Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Lord Wigley and Lord Newton of Braintree

Wednesday 14th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, I support Amendment 132AA and wish to speak to the group which is associated with it, standing in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Bach. I do so enthusiastically as I indicated in Committee. Whereas the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, may well have arguments in certain cases in relation to the legal processes that he outlined, I come to this from the point of view that compensation should be available in full to people, reflecting their suffering and the condition they have had, and that any legal fees should be other than the sum allocated as a response to that suffering. If this group of amendments is not accepted, the House will no doubt hear the noble Lord’s proposals in a later group of amendments. The scope not only of Amendment 132AA but also Amendment 132AB, which goes wider and covers a number of other equally distressing and deserving conditions, means that they can be supported when it comes to a vote if it does indeed come to a vote.

These amendments would have the effect of exempting cases involving claims for damages for respiratory illnesses following exposure to harmful substances from the range of changes proposed in Clauses 43, 45 and 46 of the Bill. The case for doing so was covered extensively in Committee but, unfortunately, the Minister has not so far moved towards accepting the changes that we hoped he might accept at that stage. A couple of weeks ago, at a St David’s Day dinner, I found myself sitting opposite a widow from my home area of Caernarfon. She had lost her husband to asbestosis six years ago. She described what he and they, as a family, had suffered. She received a modest sum of compensation. However, she told me that she had been following our debates in Committee and doubted that she would have got that compensation under the changes that are coming through. My goodness, if that is the effect that they will have on people who have suffered in that way, we have to make sure that the Bill is watertight and looks after people who have suffered as a result of the work that they have undertaken.

If Clause 43 is agreed unchecked, success fees under a conditional fee arrangement will no longer be recoverable from the losing party in all proceedings. Instead, in cases where claims are made against an organisation as a result of illness due to negligence, the fee will be recovered from damages awarded to the injured person, sometimes substantially eroding those damages. Likewise, if Clause 45 is agreed as it now stands, “after the event” insurance premiums will no longer be recoverable from the losing defendant and will also be taken out of the damages awarded to the injured party. Similar changes are proposed in Clause 46, which prevents organisations recovering their insurance premiums from a losing party. Unsuccessful cases involving more than one claimant can be highly expensive if there are multiple defendants whose costs need to be covered in the event of the case being lost. Without recoverable insurance premiums, these cases simply will not, in practice, be able to proceed.

Many organisations, including the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, have been at pains to make it clear that damages are awarded for the pain and suffering caused by prolonged and debilitating illnesses. As I said earlier, damages were never intended to pay towards legal costs. Making an insured person or their family suffer an erosion of the financial compensation to which they are entitled on top of the physical distress they have endured is neither just nor dignified. It is wrong that the Government are intent on ploughing ahead with these changes without making exceptions where they are due.

In Committee, the Minister spoke of the Government’s overarching aim as being,

“to create an architecture which squeezes inflationary costs out of the civil justice system”.—[Official Report, 30/1/12; col. 1433.]

Those are grand words indeed but they cover a multitude of sins. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, remarked, the only people who will be squeezed as a result of these changes are those who are already suffering from fatal diseases and their families. That does not sound like justice to me.

In Committee, the Minister also assured me that a number of possible routes of redress would be made available for individuals who had contracted diseases such as mesothelioma and asbestosis through schemes operated by the Department for Work and Pensions. We have heard reference to this but, as yet, I have seen no further detail on how these schemes may work. In the mean time, we should proceed on the basis that they are not there yet. However, I would welcome any clarification that the Minister might give and will listen carefully to what he has to say.

I support not only the group of amendments spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, but support very strongly Amendment 132AB in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bach. It is relevant to a group of industrial diseases such as pneumoconiosis, silicosis and associated lung diseases, which are certainly of considerable importance to me and the community from which I come.

If these clauses are agreed unchecked, individuals who have suffered harm and distress will be dealt a further blow and access to justice will be severely undermined. It is perhaps futile to press the Government to agree to changes that they have already so utterly dismissed out of hand. However, I urge noble colleagues to support these amendments and to argue the case that individuals already suffering due to negligence should not face further hardship.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, may I briefly split up the Cross-Benchers, albeit in support of everything that they and most others have said? I have a couple of prefatory remarks. I cannot quite share the enthusiasm of the Liberal Democrat and former Liberal Democrat Benches for the anniversary of my noble friend Lord Avebury, although not because I do not have the highest regard for him. However, I was in the Conservative research department at the time and it was a major culture shock, which did not tempt me to join the Liberal Party. It could yet happen of course, but not today.

The Minister may be glad to hear my other prefatory remark. This will probably be my last foray on the Bill because, in general, I regard Part 2 as being above my pay grade. I have been reinforced in that view by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, which left me feeling—I hope he will not find this too rude—as though I had been enveloped in fog.

I spoke on this matter at an earlier stage and I do not intend to repeat myself. I simply endorse some points that have been made. In an earlier incarnation, when I was Minister for Disabled People, I was also the Minister for the Industrial Injuries Advisory Committee, so I know a bit about industrial diseases, including respiratory diseases such as this one. While they all have their problems and the scheme has its offerings, this disease is pretty unique for reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has outlined so clearly with his medical knowledge. This was reinforced by what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said about her experience of seeing and being involved in such cases. We cannot dismiss that.

I said earlier that we need to recognise that this disease is not only terrible but moves very fast. Someone gave the figure of nine months. To repeat something that I said earlier, we also need to acknowledge that this is one of those cancers—it is effectively a cancer—that is still growing. It is not diminishing. There is a long time fuse on exposure to asbestos. We have known about it for a long time and action has been taken; when asbestos is found, there is great expenditure on getting rid of it. However, there are still more cases to come than there have been because of that long fuse. One way or another, it is a pretty special case. I just do not like the idea that it can be dealt with only under CFAs, with the consequences that were so eloquently outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Alton.

This is not part of the mischief of exploiting whiplash injuries. It is very much sui generis and needs to be treated as such. The notion that someone who has just been told that they have nine months or less to live will engage in a lot of frivolous legal activity is far fetched in the extreme.

The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, referred to all sorts of other ways of getting compensation, including schemes that the Government have and the possibility of a rival to the Motor Insurers’ Bureau. We are talking about people with nine months to live. It will probably take nine months for them to find out where to start under some of those arrangements, let alone to get some compensation. In any event, what we are offered here are not the alternatives that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, outlined. They are not here and would have to be worked up. What we have is what is in the Bill. We need to look at that with care and, once more, we need to ask the House of Commons to think again.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Lord Wigley and Lord Newton of Braintree

Wednesday 14th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendment 12, indeed Amendment 14 as it was, and other amendments. If some of these amendments are not passed, there will most certainly need to be exemptions built in somehow or other, as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, said a moment ago, or a lot of vulnerable people are going to suffer. I am concerned about the impact of the Government’s proposals in relation to underoccupancy as they affect disabled people, including, particularly, those with learning disabilities. The Government will already be aware of concerns from the representations that have been made by Mencap —the noble Lord, Lord Rix, apologises that he cannot be here today. Numerous other organisations with an interest in this issue have also pressed the point that there is already a large shortage of suitably sized properties available to people who would under the new rules be deemed to be underoccupying their homes.

Furthermore, representations have also been made that there are around 100,000 properties that have been adapted specifically to suit the needs of the individuals living in them who would be affected by the new rules, meaning that should the occupiers have to move, new adaptations would have to be paid for, which seems a rather less than sensible outcome.

People with a learning disability regarded as underoccupying their home in the social rented sector will lose some of their housing benefit and have to make up the shortfall themselves. If they are unable to afford this, they will have no choice but to move to a different home. Very often, people with a learning disability will have established strong networks of friends locally, as well as family and support staff, and may not be in a position to adapt to the stress and anxiety of moving to a new home. The greater the distance from these networks, the greater the potential anxiety will be for them.

I am concerned that some disabled people will either face a reduction in their income or have no choice but to move home as a consequence of the Bill’s proposals. That is why I support the amendment.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, I apologise for once again coming in a bit late to the debate. On this occasion, I was at a meeting outside London and got badly held up by the demo currently taking place in Whitehall.

I should declare an indirect interest in that my wife, as I think most in the House know, is a cabinet member of Braintree District Council and has a strong interest in social housing matters. I nevertheless wish to speak because, had the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds not pipped me at the post, my name would have been on this amendment. I strongly support it and agree particularly with the words that have been uttered by my noble friend Lord Kirkwood.

I am not in a position as a result of my lateness to repeat all the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Best, because I have not heard them. I have no doubt that, had I heard them, I would have agreed with them, because I have discussed the matter with him on a number of occasions.

I simply want to bring a bit of information from the coalface, as opposed to the rarefied atmosphere of Whitehall policy discussions. I happen to have in my hand a note issued by Braintree District Council about the new rules on underoccupancy. It thinks that these have probably the most far-reaching policy impact of any of the changes in the Bill. It makes the point that it applies different, more generous rules than those that are nationally applied to tenants claiming housing benefit. It gives priority for a family to move when the oldest child is five years old or more, not 10, and it recognises that this policy of using the younger age of five will be wrecked by the Bill.

Similarly, it tries to rehouse people in advance of change, because of the delays that occur if they need a three-bedroom or four-bedroom house. I shall not quote the whole document, but it states that people are likely to wait for more than a year to move in the case of needing a four-bed property and a long time where they have children growing up. Let me quote just one sentence:

“We therefore felt that it was better that a family, for example, with a boy aged 8 and a girl aged 6 should move to a home with 3 bedrooms and not be allocated a 2 bed and have to move again shortly afterwards. We felt this was better for neighbourhoods, for children’s schooling and so on, as well as reducing the pressure on our allocations process”.

That makes complete social sense to me.

I say in passing, as another illustration of one of my concerns about government policy as a whole, that we have just passed a Localism Act purporting to give local authorities greater freedom to make this kind of choice, and we now seek to pass a Welfare Reform Act telling them that localism is neither here nor there—they will do what they are told by central government. Somebody might perhaps try to explain.

There are a number of other examples from the note that I could quote, but let me quote an additional note that should ring a bell at least on these Benches, about the rural effect. This was a subsequent note, which I happen to have in my hand, and it relates to a large village, which I shall not name, in the Braintree district. Greenfields—that is the housing association—gives details of what housing it has in this village and goes on to say:

“This is a good example of a location where potentially, people claiming benefit would be forced to leave if they could not afford the extra rent to stay in the family home. [The village] is interesting because it is a relatively big village with a high overall level of stock and yet the balance of homes makes this policy a real problem for people needing to downsize from a 3 bed to a 2 bed. Clearly, people in smaller villages”—

many rural—

“are likely to face even more acute problems if they need to downsize. Given that we come under pressure to give people a priority to stay in villages, the policy looks like it may achieve the opposite”.

The rural effects of this are not to be underestimated and my guess is that my noble friend’s colleagues in the Commons will face a barrage if and when this comes into effect. Indeed, I would venture to say that if this comes into effect less than two years before an election, with the impact that could be involved in some of the figures that have been discussed, it will not last five minutes when it starts.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Lord Wigley and Lord Newton of Braintree

Monday 14th November 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

I got it nearly right, but it is still quite a lot of people. In that case, my question to the Minister is: what steps does he expect to take—it may be that this is already clear and I just do not know—to protect people who are already receiving DLA at the point of transition? We are talking about sums of money that, although not large to many of those in this Room, can be very large indeed to some of the people who are receiving them. One of the things that I always had in mind—I think at one stage my then Cabinet colleagues occasionally referred to it as “Newton’s law”—is that not giving somebody something is quite different from taking away from somebody something they already have. I would like to hear my noble friend’s comments on that.

The other thing is also, in a sense, a question directed to the Minister, although it may also have occurred to the noble Baronesses and others who are interested in this. It is the reference in the Bill and in this amendment, which follows the Bill, to a person’s ability to,

“carry out daily living activities”,

being limited by,

“the person’s physical or mental condition”.

I would like to say a word or two about how that is to be done. In my day, which some in the Room will remember, we had a benefit called the housewives non-contributory invalidity pension, which entailed a lot of tests, that were regarded as demeaning and humiliating in the extreme, about whether somebody could boil a kettle or take a tin off a shelf. I think there were others, to judge from the reaction of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, who will remember them. I would not want to get back into that. Indeed, I got rid of it. I hope that we may have a word that there will be a more civilised way of assessing the ability to carry out daily living activities than is revealed on the surface of the Bill.

[Lord Wigley]

If the Minister accepts the figure for those who will lose relatively small sums that are of critical importance to them, and if the services that they have been able to purchase or the benefits in their life that they have been able to obtain by virtue of having that money now have to be found through some other means, has some assessment been made of the additional cost that may be going elsewhere in order to ensure that they do not lose out on aspects of their lives that are critical for their day-to-day existence?

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Lord Wigley and Lord Newton of Braintree

Thursday 6th October 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Wigley]

Yes. That was a point I made on our previous day in Committee: there will be an attack on labour mobility. That clearly is not the Government’s intention, as their hope is that mobility can be encouraged. However, the interplay of housing benefit can have a direct bearing on that, and may undermine some of the objectives that they quite rightly have in mind. Practical questions like this have to come together with the safety net of social security provision provided by the state.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, I shall chip in briefly. First, I apologise that I was a little late and did not hear all the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. My lateness has something to do with the fact that I am myself a little bit disabled—in fact, I should probably declare an interest in the matter. That leads me to say that I hope it may be understood if occasionally I seek to intervene from a sedentary position in order to avoid the considerable effort of standing up.

I do not intend to follow the noble Baronesses—not because I do not have sympathy with what they are saying, but because I suspect that we shall have considerable opportunities to return to this matter in a more specific way later in the Bill. I do not agree with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, about the Prime Minister—I had better make that clear, just to show that I am occasionally a loyalist—and I do not go along with her remarks about the Administration in which I was Secretary of State for Social Security. The notion that I was trying to encourage people on to invalidity benefit in order to massage the figures does not correspond with my recollection—or, I suspect, with that of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. However, on the more positive side, I agree with the point about carers in general, which we need to bear in mind throughout these proceedings—although I would have taken it to be embraced by the second half of the noble Lord’s amendment.

As for the amendment itself, I rather doubt that it is going anywhere, because there seems to be a division even on the opposition Front Bench about what its terms should be. It was being rewritten as we went along. It may be that the Minister will feel that its wording is not perfect. I hope that we will not be told that it is not necessary because that is what the Government are going to do anyway. If that is the case, they might as well please us by writing something in that says what they are trying to do.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Lord Wigley and Lord Newton of Braintree

Tuesday 4th October 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, I pick up that point, which is very relevant to the debates we will be having regarding the concept of risk. I suppose there is never a right time to introduce legislation such as this, and everybody agrees that legislation and changes are needed, but we are having this legislation at a time of considerable economic uncertainty. There is interplay of social security, as I still prefer to call it, with not just those who are out of work, people who are disabled and all the rest, but those who are in work and who have to face a question of risk if they are going to be mobile in terms of their labour contribution. My fear is that the uncertainty that comes along with the Bill—uncertainty to some extent is inevitable in the structure of a Bill where so much of the detail is to be provided by regulation at a later stage—will dampen down labour mobility at the very time when the economy wants to maximise labour mobility in order to get things moving.

A person who is in work who is uncertain as to his or her future and whether, if they move to another job, there is a safety net there, will not take the risk. They will batten down and stick with what they have. Therefore, in our discussion of this legislation it is immensely important that it becomes as transparent as is possible to people outside, within the restrictions of legislation that is so dependent on regulation, so that they understand that there is still a safety net there to provide security in some of the decisions that they have to take for themselves and on behalf of their families.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, since I appear to be one of a relatively small band of Conservatives in the Room, I think one of us ought to say something. I intend to do so briefly. I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Kirkwood for recognising that some of us might have been in Manchester. If anyone wants to know why I am not, I think I have been to 40 party conferences, and have done my time.

On the main points, I join in the thanks to the Minister and the Bill team who have been great. I support the approach of my noble friend to a debate that comes at the end of a recess, and his suggestion about how we should handle it, which seems to have been tacitly accepted. I endorse his point about the doubtfulness of trying to use withdrawal of social security benefits as a punishment for offences that have nothing to do with social security. I can see that if you have been in benefit fraud then withdrawal of benefit might be appropriate. If your kids do not go to school or even if they burn down warehouses, I am not sure that it is an appropriate punishment to withdraw benefit from the family.

I share the concerns about the language in various ways, both on the use of welfare rather than social security and on the universal credit terminology. We probably cannot do anything about the latter, but the fact is that tax credits in their terminology were always a bit of a con, in my humble opinion. This was reflected in the fact that, although they were classified as tax, it was agreed that appeals should continue to go to social security tribunals not to tax tribunals because the tax tribunals knew nothing about it. That really gave the game away. Whether or not we can change the language, the thought is an important one.

Concerning the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, I emphasise the importance of childcare costs in the whole debate about making it practical for families to work. I hope we shall hear something about that.

I share concerns, in light of some of the reports in the press, that if the IT does not work then to judge from our experience—for example, with the Child Support Agency—you have a potentially difficult situation on your hands. If there is not complete confidence that the IT systems necessary to make this system work will be delivered in time, then the Government should slow down until they are sure that the IT will work.

I have two more points, which will probably be a bit less welcome to my noble friend. I still want to know more about the interaction between the proposals in the Bill and the Legal Aid Bill, which we have yet to come to, and the Localism Bill, all of which have important ingredients, which impact on the same people. I am not clear that there has been joined-up government in considering the combined impact of these proposals.

Lastly—and here I get on very dangerous ground—there was a brief reference in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, to child benefit. I have already indicated to the Minister in a less formal way that I would like to know how the child benefit changes are going to be dealt with, because I had thought they were going to be in this Bill, and they are not. As I understand it, although I am not sure about this, they are likely to be treated as being in a Finance Bill, which will, of course, severely restrict the ability of this House to say or do anything about them. If that is to be the case, I think we need to know fairly soon.

Equally, we need to recognise that the proposals on child benefit—which I notice the press has suggested that Ministers may be reconsidering, but that is no more than speculation—could be subject to change. I hope that they will be for reasons that I do not wish to go into and it would be wrong for me to develop at length. However, I should flag up that the child benefit proposals, in combination with everything else in the Bill, are one of the things that worry me about an overall policy which I otherwise strongly support.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Wigley and Lord Newton of Braintree

Monday 9th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, before the Bill passes, perhaps I may add a caveat to some of the comments that have been made. I immediately recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and the government Front Bench have made concessions on a number of aspects of the Bill, and people in the Forest of Dean and elsewhere will no doubt be very happy with what has happened. However, the noble Lord will not be surprised that my reservation concerns the fact that the uncertainties about the future of the Welsh television channel S4C have still not been resolved. There had been a hope of amendments being tabled at Third Reading. I understand the reasons why that was not allowed, although I recall the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, saying on 28 March that if any of the eight assurances that he was given were not fully delivered, he would want to bring the matter back at Third Reading. The fact is that the S4C authorities have indicated that, of those eight assurances, six are without substance. Therefore, on that occasion the amendment was not pressed to a vote on the basis of assurances which had not been given.

I do not want to go over old ground and I certainly accept that the Government have moved on a couple of points but, if the consultation with the National Assembly had taken place, it would have been very much more satisfactory from the outset. However, with the announcement today of a new chair for S4C—Huw Jones, whom we wish well—we would have hoped to see a line being drawn under many of these matters so that S4C could move forward with confidence. When the Bill goes to another place, three aspects will need to be resolved. The first is the constitutional position of S4C, the second is the safeguarding of S4C’s funding and the third is its right to make managerial decisions without people from the BBC sitting in on them.

On Wednesday, a report on this matter will be published by a Select Committee of another place and it will contain remarkable cross-party agreement on the unsatisfactory nature of this Bill. Therefore, I very much hope that, when the Bill goes to another place, the aspects that have not been addressed in your Lordships’ House will be addressed and we will have the same satisfaction regarding S4C as noble Lords have indicated they have with regard to other aspects of the Bill.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, I hope that it will be in the spirit of the debate—