way. Moreover, a number of features incorporated in the Bill provide for transparency and parliamentary oversight.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My noble and learned friend always speaks with great persuasiveness, but I cannot see any point that he has made that makes the amendments that are being debated a problem for him. Amendment 3 makes the independence,

“subject to any direction or guidance given under subsection (3)”,

which covers one of the points that he made. As I say, there seems to be no argument that I can think of that makes the amendment inconsistent with the framework that the Minister has put forward. If that is right, given the universal anxiety about this point about independence, why in heaven's name not put it in the Bill?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

In fairness to my noble friend, it is a good question, which I have asked myself. The answer, as I have tried to indicate in my earlier elaboration of the structure of the Bill, is that we are not trying to recreate a non-departmental public body. Consideration of whether it would be possible to incorporate the words “independent” or “independence” into Clause 4 as proposed would require us to consider very carefully whether that might inadvertently affect the proposed structure, but in no way does it detract from the heart of this matter. In respect of individual cases, the director of legal aid casework will in no way be subject to the influence or interference of the Lord Chancellor.

We need to try to get that structure right while allowing for the provisions that will be there, as my noble friend picked up and as the noble Lord, Lord Hart, indicated, in the part of the amendment that refers to direction and guidance. If that is combined with the very clear protection given—the freedom from any interference by the Lord Chancellor in individual cases—that gets the structure right without inadvertently affecting the proposed architecture of the Bill.

We seek to supplement this. The new clause that the Government propose in Amendment 5 is intended to provide a statutory requirement for the director to produce an annual report for the preceding financial year, detailing how the director has carried out his or her functions during that time. That would naturally include detail of the director’s interaction with the Lord Chancellor and how the Lord Chancellor’s directions and guidance had been used to guide decision-making over the reporting period. A noble Lord asked whether the director would have a voice. There will clearly be an opportunity for a voice because it will be his or her report that is submitted and subsequently presented to Parliament.

I hope that noble Lords will be reassured that this additional measure will provide further transparency in relation to the director’s functions and help to demonstrate that the prohibition as to interference in individual cases has been and will be adhered to. These are important safeguards to ensure the independence of the director.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Lord Phillips of Sudbury Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

I do not think it is necessary to confine the payment to precisely the basis that the noble Lord identifies.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

In the new, highly commercial context within which soliciting is carried on today, and in an era when we have these alternative business structures where we can be owned by virtually anybody, does the noble Lord not think that there is a real risk that some of these new ABSs will, as a matter of business, solicit work if they can then pass it on subject to a substantial referral fee? I can see that in the offing.

[Lord Beecham]

I can see a case for regulating the fees. I am not an enthusiast for alternative business structures as the noble Lord has defined them. But in any event, we are not discussing soliciting as such—despite the noble Lord’s use of the phrase. We are talking ultimately about a system that has been used successfully from the point of view of trade unions, charities and their members, as well as the professions, for some time. The Bill is seeking to intervene because of a different set of circumstances and set of relationships, with different causes and consequences. If there is no movement on this we will have clearly have to return to the matter on Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Legal Aid

Lord Phillips of Sudbury Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

It has not.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that the Law Centres Federation expects several urban law centres to close? Where are the distressed people who have hitherto got essential advice from those law centres going to go? Secondly, if the Minister is inclined to say that they can use the telephone helpline that we propose to set up, would he not accept that many of the people in most need of basic welfare law advice, which is often hugely complicated, are inarticulate and unable to access the advice they need on a telephone helpline?

[Lord McNally]

Again, my noble friend quite often intervenes to ask a question and then provides part of the answer. Yes, part of the answer is the electronic means of advice through telephone gateways et cetera. I do not accept his definition of the capabilities of people to get advice this way. I think he is out of date in that respect—

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Lord Phillips of Sudbury Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I support my noble friend. My name is on most of the amendments in his name, although not Amendment 137D. I commend him on the clarity with which he spoke to what is an extremely complex set of issues. I wonder whether putting 30 technical amendments in a single group is really an efficacious way of legislating. I am bound to say that the background to these intensely complex practical and theoretical issues does not seem to have been adequately prepared. I endeavoured on day five of Committee to move an amendment calling for a review of clinical negligence cases, which are in a special class of sophistication of their own, and I hope to move it again on Report. I hope that the Minister will not mind my saying that I believe that there has been insufficient preparation for our debates on those matters.

I add only a couple of facts to the underlay to the group spoken to by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford. The position in respect of claims and litigation generally is a mess, let us make no bones about it. It is in a fiendish mess. I speak as one who has always been deeply concerned about the whole concept of conditional fees, which seem to me to be in permanent danger of undermining the professionalism of lawyers, because they have a deep conflict of interest when acting on a conditional fee basis vis-à-vis both their clients and their professional obligations. That is where we are, and perhaps one day we will consider how other countries deal with the problem of how to fund bringing cases to law. Perhaps Germany would be a good example, where the whole field of costs insurance is infinitely further developed than it is here and seems to provide their citizens with a rough equality of access to justice that we no longer have with the progressive dismantling of the legal aid scheme.

To undermine the points made by my noble friend Lord Thomas, one fact struck me forcefully. According to a general insurer from whom the Ministry of Justice has obtained statistics in preparation for the Bill, costs as a proportion of the damages have risen from one half in 1999—whatever the client got by way of damages, the costs were roughly one half—to being roughly equivalent by 2004 and costs now exceed damages by 50 per cent. In the space of just over 10 years, that huge swing in the division of spoils between the lawyers and the insurers on the one hand and a client on the other has taken place. That must give rise to intense concern on the part of anyone and everyone. As I said, I think that the amendments in the group in the name of my noble friend Lord Thomas to which my name is attached improve things a bit, but we should not deceive ourselves that we will end up with fair access to justice.

[Baroness Turner of Camden]

I am not a lawyer, and this is a very complicated set of amendments in a single group. My concern arises because for many years I was a trade union official with responsibility for the legal cases service that we provide to our members. My concern, and that of the TUC, is that the Bill changes the balance away from people who are poor who have had an accident at work and want to seek compensation for their injuries. It has destroyed the balance, as they see it, between the wrongdoer and the injury victim, denying claimants access to the courts and with the money taken from them simply serving as a windfall for negligence defendants and sometimes for their insurers. Even if representation can be obtained, many on a low or middle income may not claim because they are unable to fund disbursements upfront or because of a general feeling regarding the costs, or the risk of the costs, involved. Trade unions collectively assist up to 150,000 personal injury claimants a year. There is a concern that their ability to look after their members will be impacted by the Bill, and in particular by Clauses 43 and 45, which we are currently discussing with this group of amendments.

As has already been explained, back in 1999 mechanisms were put in place to ensure that all reasonable legal costs could be claimed by a successful claimant from the negligent party to protect access to justice, particularly for those on a low or modest income, and to protect claimants’ entitlement to their compensation in full. Such costs include success fees and “after the event”, or ATE, legal insurance. In our opinion, Clauses 43 and 45 would probably reverse that position, destroying injured claimants’ rights.

Clause 43 stops recoverable success fees. Currently, claimants can find lawyers to take on their cases on a no-win no-fee basis using a conditional fee arrangement because the lawyer is paid a success fee. This is an additional cost paid in successful cases to cover the risk of running a whole basket of claims, some of which will be lost. It is the recoverability of this success fee from the insurer that the clause will ban. Instead, the claimant might have to pay up to 25 per cent of their damages to their lawyer as a success fee—if they can find a lawyer to take the case. As Jackson knows—we have been talking about the Jackson report because it is on his recommendations that a lot of this legislation is based—this will harm claimants, and he proposed an increase in damages for the injury alone of 10 per cent to compensate. However, this will not work. Those pursuing employer liability claims will lose out, and this uplift may prove largely unnecessary if the Bill relates only to RTA claims. We are concerned not about that but about accidents at work in this particular briefing.

So far as concerns accidents at work and industrial injury, there is a further concern that if this legislation takes effect there will be a reduction in the number of compensation cases that can be pursued, and that that in turn will have an effect on safety at work, health and safety legislation and so on. That is another impact that this legislation will have on compensation for injuries that workers may sustain in their employment.

Clause 45, at the stroke of a pen, stops a claimant recovering the cost of ATE insurance to cover the risk of paying a defendant’s costs or disbursement. Without ATE, many claimants will not be able to take the risk other than in very straightforward cases.

For those reasons, those of us who are concerned with trade union cases and with work injuries and so on are worried about the impact that this legislation, if not amended, will have on the possibility of people injured at work being able successfully to pursue compensation cases. The Government sometimes seem determined to prevent individuals who feel that they need compensation pursuing their cases. I sometimes think that they have been taken in by all the publicity in recent years about our becoming a compensation culture. I do not think that that is true at all. It is obviously true that many people feel that, if they are injured at work or through somebody else’s negligence, they have a right to claim compensation for their injury and they therefore looks for means to secure that compensation. Sometimes they go to a union if they belong to one, or they may go to other organisations that provide advice and support to individuals. Those individuals will not feel able to do so if there is a risk that they will not get their case taken, or will be landed with fees that they have to pay themselves because they will not get full recovery, having had to pay the compensation success fee to the lawyer involved.

That is terribly unfair, and I hope that during the passage of this Bill we will be able to table amendments that will deal with some of those concerns. Some of the amendments in this group will deal with the concerns that I have voiced this afternoon. They were expressed previously when we had Second Reading and I do not want to repeat everything that was said then, but I want to emphasise that I am talking about people who have very little money. When they are injured at work, often the compensation is no more than £3,000, which may not appear to be a very large sum of money, but to somebody working as a cleaner, it is an enormous sum. Certainly, it is not a trivial amount. People with small claims, who feel that they have been injured and are entitled to compensation for their injuries, may have doubts about whether they can proceed, and they will not find people willing to take up their case. That would be a great pity; it would block people’s access to justice. I thought that in any reform, we should be concerned with improving access to justice. The Bill, especially in these clauses, does not do that. I hope that we can amend them during our discussions.