Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Debate between Lord Wigley and Lord Beecham

Monday 20th October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wigley]

If this formulation does not meet the requirements, why has the Labour Party not put forward its own amendment to do so?

[Lord Beecham]

Because the Act to which we have already referred gives the Secretary of State the power to do exactly what is required. He should be exercising that power, and that is what we would expect him to do.

We share the concern of all Members of your Lordships’ House, and the deep anxiety voiced about what is happening to people who serve much longer sentences than the person whose plight is laid out in this correspondence. We call upon the Government to use the power that they rightly conferred upon themselves just two years ago. In that way the matter can be resolved. Of the 650 prisoners, while some are still deemed to be at high risk, many are already deemed to be at low risk and on that account very likely to be released. As other noble Lords have pointed out, that will free up prison spaces and potentially reduce the cost to the public purse, both of which are highly desirable objectives. Therefore I hope the Minister can give an indication that action will be taken—if not necessarily strictly along the lines that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, has proposed then in some other way—to deal with the appalling situation affecting too many people which has accumulated over the years.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Lord Wigley and Lord Beecham

Tuesday 24th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, we are now at the end of Part 2—sorry, I mean Part 1. The Chief Whip was ecstatic at the thought that we might have reached the end of Part 2. As I am leading for the Opposition on Part 2, I would be ecstatic as well, but we are not there yet, and the House may not be so ecstatic when they hear me during our debate on Part 2.

This is another potential sting in the tail of Part 1, given that it looks to be another device to extract from beneficiaries of legal aid—or, more particularly, their advisers—money to help fund the general system. Of course, the practice of having a statutory charge on the assets recovered is long-standing and has been particularly relevant in matrimonial cases. It has been well understood that money was devoted to the cost to the legal aid fund incurred as part of the action. We are now apparently faced, in addition to the charge on property recovered, with a charge on costs paid by the other side in such a case. In reality, given that legal aid rates are significantly lower than the rates of inter partes costs, the defendant’s or unsuccessful litigant’s costs, the inter partes costs in effect help to subsidise the legal aid costs. There seems no logical reason to attach those costs—and it might well have a significant impact on providers, who in the swings and roundabouts that we will debate at some length when we discuss conditional fees under Part 2 actually help to subsidise the work.

Moreover, I understand that there has been no consultation about this aspect, which is a matter of some considerable concern. I do not know whether the Government have assessed the impact on the supply of legal aid providers—maybe they have. The suggestion from some in the profession is certainly that it would have a significant impact on the provision of legal services. I have heard today in a different or earlier context of a significant legal aid practice in the north-east that is seeking to drop a couple of its contracts because it is having to subsidise it from the rest of its work, and the practice cannot cope with that. This kind of provision will make that even more likely.

[Lord Wigley]

The noble Lord has referred to the fact that there could be some reduction in the number of suppliers who are available, and some may be withdrawing from this field. Does he have any indication of whether that is likely to be a blanket withdrawal or whether some sectors could be particularly badly hit by that, and that therefore those with cases dependent on those sectors might find themselves in a very difficult position?

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I am not in a position to say and I fear—perhaps I am wrong—that the Government are not in a position to say either, which is part of the point. There does not seem to have been a consultation. There may or may not have been an assessment of the impact, but there certainly ought to be. As I say, this provision has come out of left field, to quote the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, on an earlier point. It really ought not to be progressed until there is a proper assessment of its impact, in consultation with the profession.

In any event, it seems there is something of an issue of principle as to whether the statutory charge should apply not just to the property secured by legal aid but to costs paid by the opposite party, as a contribution towards the total costs incurred on behalf of a claimant. That seems to be a novel principle and one which, as I say, came out of the blue and certainly needs justification. On the face of it, it is difficult to see what the justification would be. I beg to move.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Lord Wigley and Lord Beecham

Thursday 6th October 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, I will intervene briefly on this. I support very much the direction we are taking. However, I am not quite sure that I fully understand the words “to support work”, as there is more than one interpretation of this. There is clearly the question of supporting people, particularly disabled people, in a way that makes it practicable for them to work. However, there is another question: that of supporting the availability of work. As we heard a moment ago, that is the challenge in many areas, particularly the old industrial areas. It is true in parts of Wales, northern England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, where there has historically been a greater labour reserve because people are encouraged not to be registered for work. Of course, there have also been the problems of industrial disease and accidents which have led to a large body of people who would need a considerable amount of support to be in work.

As it happens, many of those areas are the very areas where there is a lack of work opportunities. We heard a Minister going to Merthyr Tydfil a few months ago and telling people to get on their bikes. That will not actually solve the problem. We are talking of catchment areas with perhaps 30 or 40 people chasing every available job. Side by side with encouraging people and giving them the financial or other support that is necessary to enable them to work, therefore, there is the question of making jobs available within a reasonable distance for those people. If we do not do that, the whole thing becomes a rather superficial exercise. I do not quite see how the Government are going to match that up: in order for this legislation to deliver what they want, there must be those opportunities.

It strikes me that there are three factors that need to come together to provide job opportunities. The first is the employer. Secondly, there is the person looking for work, who may need help, particularly if he or she is disabled. Thirdly, there is the state. The circumstances of employers will vary considerably from area to area. In an area where there is lower unemployment, the employer may take on people and give a chance to people with disabilities or difficulties who might not be taken on elsewhere. Therefore, I put it to the Minister that this raises the question of whether the Government’s policy is going to be uniform throughout all areas, or whether there will be a flexibility that enables the Government to give greater help to encourage employers to take on people in areas where there are high levels of unemployment, where they might not otherwise be inclined to do so if the potential employee has challenges that might influence, or be perceived to influence, the way in which he or she undertakes their work. In other words, a lot of questions arise in this context—perhaps not directly from the amendment, but from associated matters.

[Lord Beecham]

Does the noble Lord agree that one factor that might influence the situation is the question of travel—not in the sense that my noble friend Lady Hollis mentioned, but as a result of the impact of housing benefit changes? These might well lead to people moving away from where they are currently living, and where they might work, to much further afield, particularly in London. Would that be a consideration that needs to be taken into account?

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Wigley and Lord Beecham

Monday 20th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I hope I will be able to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I am so sorry—

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, a few years ago I had the pleasure and privilege of chairing a review into local public services in Wales. I visited Caernarfon and, after a meeting with the leader of the council and officers of that borough, I sauntered through the streets of Caernarfon. It was an unnerving experience because everyone was, perfectly naturally in that part of Wales, speaking Welsh and I could not understand a word of it. I am bound to say that I have rather the same sensation having heard the noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Wigley, this afternoon. I do not pretend to understand all that they have asked.

I confine myself to one question to the Minister, but perhaps also to your Lordships who have moved and spoken to these amendments: has the Welsh Local Government Association been asked to give a view on these matters? That would have been sensible. I confess to not having done so myself, so I am not in a position to criticise others who may not have. However, it would seem important, at least by the time we get to Report, to have inquired whether the Bill is acceptable to the Welsh Local Government Association or whether it would prefer the amendments moved.

[Lord Wigley]

In fact, the Welsh Local Government Association is very exercised about having clarity in this Bill. There is a lack of clarity and it would welcome some clarity on the points that have been raised.