Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

Because I and the Government consulted at some length on the proposals and received a lot of positive responses. As a result of that consultation we broadened the definition concerned, so we have listened. Indeed, we have tabled a further amendment today in relation to immigrants to broaden it even further.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I hope the Minister accepts that, although amendment 74 and other amendments would enlarge the evidential tests, they would still require a degree of evidence to be given. That evidence may not come from such limited places as he wants, but it may be from GPs or women’s refuges. Yet he is saying that he cannot accept such evidence, because it would be part of “unfounded allegations”. Is he suggesting that those organisations collude in false allegations?

[Mr Djanogly]

The hon. Gentleman makes a frankly ridiculous comment. He mentioned GPs, and of course a GP is qualified to tell whether someone has been subject to violence. However, they are not always well qualified to tell whether someone has been subject to domestic violence, because they may not have seen the circumstances in the home and may be looking only at the injury of the party coming to their surgery. The Government are looking for objective evidence.

[Mr Slaughter]

I would like the Minister to respond to my question. As the tests in question are evidential tests, not subjective or self-referred, does that support his point about false allegations? Evidence from GPs is commonly used to support cases in criminal trials, including sometimes when a woman is unwilling to give evidence herself because she is intimidated or in fear.

[Mr Djanogly]

The hon. Gentleman makes the exact point that I would have made in response to him. Evidence is used in a trial, but the GP does not make the decision, he gives evidence. We see the trial as being the objective evidence, and that is what we suggest in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Djanogly]

I certainly agree with my right hon. Friend that some immigration cases are complex, and I think that the point that he has raised is one for me to look at after today. I will do so, and I will come back to him on that.

On the basis of everything that I have just set out, I therefore urge the House to support Government amendments 10, 11, 13 to 18 and 55 to 63. I also hope that right hon. and hon. Members will be reassured by what I have said about the other amendments.

[Mr Slaughter]

I shall try to be a little briefer than the Minister—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I was about to say that I was going to make some preliminary remarks, but the last time I did that they went on for three hours. I shall address my comments almost exclusively to amendment 74, which stands in my name. The Opposition also fully support amendment 23, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), which deals with the related matter of domestic violence. I give notice that we hope to press amendment 74 to a vote later this evening.

The Minister was slightly dismissive when he said that a number of the amendments on domestic violence had been dealt with in similar terms in Committee. They were indeed, and they were dealt with in some of the Committee’s most heated sittings. He has again shown a rather dismissive manner today, although Labour Members gave him a very clear expression of what they think of the Government’s attitude in the Bill to domestic violence. Perhaps he needs to get out more to see what is happening in the real world.

At 1 o’clock today, for example, the Minister could have attended the launch in Committee Room 8 of “Legal Aid is a Lifeline”, in which women speak out on the legal aid reforms. This report on domestic violence was produced jointly by the National Federation of Women’s Institutes and Justice for All. He could have heard the stark, moving testimony of women such as Jenny Broomfield and Sam Taylor, who were—let us make no bones about it—the victims of attempted murder by violent partners who, in at least one case, continued to stalk and pursue them for many years. They find quite abhorrent the Government’s attempt to restrict the criteria to 12 months, which amendment 74 seeks to change, and to restrict the terms of domestic violence. Those women relied on legal aid, in its current form, to get residence for their children, to find a safe place to live and to obtain a separation from their violent partners. They believe that, without it, their plight today would be much worse than it is.

Earlier this afternoon, the Housing Minister launched a very good report by St Mungo’s entitled “Battered, broken, bereft”, one of the leading findings of which was that 35% of women who have slept rough left home to escape domestic violence. It shows double standards and hypocrisy for the Government to cut provisions to tackle domestic violence on the same day in the Commons Chamber. I urge the Minister to listen to voices such as that of the Mayor of London, whose briefing for this debate states:

“The Mayor would like assurances that women who have experienced domestic violence will not be barred from legal aid due to their having a lack of evidence.”

I would also like the Minister to listen to organisations such as Gingerbread, which states:

“Many individuals experiencing violence do not report that violence to the police or seek an injunction via the family courts. This is for a variety of reasons, including lack of faith in the justice system and fear that instigating proceedings would escalate violence. The evidential criteria in the Bill do not reflect the pathways that victims of domestic violence take to find help and support. The eligibility criteria must be broadened to include other forms of evidence such as evidence from a specialist domestic violence support organisation, health or social services.”

Those are the voices that the Minister should be listening to, as well as those that he hears in the Chamber today. So far, he has not done so.

[Joan Ruddock]

Is my hon. Friend aware that many victims of domestic violence have a great sense of shame, and feel that they cannot reveal through a legal procedure and third parties what is happening to them? None the less, they want to take legal action to get out of the relationship, but they might be so demoralised, afraid and intimidated that they cannot do so without proper assistance.

[Mr Slaughter]

My right hon. Friend is right. Only 40% of women who suffer domestic violence report it at all, and many go for years without reporting it. They certainly do not have the wherewithal to report it when they are imprisoned not only by violent relationships but by economic circumstances and by having to care for their children. That is what I meant when I said that the Minister does not live in the same world as those victims.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

I have here a report from a local newspaper. Kay Atwal, a reporter on the Newham Recorder, describes the lives of women she has met, saying:

“Your mail is opened by your in-laws, you can’t call your family or friends and you are not allowed out of the house. Your days are an endless round of cooking, cleaning and clearing up punctuated by threats and criticisms. And hanging over you is the constant fear that you could be deported from Britain if your husband divorces you.”

Does my hon. Friend agree that women such as those could well be affected by the changes that the Government are making today?

[Mr Slaughter]

We all have similar cases in our constituencies, and I am sure that the Minister must have, too. Those are the people to whom he should be listening.

[Kate Green]

Does my hon. Friend agree that women who are particularly fearful will not go to formal sources of support such as the police, and that, when they do pluck up the courage to go for advice, they are much more likely to go to a women’s agency or a domestic violence specialist? Does he agree that it is regrettable that the Minister is not prepared to take evidence from such bodies?

[Mr Slaughter]

I will come to that later in my speech, but it was exactly the point that I tried unsuccessfully, as so often, to raise with the Minister in my intervention. In the amendments, we accept the evidential basis, but we are seeking to broaden it to include exactly the sort of organisations that my hon. Friend mentioned. Last time I checked, at least 21 right hon. and hon. Friends supported amendment 74, some of whom wish to speak in the debate, and we have other important debates this evening, so I will try to keep my comments relatively brief.

According to the Home Secretary’s November 2010 publication, “Call to end violence against women and girls”, 1 million women a year experience domestic abuse in Britain. When those women make the decision to leave their abusive partners, often quite suddenly, they need care and expert legal help to escape safely and, if they have children, to ensure their safety too. For more than 60 years, family legal aid has provided that expert legal assistance, helping millions of people, mainly women, to escape violent, abusive and sometimes life-threatening relationships.

In November last year, the Government announced consultation on their plans to reform legal aid. As the Minister said, they plan to take family law out of the scope of legal aid, except when domestic abuse has occurred, but reason that making domestic violence the “gateway” to legal aid will also create an incentive for false claims of domestic violence. So they proposed a limited range of objective proof of domestic violence that would need to be presented before legal aid was granted.

Five thousands groups and individuals responded to the Government’s consultation, and almost all were opposed. As a result, on Second Reading, the Secretary of State announced a partial U-turn, adding to his list of evidential criteria. In the revised list, legal aid will be granted when a victim has obtained a civil injunction or criminal conviction against her abuser. We welcome that additional criterion, but fear that it is insufficient. Research has shown that, whereas more than half of women have suffered some form of domestic abuse during their lifetime, only a minority ever apply for injunctive release or report the abuse to the police. Women who, for whatever reason, do not want to go through legal proceedings, whether because of fear or simply because they are unwilling to relive the abuse again and again during the judicial process, will be disfranchised by the Government’s plans.

Legal aid will be granted when a victim has been referred to a multi-agency risk assessment conference—a MARAC—as the Minister confirmed today, or domestic violence must have been established as fact in the family courts. MARACs are a great success, but they are typically used for very serious cases. The final criteria that the Government allow are especially perverse, given that legal aid will not be available to obtain a finding of fact in the family courts. The Minister may say that that is not the case, but that is what the Bill seems to say. As such, the Government’s plans to remove family legal aid, except when a narrow and onerous range of objective proof is present, will place thousands of vulnerable women at considerable risk. That is why women’s groups, practitioners and the Opposition continue to harbour deep concern.

Labour’s amendment seeks to widen the evidential criteria of domestic violence to ensure that as many victims as possible receive help, while retaining the Government’s decision to limit private family legal aid to victims of domestic abuse. In doing so, we have tried to come to a joined-up, comprehensive view of the evidential criteria for domestic abuse that already exist in various Departments. The Government’s statement of intent, “Call to end violence against women and girls”, recognises that violence against women requires a focused and robust cross-government approach, underpinned by a single agreed definition. The Opposition entirely agree, as do the courts.

The recent Supreme Court case, Yemshaw v. London Borough of Hounslow, reinforced the courts’ view that there is but one definition of domestic abuse, and the Association of Chief Police Officers has promulgated that definition. The evidential criteria for domestic abuse are not currently set out in the Bill, but they are set out in the response to consultation. The Government plan to promulgate the evidential criteria by order, which is why I fear that the amendment of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) is insufficient by itself. We entirely support her amendment, but mine would go further in placing the evidential criteria into primary legislation.

The criteria in my amendment are an amalgamation of the objective criteria for ascertaining whether domestic violence has occurred from the Government’s response to consultation and the UK Border Agency’s criteria used in immigration cases. The amendment would do nothing more than unify best practice across government by ensuring that we have one singular evidential definition of domestic violence, much as the hon. Lady’s amendment would ensure that we have one singular descriptive definition of domestic violence.

The sort of evidence that my amendment would allow is as follows:

“a relevant court conviction or police caution…a relevant court order (including without notice, ex parte, interim or final orders) including a non-molestation order, occupation order, forced marriage protection order or other protective injunction…evidence of relevant criminal proceedings for an offence concerning domestic violence or a police report confirming attendance at an incident resulting from domestic violence…evidence that a victim has been referred to a Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (as a high-risk victim of domestic violence) and a plan has been put in place to protect that victim from violence by the other party…a finding of fact in the family courts of domestic violence by the other party giving rise to the risk of harm to the victim”.

I suspect that, so far, the Government are broadly with us, but what I sought from the Minister and did not obtain, is the reason the following evidential criteria are inappropriate:

“a medical report from a doctor at a UK hospital confirming that the applicant has injuries consistent with being a victim of domestic violence, such injuries not being limited to physical injuries…a letter from a General Medical Council registered general practitioner confirming that he or she has examined the applicant and is satisfied that the applicant has injuries consistent with those of a victim of domestic violence…an undertaking”—

the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) is not in his place, but he raised this point—

“given to a court that the perpetrator of the abuse will not approach the applicant who is the victim of the abuse”.

I hope that the Minister has read the Law Society’s comments—he may be familiar with practice in the family courts—that many more matters are dealt with by way of undertaking than by way of trial process. Excluding undertakings from his criteria makes it not only logistically more difficult, but almost certain that the trial process, with all the inherent difficulties of inflaming the situation, will be the norm rather than the exception.

[Mrs Grant]

On a point of clarification concerning the undertaking, which my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) raised, an undertaking is a legally binding document. It is signed by the parties and usually sealed by the court. It is a solemn promise that is given to the judge. If it is breached, the person who breaches the order can commit on it, so it is specific and clear, and eminently acceptable in my opinion to be part of the criteria. Having been a domestic violence and family lawyer for the past 23 years, I am worried that the exclusion of undertakings from the criteria will create a perverse incentive not to dispose of a matter at the earliest opportunity, but to continue with the litigation from fear that further problems may come out of the woodwork, which, as family lawyers, we believe are coming in the future. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to reconsider that.

[Mr Slaughter]

If he wishes, I will give the Minister the opportunity to intervene on me, and to reply to the hon. Lady, or he may wish to deal with the matter subsequently. I have nothing like her experience, but I have had the experience many hundreds of times of explaining undertakings and their seriousness to clients. She is absolutely right. In law, there are clear differences, but in practice the effect of an undertaking is the same in relation to perpetrators as the outcome of a trial in terms of the penalties available against them. Excluding undertakings is a huge and glaring omission from the Bill.

The other criteria are

“a letter from a social services department confirming its involvement in connection with domestic violence…a letter of support or a report from a domestic violence support organisation…or…other well-founded documentary evidence of abuse (such as from a counsellor, midwife, school or witnesses.”

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

On paragraph (j) of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, I can see where he is heading, but would that require a state registry of domestic violence organisations to exist so that they could be validated in order to put in a claim legitimately?

[Mr Slaughter]

I think the hon. Gentleman is trying to be helpful, but he is over-complicating matters. He is also missing the central point, which is that our issue is not, as the Mayor of London’s appears to be, with self-referral or with the Minister’s point about false claims, but with the scope for evidential support. We believe that organisations, whether they be medical or domestic violence organisations should be sufficient to be regarded as evidence, just as they often are in trial processes.

[Ben Gummer]

I am genuinely trying to helpful, though I know that the hon. Gentleman might find that difficult to believe. All his other examples—general practitioners, hospital doctors, undertakings from a court, social services departments—are instruments of the state, as it were. I would be happy for many organisations in my constituency that support women in a domestic violence situation to give evidence to a court, but that does not mean that all organisations that claim to speak for women should be able to do so.

[Mr Slaughter]

The hon. Gentleman is being a little pernickety. It is a practical reality that in many cases voluntary organisations, which have vast experience of supporting women, will be providing that support, not only in an emotional and a practical sense but in an evidential sense.

[Sandra Osborne]

Does my hon. Friend agree that many women go backwards and forwards to the likes of Women’s Aid time and again and do not disclose it to anyone else—including, often, their GP—and that had it not been for such organisations, the problem would not have been addressed as it has, although it has been totally undermined, as an assessment of a societal problem, by what the Government are doing today?

[Mr Slaughter]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for sharing her experience.

Contrary to the Government’s guidance, the amendment would not limit the time since which such evidence was generated to a year. I am not seeking to derail the Government’s intent but merely to ensure that they live up to their own aspirations—to utilise a single agreed definition of domestic violence and to ensure that those who suffer domestic violence get access to requisite public services. This ought to be uncontroversial, yet the Government have so far resisted our submissions on all points. This is the last opportunity for this House to make a difference on the Bill. This is critical if we are to protect women—it is mainly women—who are victims of domestic violence.

It is not just me who is saying this. The Women’s Institute is demanding changes, as are Rights for Women, End Violence Against Women, and some Government Members. In Committee, Members were whipped—some unwillingly, I am told—to vote against these amendments. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) is not in her place, because after the Committee she told the press:

“We’re not happy about the changes in legal aid…we’re fearful they will affect women who are separating from husbands. We’ve identified that as a problem.”

She is right about that. I ask her and the hon. Member for South Swindon, and other Members who have genuine concerns about this—I am sure that that goes for Liberal Democrat Members as well—to join me and my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Lobby later this evening, when will we have a chance to vote for a practical, joined-up, consensus-based solution on domestic violence

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green]

I speak in support of amendment 74 and endorse many of the comments made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) about her amendments. I shall add a couple of points about the definition of domestic violence and abuse and say a little more about the appropriate role of mediation.

We are all at a loss to understand exactly what distinction the Minister is drawing between the definition given by the Association of Chief Police Officers and the definition in the Bill. He variously says that there are differences and that different standards are required in cases where an investigation is taking place rather than action in court. Then he says that there is not much difference and he described the definitions earlier as broadly similar. Frankly, I think this definition is simply all over the place. That matters significantly, because it will put extra uncertainty and pressure on victims of domestic violence and abuse at precisely the time when they do not need to be uncertain. They have become brave enough to speak up and pursue their case, but it is not clear whether they will be covered by the scope of legal aid.

I am particularly concerned that the Minister seems to be putting in an extra hurdle for women who are victims of domestic violence but who are nevertheless able to make a case that they should be in receipt of legal aid. They can make an application saying that theirs is an exceptional case. They will presumably have to go to the new decision-making authority set up in the Bill, but we have no understanding of how that will be done, how much delay it might cause or what sort of evidence will be required to get access to exceptional funding to bring a case. All that is left unclear and simply adds further pressure and difficulty for victims of domestic abuse.

Amendment 74 is designed to be more precise about some of the evidential factors that should be considered. I would like to respond to the important point raised by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) when he asked my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) whether it would be helpful to have some sort of national register of agencies, from which such evidence could be received. I am sure that that will not be of any great attraction to the Minister, but the UK Border Agency is already well placed to accept evidence from such voluntary sector and third sector agencies. That provides a model that could apply here.

[Mr Slaughter]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and made the point better than I did. Of course, the UK Border Agency accepts evidence from GPs, which the Minister appeared to pooh-pooh in his earlier comments.

[Kate Green]

Indeed, the Minister was more concerned to avoid the number of false allegations that he seems to regard as the major difficulty with domestic abuse cases. Opposition Members are far more concerned about the protection of vulnerable victims and believe that that should be the first and overarching priority. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

Finally, I want to say a little more than I was able to raise in interventions about the use of mediation. Of course we all want to see mediation used wherever it is appropriate and possible for separating couples to reach agreement through that route. We also know, however, that one thing that is particularly damaging to children is conflict. If there is a high degree of conflict, it is unlikely, even if domestic violence or abuse is absent, that mediation is going to be effective or can possibly work.

We are therefore again a bit puzzled about the Minister’s intentions on the use of mediation. I think he said earlier that the requirement was not to undertake mediation but to go through a process whereby it would be determined whether mediation was suitable for a separating couple. Then he said that there would be no compulsion on people to accept mediation. Well, that is certainly true, but if there is no other form of help or assistance available, it is very much a Hobson’s choice.

Can the Minister see any scope for extending access to legal aid to those small number of cases where there is a high degree of conflict and perhaps no abuse or violence as such, but where the conflict would certainly be damaging to the well-being of children? What assessment has he made of that? What does he consider might be the extent of such cases? Has he any idea or any calculation? What consideration has he given to the impact on children and will he look at ways to offer particular protection to children from the very harmful effects of conflict, which we all know to be the case?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Gummer]

Again, the hon. Lady speaks with far more experience than I on this matter, and I was getting to her point. I am merely suggesting that the idea that we can address all these problems of domestic violence through an overheated politicised discussion about where the Government are heading on this Bill not only misses the point, but will damage the cause at hand.

On amendment 74, which was tabled by the shadow Minister, I return to the point I made in my intervention. I regret the fact that he said that I was being pernickety, because many of the things that he is driving at have reason and substance behind them. However, there is a problem if we include, within a list of organisations that would help women to report, a general definition of

“a domestic violence support organisation”

without providing clarification about the efficacy of that organisation.

[Mr Slaughter]

The hon. Gentleman clearly was not listening when my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) pointed out that that definition is perfectly acceptable to the UK Border Agency, as are the others. It is a composite of definitions acceptable to Departments, so that is a rogue point. May I add that he is doing no service to this House by padding out this debate, as the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) did, when we have several other serious debates to come? If the Conservatives are afraid to debate social welfare legal aid, they should say so. Otherwise he should get on with it and allow the House to debate these important amendments tonight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Gummer]

The right hon. Gentleman misses my point about the Public Bill Committee. There are many issues that needed to be raised that we could have fleshed out at greater length, but the Opposition tabled so many specious amendments, many of which were completely contradictory—largely in the name of the shadow Minister, not that of the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who is shaking her head—that we did not get to the meat of some of the issues in the amendment we are debating. Had we been able to discuss sub-paragraph (10)(j) of amendment 74, which the shadow Minister has tabled, we might have been able to improve the Opposition’s amendment so that it could be acceptable to Members on both sides of the House. Instead, we have an amendment that was tabled a couple of days ago with aspects that clearly would not hold up to further legislative scrutiny. It is a pity that we did not have that discussion in Committee instead of discussing a series of amendments, some of which I doubt the shadow Minister had even read before he started speaking to them.

Putting all that aside, a principal issue for me is that many of the amendments tabled by the shadow Minister in Committee would have committed his party to spending increases costing £245 million, but whenever I or other members asked whether the Opposition had any alternative spending plans, they told us to look at the Law Society’s plans. Unfortunately, the Law Society has had to revise its plans, which were found wanting.

[Mr Slaughter]

What does this have to do with the debate?

[Ben Gummer]

I am just coming to that if the hon. Gentleman will listen.

When they table amendments, the Opposition have a duty to explain how their changes would be paid for and what balances would be made elsewhere in the Bill, but so far we have had nothing to substantiate how they would do that, and neither do we have any idea how their changes would fit into the general pattern of the Bill. I cannot therefore vote for their amendment or that of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion—amendment 113 —as neither is complete and nor have they been properly discussed.

In conclusion, I hope that we can continue our proceedings without trying to politicise the issue of domestic violence. I hope we can discuss the precise provisions in the Bill without throwing what I feel have been intemperate and sometimes misjudged accusations at one side purely because they happen to disagree with the assertions put by the other.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Phillips]

May I say what an enormous pleasure it is to follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and to commend at least some of his comments to my colleagues, particularly to those seeking the promotion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox)? I make no comment about any other Queen’s counsel on this side of the House.

There is undoubtedly a fundamental problem with civil legal aid. The simple fact is that to bring cases for which legal aid is available to trial in this country costs more not only than it does in civil law systems that do not recognise the extensive discovery that we have here in England and Wales and in other jurisdictions of the United Kingdom, but more than it costs in other common law jurisdictions such as New Zealand and Australia and in other jurisdictions that have essentially inherited our legal system. That fundamental problem is one with which, because of the deficit we were left by the last Government, this Government have had to grapple. [Interruption.] I can see the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) mouthing something from a sedentary position. If he wants to intervene, I am happy to allow him.

[Mr Slaughter]

I felt that the hon. Gentleman was about to get into a long peroration that would be more suitable for a Second Reading debate. I was simply reminding him that the amendments we are debating are about clinical negligence.

[Stephen Phillips]

I am grateful, but I see Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair this evening. I am sure that if I am out of order at any stage, he will upbraid me. I do not need any lessons from the hon. Member for Hammersmith about how to speak in this Chamber or indeed about the remarks I intend to make tonight. [Interruption.] The simple fact of the matter is—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Djanogly]

I am referring to human rights mainly in relation to exceptional cases where the money would indeed go towards satisfying someone’s medical negligence claim.

Other claims will be excluded from scope and alternative sources of funding, such as conditional fee arrangements, may be available for meritorious claims. I confirm for my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) that we always have an open mind on these issues. I am happy to engage with him as the Bill progresses.

[Mr Slaughter]

It is good to hear the Minister talking about possible future concessions in this area. To be fair to him, he has always said that the Government’s aim is to protect the most vulnerable. How does he square that with the fact that he has orchestrated the talking out of the main group of amendments today, which affects many of the lowest-income and most vulnerable people in this country? Why are we not getting on to talking about other areas of social welfare law? Is it to protect the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), whose law centre is losing all its funding? Is it to protect the Minister’s coalition allies from withdrawing—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think that we have got the gist of it.

[Mr Djanogly]

I say to the hon. Gentleman that I have enjoyed listening to my hon. Friends and to some of his hon. Friends this evening, in what has been a very informed debate. We have heard some expert contributions, not least from my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham, who started by saying that he had acted in 100 clinical negligence cases. I do not think that there has been any time wasting at all—not nearly as much time wasting as when the hon. Gentleman held a three-hour debate on the first group of amendments on the first day in Committee.

[Mr Slaughter]

We spent the first 10 minutes of this debate talking about the Minister’s declaration of interests, which was very substantially overdue. All I would say to him, as a last contribution, is that many people will be watching this debate tonight, particularly in another place. They will draw their own conclusions from his unwillingness to debate those issues.

[Mr Djanogly]

I hope those many people will be as unimpressed as I am by what the hon. Gentleman just said.

Let me address the interaction of legal aid and the Jackson proposals, which was mentioned by three or four hon. Members. In addition to reforming legal aid, the Government are introducing fundamental reform of no win, no fee conditional fee agreements, as recommended by Lord Justice Jackson. During the consultation on his recommendations, concerns were raised about the funding of expert reports in clinical negligence cases. Those reports can be expensive and we need to provide a means of funding them to ensure that meritorious claims can be brought by those who cannot readily afford to pay for them up front. That is why, in making changes to the CFA regime, we are making special arrangements for the funding of expert reports in clinical negligence claims.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East suggested that victims of clinical negligence who take their cases on CFAs will lose their damages in legal fees. As recommended by Lord Justice Jackson, we are reforming CFAs because of the high costs introduced by changes that were made by the previous Government in relation to the recoverability of success fees and after-the-event insurance. Lord Justice Jackson recommended that there should be a cap on damages in personal injury cases that can be taken in lawyer success fees—the cap should be 25% of the damages, not including damages for future care and loss. The Government have accepted that recommendation, so that victims of personal injury, including from clinical negligence, will have their damages protected under CFAs.

The Civil Justice Council is looking at some of the technical aspects of implementing the Jackson recommendations. I spoke with it on this issue only this morning, when I also attended a conference on issues such as how the 25% cap will work to protect damages.

The hon. Gentleman said that the proposal would be fairer if the Government were not introducing the Jackson reforms, and asked why we were implementing both at the same time. We are considering all those major changes together and in the round. At the same time as seeking to make savings from the legal aid budget, we are taking forward those priority measures that were recommended by Lord Justice Jackson, to address the disproportionate and unaffordable cost of civil litigation. It is essential that those proposals are considered at the same time. The current CFA regime, with its recoverable costs, causes a significant burden on, for example, the NHS. Withdrawing legal aid for clinical negligence without reforming CFAs could increase that burden significantly.

The hon. Gentleman said that claimants in severe injury cases are more likely to be disabled and frail and so forth, and being unable to bring proceedings—[Interruption.]

Interpretation Services (Ministry of Justice)

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech) on securing this debate. I understand his concerns, and this debate gives me a welcome opportunity to address them. There are two points I would like to clarify before turning to his key concerns. The first is that the Government’s reforms do not limit in any way the circumstances in which relevant parties to proceedings are entitled to the services of an interpreter. An interpreter is made available as soon as practicable once an apparent need is identified, irrespective of the language involved. That will not change.

Secondly, I believe that we need to take care in our use of the word “outsourcing”, which has characterised this debate. I am referring not only to this Adjournment debate, but to the wider debate taking place on this matter outside the House. Interpretation and translation services are not currently provided in house; they have always been outsourced. The difference is that, in future, the Government will be outsourcing to a single supplier rather than to individual freelance interpreters and translators.

There is no doubt that, at a time when we are striving to make savings across all public services, there is an opportunity to make savings in this area. Currently, the annual spend on these services is in the region of £60 million across the justice sector, so it is by no means insignificant. We estimate that moving over to the framework agreement will result in savings of at least £18 million a year—significant savings.

The decision to move to a single supplier is not a snap decision. Officials in the Ministry of Justice have conducted a lengthy, thorough and robust procurement process, as required by EU law, engaging with a range of bidders to ensure that we get the best possible service for the best possible price. The single supplier with which we have signed a framework agreement is Applied Language Solutions. ALS will provide a single point of contact, available to staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week, through which the provision of face-to-face interpreting, telephone interpreting, written translation and language services for the deaf and deaf-blind can be obtained.

Under the framework agreement, the Ministry of Justice will sign a contract on behalf of MOJ central functions, Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service and the Prison Service. Other organisations—for example, individual police forces and the Crown Prosecution Service—can also sign contracts with ALS, but the MOJ cannot mandate this. It is important to be clear that a wide range of justice organisations support the need to make these changes.

The changes will primarily affect England and Wales. However, it will be open to justice organisations in Scotland and Northern Ireland to sign contracts under the framework, although the Scottish Court Service already has its own contract with a commercial supplier.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The Minister has said that the tendering process is robust. Will he assure us for the record that he is clear that what he is doing in the single tendering to ALS will conform to the directive on the right of interpretation in criminal proceedings?

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 13th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

As I suggested a moment ago, I regard it as just a little disingenuous—I hate to say that about UN agencies—to suggest that we are in any way undermining the jurisdiction here for dealing with racial discrimination or serious personal injury cases involving British companies. What we are talking about is how much the lawyers are paid by way of success fees and other costs. The Trafigura case was a classic scandalous personal injury case involving a British company and an incident in Côte d’Ivoire, in which £30 million in compensation was awarded by the British courts to the plaintiffs and £100 million was paid in legal costs to those who brought the action. All we are doing is going back to where no win, no fee used to be—in getting the costs and the claims back in proportion to each other.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

What we are talking about is whether such cases will get into court at all under the regime that the Government are proposing. It appears they will not listen to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs on insolvency, or to Amnesty International, Oxfam or the United Nations on multinational cases. Now, Admiral, the leading specialist motor insurer, is saying that premiums will go up as a result of the proposals. Is it not time to think again, and to stop favouring insurance companies, crooks and multinationals over their victims?

[Mr Clarke]

If the hon. Gentleman wants to widen this argument, which is perfectly legitimate, to include a general proposition as well as multinational company cases, the questions must be: how much is proportionate to the claim when it comes to paying costs, and what effect does no win, no fee, since it was changed, have on the judgment on both sides? We do not want such cases to be such a high earner for the plaintiffs’ lawyers that they are prepared to bring more speculative cases, which is happening at the moment. Nor do we want pressure to be put on defendants who have a perfectly sound defence, forcing them to say, “We cannot defend ourselves, because it will cost us less to pay a nuisance fee by way of settlement.” Justice involves striking a balance between what the lawyers are paid and what the plaintiffs get by way of compensation.

Access to a Lawyer

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

As the Minister says, the directive forms part of a defence rights road map agreed by the European Council in 2009 that aims for greater harmonisation of fundamental tenets of the criminal law. We have opted in and supported the previous two limbs of that. The current proposals concern principally the right to access to a lawyer on arrest, the right to have someone notified on arrest, and the right to communicate with a third party on arrest. As such—I do not think the Minister resiled from this—it articulates what most British people would consider not only uncontroversial but essential civil liberties. Since 2009 the EC has sought to harmonise these rights across Europe. I think the Government welcome that.

Notwithstanding the points the Minister made, which I shall come to in a moment, it is difficult to see why the Government oppose the proposal as far as this country alone is concerned, at least for the present. If introduced, it would give us confidence that members of the British public would be subject to due process when overseas. According to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website, more than 19 million British nationals travel to France every year, 13 million to Spain, 4 million to Italy and 2 million to Greece. Hundreds of them will, sadly, end up being arrested for a criminal offence. In Spain more than 2,000 Britons a year are arrested for criminal offences.

As the Minister said, Europe is not a homogenous legal environment and not all justice systems operate in the same way or to the same standards. I am grateful for the briefing that Fair Trials International provided for the debate. The organisation helps to ensure a fair trial for anyone facing charges in a country not their own. In its research it highlights some notable examples. I shall not spend a great deal of time on that, as it would take up the time of other Members who wish to speak.

Some of the cases are familiar, such as that of Garry Mann, a 51-year-old fireman and football fan who was arrested in Portugal, allowed to leave the country, subsequently arrested on an arrest warrant and imprisoned for two years. It was a case of mistaken identity and on arrest he did not have the benefit of a knowledge of Portuguese law, which would have allowed him a stay.

Another case is that of Edmond Arapi, who was convicted in absentia of committing a murder in Italy at a time when he was working in the UK. It got to the point where he was about to be extradited and imprisoned for a term of 16 years. Had legal advice been available to him at the time of his arrest, it would have become apparent much earlier that this was a clear case of mistaken identity.

[Mr Cash]

I am reasonably familiar with the Arapi case because it took place in Staffordshire, not far from my constituency. Of course, the real mischief was the arrest warrant itself. There was no reason whatsoever why that man was dealt with in that way. I think that it is absolutely futile to attempt to argue the case on access to lawyers on the basis of the complete failure of the arrest warrant system.

[Mr Slaughter]

The hon. Gentleman makes part of my point for me. There are concerns about the operation of the European arrest warrant, but that is one of the reasons we wish to see the provision of good-quality legal advice and access to lawyers throughout the European Union. He might have his own solution on our relations with Europe, probably a rather more fundamental one than mine or the Minister’s, but we are where we are and it is therefore important that these safeguards exist.

I was going to mention a third case, that of John Packwood. There are unfortunately a large number of such cases, but those are the three famous ones that have featured heavily in the UK press, particularly the Daily Mail, which has championed many of the cases in which the most perverse decisions have been made in foreign jurisdictions. For the people involved and their families, the experience was a nightmare. They were in a foreign country trying to communicate with officials who spoke an unfamiliar language and subject to procedures that were often summary and perverse, and yet they had no knowledge or advice with which to challenge them. It should be a matter of concern to the Government to protect our citizens overseas and ensure that they are given the same consideration as we would grant citizens of other countries visiting Britain, and that they are given the opportunity to do so and, at least for the present, decline.

We should not be slow to see the high standards of justice that British people expect of our criminal justice system applied to other countries. The directive would assist that process. After all, it was the previous Conservative Government who enacted the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which provided a suspect in police custody with a statutory right to legal advice. Section 58 of the Act states that a person arrested and held in police custody is entitled to consult a solicitor privately at any time. The detention code provides that the consultation may be in person, in writing or by telephone and that free and independent legal advice is available. Therefore, the decision not to opt in to a directive that has the same intention as those provisions seems strange, and I will move on to what the Minister says are the differences.

First, the directive’s requirements are broadly in line with current UK legislation. Where there are divergences—the Minister mentioned one or two—they are negotiable. This is a process of ongoing negotiation, and in some cases they are subject to the requirements of national law. The example of searches, which the Minister gave, is one of those.

Secondly, the negotiations are continuing. As the Minister said, many other countries are concerned that there is inadequate room for derogation and are questioning aspects of the directive. It is therefore unlikely that it will remain in its current form. It seems pointless to send negotiating teams, as the Minister proposes, when we are the only country that intends to opt out at this stage, which fatally undermines the authority and leverage that this country will have. We appear to be throwing away an advantage to British citizens for reasons that are at best unconvincing and at worst spurious. Why have the Government taken this position? The Minister might have seen the briefing from JUSTICE, which takes the Government’s points of objection and states that they are either points that can be negotiated, or points that the Government have got wrong. It looks as though the Government are looking for reasons to opt out at this stage.

Tomorrow, the Minister and I will meet again for the next Committee sitting of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, and I look forward to that in Committee Room 12 at 9 o’clock. One of the first clauses that we will consider is clause 12, which gives the new director of legal aid casework and, by extension, the Lord Chancellor the power to decide who does and who does not get access to a lawyer in a police station—and to do so on the basis of an interests of justice test.

There has already been an outcry throughout the criminal justice system at that attack on a basic right, which was introduced to avoid the risk of a miscarriage of justice. PACE itself was in part a response to the appalling miscarriages of justice of the 1970s, but, in answer to the criticism that the Minister is taking on a power that will allow the state to regulate who does and who does not get advice in a police station, he says that he has absolutely no intention of taking away legal help from police stations, so why is he then arrogating to himself the power to do so?

Taken together with the premature decision tonight to opt out of the directive while negotiations continue and before any decision needs to be taken, clause 12 of that Bill suggests that the lessons that led to PACE are being forgotten by this Government.

May I ask the Minister three questions, which, if he replies at the end of the debate, he may wish to answer? First, why are the Government not going to do what they did with the earlier stages of the road map and continue negotiations before making a decision on opting out? Secondly, why are they opting out now when there is further time to negotiate? And, thirdly, can the Minister confirm that the Government are committed to the current system of access to counsel in a police station and do not intend to erode that right, and if so explain why they are pursuing clause 12?

The objections that the Government have raised are nugatory and susceptible to change, if there is any merit in them, whereas the advantages to British citizens abroad are clear and substantial. It is not good enough for the Minister to say that we can get all the benefits of the directive if it is enacted in 26 other countries, but that we do not need to bother with it ourselves. That sounds like a clear Eurosceptic “have your cake and eat it” voice from the Minister, and I am not sure that that is what he is saying, but it is a—[Interruption.] I am not sure that Government Members think that that is what he is saying, either, but it is a knee-jerk reaction to opt out at this stage.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman has on a couple of occasions in the past couple of minutes referred to opting out of the directive, but we are not opting out, we are simply not opting in, and in fact there is a big difference, because if we opt in we will never be able to opt out.

[Mr Slaughter]

The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. The Minister is at least open and clear about attempting to take the benefits. He wishes to do so, and in that I agree with him. Appalling miscarriages of justice occur regularly, and we want British citizens to be protected from that, but we cannot do so without engaging. We can negotiate what are for us as a country relatively minor changes, if changes at all are needed, but if we accept the experts who briefed Justice we find that the Government have misinterpreted those minor changes, to which the Minister alluded, in any event.

In the end, it comes down to this: do we wish seriously to see the proposals implemented, in which case we should be in the game and negotiating clearly, or do we wish to take the Government’s somewhat disingenuous position tonight? For that reason, and notwithstanding the Minister saying that he may change his mind in due course, we will oppose the Government this evening.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

Thank you for calling me, Mr Deputy Speaker. During the early part of the speech preceding that by the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott), I absented myself to go and have a sandwich, not having had any lunch, so I was not expecting you to call me quite as early in the debate.

This is obviously an important debate. I shall not necessarily speak for the full time that is available to me, but I want to focus on the sentencing aspects, specifically of the Green Paper. I do so from my perspective as one of the two sitting recorders in the House; I am not sure whether the other intends to speak. It seems to me important that I do so in circumstances where sentencing has got itself into a bit of a mess in this country. At least in England and Wales, it has become exceptionally complicated for the judiciary, and for that reason the proposals that the Government are putting forward in the Bill are important, not only from the perspective of “breaking the cycle,” which was the concern of the consultation document, but from the perspective of the judiciary and the operation of the criminal courts in effectively sentencing criminals and meting out due punishment for the offences of which they have been convicted by a jury.

The starting point with sentencing, of course, is the fact that in 2003 a Criminal Justice Bill was placed before the House and passed by the previous Government. It was amended on a number of occasions thereafter but was in fact a complete minefield. It was so complicated that in one case, the Court of Appeal commented that the relevant provisions were “labyrinthine”; in another they were described as a “legislative morass”. In a case called CPS v. South East Surrey Youth Court, the Court of Appeal said:

“So, yet again, the courts are faced with a sample of the deeply confusing provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and the satellite statutory instruments to which it is giving stuttering birth. The most inviting course for this Court to follow, would be for its members, having shaken their heads in despair, to hold up their hands and say: ‘the Holy Grail of rational interpretation is impossible to find’.”

I have to tell the House that the position in which the courts have found themselves in relation to sentencing during the last decade has been utterly intolerable. Judges have had to spend considerably more time than they ought to when they should be trying cases on preparing sentences, giving reasons above and beyond those which they were previously obliged to give, and in fact giving reasons that are probably immaterial for either the victims of crime or, indeed, those who are on the receiving end of the sentence to hear.

The simplification of that aspect of sentencing by the Bill, assuming that it becomes law, is therefore much to be welcomed. But I want it to go further, because the issue is important. I hope that the Lord Chancellor will listen to what I say in this regard and to what others, including the Sentencing Council—and, I think, the Bar Council and the Law Society—have said.

What we need, and what I hope we will see during this Parliament, is a consolidating statute that brings together sentencing for the entirety of the criminal law. Only then will the process become simpler and judges be able to give sentences that they are satisfied will not be taken to the Court of Appeal unless they have got things very wrong. Only then will people know precisely what sorts of sentences the courts are likely to hand down for the same sorts of offence. In due course, I imagine that that will ensure that considerable public support is given to the criminal justice system.

I want to say a few words about legal aid. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) spoke for many of us in expressing concerns about the removal of legal aid in relation to some of the areas proposed by the Ministry. I hope that those will be explored in great detail in Committee, particularly given the Lord Chancellor’s comments in his intervention on her. I want the Bill to come back with a report from the Committee that it is satisfied that the most vulnerable in our society will continue to have access to justice in precisely the same way as those who are able to buy justice. I say that from the perspective of one who, as a lawyer, considers access to justice extraordinarily important.

Like my hon. Friend, I am concerned about those particular provisions and how they might discriminate against some of the most vulnerable. That said, I have no doubt that the Bill will be amended in Committee and that the Government will listen; I hope that they will. I am not sure that the Bill has absolutely everything right, but it is a step in the right direction, particularly in respect of the burgeoning legal aid budget under which we in this country pay eight times as much as the French taxpayer to give access to justice to those entitled to legal aid. It is not suggested that there is some desert in France where nobody has access to justice, so it must be possible to reduce the costs of legal aid.

Indeed, the shadow Lord Chancellor said that last year, when he accepted that if Labour was in power, it too would have to make cuts to the legal aid budget. It is a matter of regret and shame that rather than coming to the House to say where he would be making those cuts, he made a series of—[Hon. Members: “No, he didn’t; he spelled it out.”] It is extraordinary to hear at least one Opposition Member saying that the shadow Lord Chancellor spelled it out. I listened to the entirety of his speech, and I did not hear anything spelled out at all. [Interruption.] The shadow Minister is on the Opposition Front Bench. Perhaps he will tell us now where Labour would make the cuts in the legal aid budget.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

There is a publication called Hansard, which the hon. and learned Gentleman might wish to read tomorrow. He will see what I will repeat now, although I feel that I am taking Back-Benchers’ time. The proposals in the March 2010 consultation, which were put forward by the then Labour Government and have not been taken forward by this Government, would more than compensate for the cuts being made in social welfare legal aid. If the hon. and learned Gentleman has a look at that consultation, he will see.

[Stephen Phillips]

I will go and have a look, and I am sure that Government Front Benchers will, too. We will be able to see during the winding-up speeches whether that is accepted as correct. For my part, I rather doubt that it will be.

[Mr Slaughter]

You don’t even know; not a clue.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

This has been a mature and authoritative debate, and a better debate than this Bill deserves. Some 29 right hon. and hon. Members have spoken from the Back Benches, and by my reckoning, only four gave the Government unqualified or nearly unqualified support: the hon. Members for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry)—no surprise there—and the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake)—and increasingly no surprise there either.

Many Members spoke about cuts to legal aid and advice: my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson); the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd); my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner); my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman); the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd); and my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), for North West Durham (Pat Glass) and for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander).

Many Members discussed their concerns about the Bill’s sentencing provisions, including the hon. Members for Shipley (Philip Davies), for Dewsbury (Simon Reevell) and for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) and my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mrs Chapman). My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) made a forensic examination of the appalling provisions on remand. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) discussed the cuts in youth offending that occurred under the Labour Government. We heard from the Chairman of the Select Committee on Justice that the inefficiency of Departments is partly responsible for legal aid costs. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) told us about cuts to the probation service. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) gave a fine speech about conditional fee agreements and their importance in multi-party actions, particularly against large corporations. The hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) spoke movingly about victims, the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) spoke about drug dependency and the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) spoke about reoffending.

They were all excellent speeches, but I will mention three or four in particular. The hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) spoke about the need for litigation in some cases, despite what the Lord Chancellor says. My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) spoke from experience about the effects that the cuts will have on citizens advice bureaux and advice services. The hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) spoke about the need for sentencing reform and—I hope that I am not putting words in his mouth—the reasons why this Bill will not deliver it. Notwithstanding his tone, the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) made a fine speech. Those and many other speeches came from knowledge and experience of the criminal and civil justice system over many years. Therefore, whatever side of the House they came from, I hope that the Government will heed them.

The Bill was supposed to launch a rehabilitation revolution. Then the spin doctors decided that it would be the Bill to punish offenders, but it is neither. It is a damaging and unfunded mess. It will not protect the public, reduce crime, support victims or reform offenders, but do the opposite. It will place victims at risk, cut access to justice for all but the wealthiest and take away even basic legal advice and representation from the most vulnerable in society.

Legal aid, no win, no fee litigation, remand pending trial, access to legal advice on arrest, and a system that diverts young people from offending are coherent parts of a coherent justice system that is envied around the world. The Government put that at risk through the Bill. A dizzying series of U-turns on sentencing and swingeing cuts to police, probation and youth offending teams have created a shambles that will not keep us safe in the short term or lower prison numbers in the long term. We have already had the first warning. Yesterday’s figures show that, under this Government, crime in London is increasing, not decreasing, for the first time in years.

Access to legal aid for the poorest and most vulnerable people will now be the exception, not the rule. Cutting legal aid for housing, education, welfare benefits, debt and family cases will be an economic as well as a social disaster. That is the view of 5,000 individuals and organisations, many with decades of experience, expressed in their responses to the Government’s consultation. Citizens Advice, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Shelter, the Law Centres Federation, the Children’s Society and End Violence Against Women, to name but a few, explained why legal help and representation is good value for money. It is provided by lawyers who earn, on average, less than £25,000, citizens advice bureaux staff and volunteers, supplemented with pro bono advice. They explained why helping people at an early stage prevents homelessness, debt, family breakdown and crime, which end up costing society and the Treasury far more in the long run. They also explained—it should not be necessary to do so, but it is for this Government—the moral duty of a civilised society to support those most in need in the times of greatest stress.

The Government’s impact assessments confirm that women, children, disabled people and minority groups will suffer disproportionately from the cuts, to which the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), who is responsible for legal aid, responds, “What do you expect? They’re the ones getting legal aid now.” The Under-Secretary sounds increasingly like Marie Antoinette. I will do what the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington asked and cite Lord Carlile. Last week, at a meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on legal aid, Lord Carlile put a compelling case to the Under-Secretary. He asked:

“What would the Minister tell the mother of a child with catastrophic injuries caused by clinical negligence who could no longer get legal aid?”

The response was:

“I don’t know. She’d better ask a lawyer.”

Despite the Lord Chancellor’s protestations, the Government have not listened to the women’s institute or Amnesty on domestic violence. They have not listened to people such as Jeannie Bloomfield, president of the women’s institute in Suffolk, who survived domestic violence years ago and has become an advocate for those who suffer it today. She wrote to me, fearful for the future. She said that, under the Government’s definition of domestic violence, she would not have received the legal aid that allowed her and her daughters to escape abuse. Under the plans, the Government will abandon many women like Jeannie.

Let us also consider the Government’s meddling with civil litigation.

[Stephen Phillips]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for his remarks about my speech. He will remember that I made the point that we had heard nothing from the Opposition about what they would do, given that the shadow Lord Chancellor again accepted in his speech that cuts had to be made to legal aid. The hon. Gentleman told me to read Hansard. I have done that and I am none the wiser. The information is not there. I wonder whether he would like to apologise to me and the House for inadvertently misleading it. What cuts would the Opposition make if they were in government?

[Mr Slaughter]

I am delighted to respond to that. I thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman had slightly more perception. He should look at the Green Paper that was published on 22 March 2010, entitled “Restructuring the Delivery of Criminal Defence Services”. That is the document to which my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor and I referred. How many more times do we have to explain it to the hon. and learned Gentleman? [Interruption.] The Lord Chancellor, who has only opened the Bill for the first time today, could perhaps go and look at the document himself.

Turning to the Government’s meddling with civil litigation, they justify the need to upend no win, no fee by reference to the compensation culture, but their own investigation, led by Lord Young of Graffham, found:

“The problem of the compensation culture prevalent in society today is one of perception rather than reality.”

The Government are legislating to fit false perceptions. A system that allows people on moderate incomes to access justice is being overturned to please the insurance industry and large corporations.

While the justification for reform may be imagined, the victims are all too real: children brain-damaged by medical negligence, workers injured by unsafe machinery or suffering industrial disease and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) said, hundreds of thousands of overseas victims of multinational companies in cases like Trafigura.

Again, public money will be wasted. The Revenue has objected that insolvency cases in which it is a major creditor will not come to court in the future. The NHS and the Department for Work and Pensions will have to pick up the tab for individuals who cannot get compensation from those that harmed them. There is a need to control costs of civil cases; all parties agree on that. We were already doing that by controlling costs in road traffic claims, which are 75% of all personal injury claims. Costs could be further controlled by capping success fees and encouraging early settlement by both parties, but the Government prefer to put all the onus on claimants and force them to pay up to 25% of the damages that they have been justly awarded. A Supreme Court judge, Baroness Hale, warned this week that we risk returning to an England where justice is denied to all but the rich.

Finally, we come to sentencing. What a mess. What an extraordinary debacle—the product of a Government who just don’t get it on law and order. The coalition agreement promised a full review of sentencing. This is the opposite: a mixture of U-turns, delays, false promises and sleights of hand. Some things that were in the Bill are now out, like 50% discounts. Some, such as indeterminate sentences, have gone off for even more consultation. Some, such as the new knives offence, have been added with the ink hardly dry. Some may be added later, on burglary and squatting. Many of the tough measures announced by the Prime Minister are not in the Bill, but lots of the so-called “soft” measures are. Courts will be allowed to take no action for breach of a community order or impose a fine for breach of a suspended prison sentence. Magistrates’ power to impose sentences of up to 12 months will be repealed rather than implemented. Judges and magistrates will have their hands tied on remand. To limit the use of remand as the Government have done is fundamentally to misunderstand its purpose. Judges, magistrates and victims’ representatives all oppose that measure. It is an extraordinary step for any Government to take. It undermines law and order and the discretion of the judiciary, and it is solely here—as was the sentencing discount—to save money.

Under Labour Governments, crime fell 43% over 13 years. Youth offending fell 34% over the last Parliament alone. That was the product of investment in youth offending teams—which this year will see an average cut of 18% in their budgets—and of a long-term strategy to reduce criminal behaviour. The legacy that we left has been squandered by a Department that is in chaos—a Department of chaos. Cuts of 23% will be achieved by restricting access to justice for the vulnerable, taking money from injured parties, and meddling with sentencing to reduce prison places.

The faults are clear in the process of the Bill—rushed out on the same day as the responses to consultation, rushed to Second Reading in one week and now being rushed into Committee, but with new provisions promised for the autumn and a raft of key measures left for secondary legislation. It is a lazy Bill. It lacks integrity. The Secretary of State should feel embarrassed to present it to the House for Second Reading tonight. I urge all right hon. and hon. Members on all sides to vote against.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

We are certainly concerned about the transparency of fees and how they are calculated. We are looking at this very carefully as part of our overall reform of legal aid, particularly for the Legal Services Commission.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Women are often at risk of domestic violence when relationships break down, even when there is no previous history of it. According to the Association of Chief Police Officers, attempts to end a relationship are strongly linked to partner homicide and a higher risk of physical violence and sexual assault. Now no legal aid is proposed for divorce or child custody cases, and the definition of domestic violence is still very narrow and requires a history of complaints. How will the Minister ensure the safety of women now that they have to negotiate face to face with potentially violent partners?

[Mr Djanogly]

I think the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the present system. At the moment, perpetrators rarely receive legal aid; it is the victims of domestic violence who receive it. That means that in the current system the victims face the perpetrators of the crime. The reality is that on a day-to-day basis the judiciary are having to deal with this and have set procedures that they go through to make the process as good as possible for the victims.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has accepted Lord Justice Jackson’s recommendations on civil litigation reform. He said they were “very attractive” and he was “impressed” by them, so why is the Minister ignoring the report’s recommendation that the Government make

“no further cutbacks in legal aid availability or eligibility”

because

“The legal aid system plays a crucial role in promoting access to justice at proportionate costs”?

[Mr Djanogly]

Legal aid does play a very important part in access to justice, which the Government support. Lord Justice Jackson was looking at civil costs, and in that context he looked at legal aid. On that point, as in various other instances, we did not agree with his recommendations. What we will put forward in legislation is a total all-encompassing package. The shadow Minister will appreciate that we consulted on public and private funding at the same time so that those who wanted to respond could do so in the context of both.

Legal Aid

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 11th May 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

May I start, Mr Weir, by saying what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship? I also want to congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), not only on securing this debate but on making a very thorough and persuasive speech.

It was in November last year—six months ago—that the Minister first produced his proposals to restrict the scope and availability of legal aid. A lot has happened since then. In fact, this is our third debate on the issue in this House and I know that the Minister has also debated it outside the House with others, including my noble Friend Lord Bach. The other place is debating the issue again next week. As a result, many of the arguments should be familiar to the Minister, but what we have not had so far is any effective response to those arguments.

Several Members have already spoken in the debate. We have heard from Members from all parties who are committed to legal aid and understand its importance in our system. Among the many good points that the hon. Member for Cambridge made was one about viability; he asked whether the cuts will actually leave a viable legal aid service at all.

My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) drew on her own experience to make the point that telephone advice, however important it is, cannot be the only entry point to the system. She said that the alternative provisions that have been suggested are not adequate and that the alternative providers suggested by the Government are not equal to the task that has been set them; they have said so themselves.

In addition, the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) nailed the allegation that legal aid is hugely expensive in this country. As he said, spending on legal aid as a proportion of the costs of the legal system is not high. Clearly, it must be restrained but I think that there have been false arguments that it is disproportionately higher than similar spending in other jurisdictions.

The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), who has, I think, more experience in this field than any other Member here, urged the Minister to think more slowly and carefully, and to make the decision not in the rushed way that has been portrayed so far, but in a way that takes account of all the views that have been expressed. That, perhaps, is the key point coming out of this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) talked about housing—a subject very dear to my own heart as well—and the effect on our constituents in London, and the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) talked about the false economies that there will be in making the cuts to legal aid.

All those arguments might be familiar, but the Minister needs to respond to them today. He has had the benefit of the report from the Justice Committee, which took evidence from senior judges, the Minister himself and leaders in civil society, and criticised the lack of an evidential basis for the Minister’s proposals. On issue after issue, from the increase in litigants in person to the additional cost to the public purse and the inability of alternative providers to pick up the pieces should the proposals come into force, the Select Committee told the Minister to slow down, do some research and come back with revised proposals.

Other organisations, in particular practitioner organisations, have done the work that the Minister and his civil servants have not done, in providing evidence of the effect of the changes. I mention in particular the Legal Action Group, which took the original figure of 500,000—my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North said it was more than 600,000—and added in the most up-to-date figures for the past financial year and for the telephone advisory service. The resulting figure was nearer 725,000, which is almost 50% more than the Government initially said.

The Legal Aid Practitioners Group has considered the point about viability. The fact that the entry point has to be through telephone advice has its disincentives. Many people will not be able to cope with the telephone system; they rely on face-to-face advice, and will simply not access the system at all. The figures by local authority area show that if we relied on such a system, the reduction in the service that could be provided face to face would bring the service down to something like 7% to 10% of existing levels, which would not be sustainable. Purely by way of example, in my own borough of Hammersmith and Fulham that would take us from the current 1,600 case starts to 155 under the new system, which would not be sufficient to pay one person’s salary for a year. If that situation were replicated across local authority areas, there would be no service at all.

The Law Centres Federation has looked at the impact of cuts that have already taken place, including local authority cuts, which are at 53% in law centres—61% in London and 100% in my own borough. Those figures ought to be considered before any legal aid cuts are brought into effect this financial year. A Citizens Advice survey has shown that more than 50% of its members do not believe they will be financially viable once the cuts take effect.

I ask the Minister to listen to those hugely experienced and articulate voices. Labour Governments over the past 65 years have fielded a good record in this area, setting up the legal aid system, funding the first law centres and increasing spending on advisory services such as Citizens Advice, and on social welfare legal aid. But we also restricted the growth in legal aid funding from 2003 onwards, and would continue to do so if we were still in government.

I am at a loss to understand why the Government have abandoned some of the plans that we had to restrict that growth further, particularly in the tendering process, and particularly in the criminal legal aid field. Social welfare legal aid is only 5% of the total legal aid budget, and I hope that the Minister is giving a lot of scrutiny to that area in deciding on the revisions to his plans. Removing social welfare legal aid from scope will, I believe, give the whip hand to large public and private corporations, and will allow an inequality of arms that is unacceptable in our civil and criminal justice systems.

I would like briefly to deal with the issue of who is most affected. The Minister has said previously that it is inevitable that poorer people will be affected because it is they who are in receipt of legal aid—but that is a slightly glib answer, if I may say so. The excellent brief prepared for this debate by a young legal aid lawyer drills down into the figures and shows that, were the proposals introduced, 44% of people who received representation last year and 68% of those who got legal help would not now receive that assistance, and that more than 80% of people who would lose the assistance are in the poorest fifth of the population. Also, 80% of people who will be affected by the eligibility changes are in the poorest fifth of the population. Not a lot has been said about those changes, but they are highly significant.

When one looks at the discriminatory effects of what the Minister proposes, one sees that 31% of those affected by the scope changes in housing are from the black and minority ethnic population, compared with 8% in the general population; some 63% of those affected by the scope changes to welfare benefit legal aid are disabled, compared with 18% in the general population. The Minister might say that that is a truism, but his Government should be ashamed that changes of that kind are being proposed, given the disbenefit that they will have. It is a myth that representation is not for legal purposes, but for general advice—people need it to understand complex legal issues and to make appeals to higher courts—and that the people who currently benefit are in a position to represent themselves.

The Minister has heard from both sides of the House today, including very eloquent speeches from Government Members who have many years’ experience of this issue. I notice that Joanna Lumley has joined the growing campaign, which should provide the Minister with pause for thought, given her track record on such matters. I do not expect a full response today, but when the Minister finally comes to respond to the 5,000 responses—compared with the 50 received in the last consultation on legal aid by the previous Labour Government—I hope that, even if he has not read each response, he will have considered the overwhelming weight of opinion on the effect that the measures will have, not only on very vulnerable people and on those of us who still try to provide an advice service with very limited means, but on the whole criminal and civil justice system. That will be in jeopardy if we take away access to justice, removing the right of anyone with a meritorious case to get the initial advice, representation and assistance that they need to bring the case to court.

That is not, I hope, something that the Minister, given his background, would wish to see. I hope that he will give an indication in his response today, and a fuller indication in that formal response—the date of which he will no doubt provide now—that the Government have been listening to all those voices and will respond with a more sympathetic and pragmatic attitude to the continuation of legal aid.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 29th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

The Government’s position is that domestic violence should be the gateway to receiving legal aid in relation to family law. However, my hon. Friend has asked specifically about the definition and I am pleased to tell him that many representations have come in on this issue and that we are going to consider them very carefully when we make our final report.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

What the Minister told the Justice Committee is at odds with what he has said to the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) today. He said that he wanted legal aid to be directed towards the most vulnerable, but every authoritative voice the Committee heard, and even his Department’s impact assessment, said that the opposite will be the case and that the most vulnerable will be disproportionately hit by his cuts. We will see tomorrow, when the Committee publishes its report, whom it found more credible, but may I offer him the opportunity today finally to accept the overwhelming evidence that his cuts to social welfare legal aid will hit the most vulnerable the hardest?

[Mr Djanogly]

It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman mentions social welfare and misses criminal legal aid, because when it comes to eligibility and defining who is vulnerable, it was the previous Government who decided that criminal legal aid would be means-tested. We are not addressing that, but in relation to civil legal aid, yes, we do believe that the eligibility tests need to be looked at, and that is what we are doing.

Young Offenders

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Streeter. I congratulate the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) on securing this debate and on an outstanding analysis of the current issues. All hon. Members who have spoken have taken that lead, and I am pleased to see a growing consensus that youth criminality is a result of multiple vulnerabilities and failures in the individual and in society. I share the concern expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) that if the cuts to youth justice funding that we anticipate go ahead on the scale that is promised, we risk not addressing those failures. I will return to that point.

The previous Labour Government had a properly funded, multi-agency approach to youth offending. It included youth offending teams, which have been a real success story; the Youth Justice Board, which uses an evidence-based approach to disseminating best practice; the introduction of alternative disposal orders; and the recognition that intervening early is far better than trying to manage a child who has already become embroiled in criminality.

As a result, the youth justice system of today is radically different from that of the past. During the previous Parliament, the Government’s approach to prevention saw a significant drop in the number of first-time young offenders, from 170,040 in 2005 to 61,387 in our last year in government. Recent statistics show that the number of offences committed by young offenders dropped from 301,860 in 2005 to 198,449 last year—a drop of 35%. In the past two years alone, the under-18 prison population has dropped from 2,932 to 2,045—a drop of 30%. Those remarkable figures are possible only because of the good work of the Youth Justice Board, of YOTs around the country and of those third sector and social enterprise front-line providers that have given so many options and provided valuable data to inform an evidence-driven approach to drive down youth offending. We all want better outcomes for our young people.

Some years ago, I worked as a criminal barrister and represented young offenders. It was clear to me then, as now, that many young offenders are themselves profoundly vulnerable, a point which was made well by the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys. That is true not only in respect of their immaturity or youth, but because many are disadvantaged socially and educationally and suffer a wide range of impairments and emotional difficulties. Mental health issues are three times as prevalent among children in the youth justice system than in the general population.

Studies over the past few years show that between 40% and 50% of children in the youth justice system have emotional or mental health issues. A study of youth offenders found that 23% had an IQ under 70, and 36% an IQ under 80. As has been mentioned, the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists found that 60% of children in the criminal justice system have a communication disability, and of that group, half have poor or very poor communication skills.

Some of those indicators are a result of deprivation, while others are clinical issues that need to be dealt with through appropriate interventions. They are not just drivers of offending or reoffending. The inability to deal with a complex and highly verbal youth justice system has driven many young people to act out, self-harm or worse. There may be a declining number of the most serious incidents and cases of self-harm that lead to death in custody, but each incident is a tragedy and, where it is preventable, we have a duty to act.

Hon. Members have mentioned some of the tools used to identify vulnerabilities found in young people in the criminal justice system. Asset, the Youth Justice Board’s tool for classifying young people and identifying vulnerabilities, has been rightly identified as lacking a suitable mechanism for isolating speech and language deficits. I am pleased, therefore, that when giving evidence to the Public Accounts Committee in January, the chief executive of the Youth Justice Board, John Drew, confirmed that a complete review of Asset is being undertaken to find a way to integrate speech and language components. In 2009, the previous Government commissioned a review of the entire YOT assessment, planning and supervision framework, which has been at work since January 2010.

Reviewing Asset is not the only way in which communication impairment should be taken into account. Two weeks ago, I was in Milton Keynes at the Oakhill secure training centre. Among others, I met Diz Minnitt, the speech and language portfolio holder for the Association of Youth Offending Team Managers and operational manager for the Milton Keynes youth offending team. They are at the forefront of the use of speech and language therapists, and they have an exceptional practice, focusing on prevention. They have halved the number of first-time entrants to the system in the past five years, and they have reduced the need for custodial disposals, far outstripping the national and regional rates of reduction.

There is a great deal of argument about what drives down crime, but I am firmly of the view that dealing with difficulties such as speech and language problems, so that young people can fully engage with deterrence and offender management programmes, is a big component of driving down first-time offending and reoffending. But here we come to the problem—future funding. We know that the Ministry of Justice faces one of the biggest cuts of any Department—23%—but I saw in Children & Young People Now magazine today that John Drew has said that the Youth Justice Board is preparing to distribute 29% less in Government funding to YOTs compared with last year. He is quoted as saying:

“There are a couple of YOTs saying it is going to be exceptionally difficult to maintain a basic YOT…Inevitably it will mean fewer resources on the ground to discharge a range of responses.”

He concludes that

“it will be really difficult to have as much success as we have enjoyed over the last two to three years”.

It is not just YOTs that are affected. Kamini Gadhok, chief executive of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, has said:

“News of cuts being made to speech and language therapy services in YOIs”—

young offenders institutions—

“is a deeply disturbing and regressive policy. Communication is an essential skill that is vital for the rehabilitation of offenders.

The delivery of speech and language therapy has been shown to reduce reoffending rates by as much as 50 per cent, which in turn reduces costs to the taxpayer.”

The hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys may confirm from his visit to Hindley what I believe is the case there—that the only full-time speech and language therapist post is being scrapped, which is a retrogressive step. The Minister needs to deal with that point when he responds for the Government. We have some excellent schemes throughout the country, but they are under threat. What will the Government do to ensure that they are at least preserved, if not enhanced, over the next few years?

The third sector, social enterprises, YOTs and the secure estate are all under pressure from sharply declining central and local revenues. If there is a massive contraction of youth justice funding, it may lead to a decline in the system’s efficacy, a rise in crime and the failure of schemes that, if fully funded, would probably have succeeded. If a scheme can reduce first-time offending, reduce reoffending, reduce the prison population and reduce our expenditure, should we really be reducing that scheme? That is the lesson from the report published today by the community or custody inquiry, although it does not deal exclusively with youth justice. A very high-powered panel concludes that some of the existing innovative schemes for intensive community punishments as alternatives to custody may be at risk, let alone the expansion in such schemes that the Government wish to see.

I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber agree that we do not want more children slipping through the net and being condemned to spiral down within the criminal justice system. Those who have been involved with youth justice for some time will know that we have been here before. I shall quote a passage from Hansard from 18 years ago, almost to the day. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who as Home Secretary was responsible for youth justice then as he is again now as Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, was defending himself against an attack by the then hon. Member for Sedgefield, the shadow Home Secretary. Following that, the then hon. Member for Lewisham, East read to him a letter written by a youth worker in Lewisham:

“‘I find it at least ironic and at worst callously indifferent to hear members of the Government and Ministers bemoaning the lack of social responsibility among young people and expressing concerns about juvenile crime, when the consequence of their policies on local government spending is that something as worth while as the Young Lewisham project is forced to close.’”—[Official Report, 2 March 1993; Vol. 220, c. 148.]

I fear that many more letters like that will be written because of the cuts, not just in MOJ funding but in local government funding and in other areas. Although the aims of the justice Green Paper are commendable in many respects, ruthless spending cuts will lead to a diminution of capacity and systemic failures and undermine the very sensible case that the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys and other right hon. and hon. Members have advocated today. I fear that if those cuts are combined with the cuts referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham in Sure Start, youth clubs and the education maintenance allowance, our most vulnerable young people face a bleak future.