Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

David Ward Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Valerie Vaz]

I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend, who has taught me more than he will ever realise. He has in common with the Lord Chancellor the fact that they both attended the very eminent lawyers’ college, Gonville and Caius.

I saw cases from both sides—tenants and local authorities—and it was very important for people to be able to access legal advice. More and more parents are now resorting to the use of lawyers to get their children into the school of their choice. If they can afford it, that is fine, but what if they just want basic advice on how to attend an appeal? That is very important for parents who cannot afford lawyers.

By happy coincidence, I acted in Hammersmith and Fulham v. Monk, a case that went straight to the House of Lords—at the time, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) was a very good deputy leader of the council—because it involved an important question of principle. Could one of two joint tenants sever the tenancy by serving a notice to quit on the landlord? The result of that case was that we could rehouse women who were victims of domestic violence and retain the property involved. Mr Monk was legally aided, and it was important that that principle was decided by the House of Lords.

Another local authority wanted to settle the same question, and legal aid was available in that case too, but I took the decision that it would be sufficient for only one case to go forward, so lawyers do put brakes on extensive costs. I have had the privilege of litigating on behalf of the Government and, as the House will know, we have one of the finest judiciaries in the world. Judges can keep account of costs and they do not allow lawyers to go on and on and run up costs, but they also have to take their time when a litigant in person is appearing before them. There are also other ways to reduce costs, such as the Littlewoods clause. If someone has received legal aid and then come into money—by winning the pools, for example—the Government can claw back the money. Judges can also make a wasted costs order against lawyers who waste time in court.

I am a member of the Health Committee and we investigated clinical negligence, which now costs the state £800 million, whereas if it had stayed within the scope of legal aid it would cost only £17 million. That is a huge difference, and I wish the Government would think again. Even the NHS Litigation Authority said:

“The reduction in availability of public funding for clinical negligence claims and the corresponding rise in Conditional Fee Arrangements, backed by After the Event insurance, has also contributed very significantly to the cost of litigation”.

Who can get legal aid? That is a very important question and I have three examples of why that is so. The LSC gave legal aid to the Nepalese Gurkhas, and we know how that turned out. It was a very important principle concerning people who had fought and died for their country. It gave legal aid to Sean Hodgson, who was wrongly convicted and was freed after 27 years. It also gave legal aid to Colin Ross, a cancer patient who won a battle in the High Court for life-saving drug treatment that could give him an extra three years of life. Mr Ross received legal aid to challenge a decision by West Sussex PCT to refuse funding for the drug he wanted.

In the recent case of W v. M, S and an NHS primary care trust, Mr Justice Baker said:

“Given the fundamental issues involved in cases involving the withdrawal of ANH”—

artificial nutrition and hydration—

“it is alarming to the court that public funding has not been available to members of the family to assist them in prosecuting their application. In the event, the applicant’s team has acted pro bono throughout the hearing and during much of the very extensive preparation.”

That goes to the heart of what legal aid is all about. It is important to test legal principles. That is what judges are for, and it forms part of the checks and balances on the Executive. The late Lord Bingham called the rule of law

“an ideal worth striving for”.

The same sentiment applies to access to justice, so that we remain a United Kingdom. I urge the Government to think again about these divisive proposals.

[Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)]

We have heard some naughty stuff from the Opposition. I remember serving on a Public Bill Committee shortly after I arrived in the House. Now, I am a lad from Bradford, and we have this strange practice in Bradford: when we agree with something we vote for it, and when we disagree with something we vote against it. I went into Committee, and of course people soon told me, “That’s not the way you do it. If something comes from the other side, even if it’s a good amendment, you simply don’t accept it.” [Hon. Members: “Name them!”] I understand that that was common practice in the previous Parliament. [Hon. Members: “Name them!”] That is a tad nosey.

I am not a lawyer, but many, many people have come through my constituency door who desperately need, but cannot afford, a lawyer. I have serious concerns about these proposals, and I am very much in favour of new clause 17. Another thing that I quickly learnt when I came here was that there were unintended consequences. I had never heard of those before, to be honest, but I soon realised that when something goes wrong a bit later in the day—six months or a year later, perhaps—we say, “Well, it was unintended consequences.” That is basically a euphemism for, “We got it wrong.” In Bradford, we say, “We made a bad decision.”

Often we make bad decisions—that is the way of it—but, when we analyse why we are making bad decisions, often we find that it is because we failed to gather information or consult. Well, we have consulted on this, and we have a body of evidence. I thank the Liberal Democrat Lawyers Association for the information that it provided for us—no doubt other groups have provided information for other Members—and I am also grateful for the information from Citizens Advice. In particular, there are the case studies. Let us consider the consequences of the proposals. We can all look into the future and guess, but there are examples—case studies—of people receiving legal aid who simply will not receive it if these proposals go through. I am speaking for five or 10 minutes and could give hon. Members a couple of examples, but if I spoke for 20 minutes I could give three or four more; if I spoke for an hour I could give a dozen, and if I stayed here for a week I could give hundreds of case studies, one after another, of people who would be badly affected by the proposals.

We have received valuable information from the Law Society about the fictitious nature of the savings. They just will not be generated. In fact the proposals will probably add to costs in many ways. I am seriously concerned that, given the body of evidence available, including the huge number of case studies and examples from our constituencies, the consequences will not be unintended. These will be intended consequences; what will happen will be what the Government intended to happen. Various suggestions have been made of alternative measures that people could take—for example, they could represent themselves, or seek support from advice services—but the overall intention is that people will just go away. They will not be supported—but they will not go away, will they? Their problems will remain, and will probably get more serious, and indeed more costly.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is worth reminding the House of the costs of taking a case under the legal aid scheme? A welfare benefits case costs £164. That is what the agency gets for dealing with it. It is £200 for a debt case and £174 for a housing case—and I believe that those costs have been cut by 10% from 1 August. These are not high-cost cases; this is extremely good value for money.

[Mr Ward]

Absolutely. I actually deleted some of my speech because of the figures that the hon. Lady quoted earlier, which highlighted my point about the fictitious nature of the cuts, the costs and the value for money to the public purse.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The hon. Gentleman is making an important point. Let us consider the parallel of immigration law. If individuals do not have access to a lawyer to deal with an immigration case they go to an immigration adviser, who might end up, over a period, getting a great deal of money out of them, often almost by coercion, in return for very bad advice that often results in disaster. The legal aid process means that people get qualified lawyers giving sensible intelligent advice, which will save us all a great deal more money in the future.

[Mr Ward]

Absolutely. I have come across some pretty scary cases involving several hundred pounds of single-sheet letters from lawyers, but I have had no joy in trying to bring them to the attention of the Law Society. The hon. Gentleman is right. The present system represents good value for money to the public purse.

[Lyn Brown]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is being very generous. Community Links, an amazing voluntary organisation in my constituency, provides welfare and benefit advice and is funded, in part, by legal aid. A 10% cut in its fees will jeopardise any remaining advice that it can provide, because it already subsidises the legal aid fees coming in. I presume that he has had the same experience in Bradford.

[Mr Ward]

Absolutely. We have talked about the evidence, but it is almost so overwhelming that we must begin to wonder what is behind this. What on earth is going on here?

[Karl Turner]

Come over!

[Mr Ward]

Hang on.

An answer that I have been given is that this is all in the coalition agreement.

[Karl Turner]

Come over!

[Mr Ward]

Hang on.

Occasionally I try to abide by the coalition agreement, but this is not in there. There is in the coalition agreement something about the deficit reduction, and I am up for that—we do desperately need to reduce it—but I am not convinced that this will contribute to that. It is a very dangerous thing if we are going to use deficit reduction as a justification for almost anything that we might do. We have to question what we are doing.

[Karl Turner]

rose—

[Mr Ward]

I need to bring my speech to an end. Others need to speak.

One thing that the coalition agreement does say is that we should have a fundamental review of legal aid. I am up for that. Absolutely. Where is it? Why on earth are we taking these measures? The Business, Innovation and Skills Committee is due to undertake a debt management review, and there are a series of other reviews looking at advice centres and the work that they do. We should do that first.

[Karl Turner]

rose—

[Mr Ward]

Oh, go on then.

[Karl Turner]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is making a powerful speech on behalf of his constituents, and he is also speaking for many Opposition Members. Has he thought about crossing the Floor and joining us?

[Mr Ward]

I tell you what: I promise to do so once we have sorted out the mess you left us in. I shall come across then, because it will just be so much easier—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is using the word “you”, but as he knows, that refers to me. Could he please refrain from using that word?

[Mr Ward]

I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Someone once told me that the world is divided into two groups of people. There are those who, when they see somebody walking down the street with a walking stick, believe in kicking the stick away because it will make that person stronger, and there are those who believe that if they kick away the stick, the person will just fall over. We are in grave danger of making some of those who are, by definition, the most vulnerable in our society fall over, and we will still have to be there to pick them up, at even greater cost to the public purse. It does not make sense; we should not do it.

[Karl Turner]

I of course support new clause 17, standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue). However, I will restrict my remarks to amendment 116, standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) and those of many Lib Dem Members, for what it is worth. Clause 12 will effectively provide for means-testing in the police station. I have many concerns about that from my experience as a lawyer. I have practised criminal law as a solicitor for many years—indeed, my wife is a qualified criminal duty solicitor—and shortly before the general election I joined my local chambers as a pupil barrister. I therefore come to this debate with some experience as a criminal lawyer.

I want briefly to talk about the practical difficulties of means-testing people in a police station. Let us imagine the situation—it happened last weekend, in fact. My wife’s pager goes off. It is three o’clock in the morning. She spends the next six hours in Priory Road police station, representing a young man who is suspected of very serious criminal offences. She is not in a position to go through the paperwork or CDS—criminal defence service—application form to make a claim for legal aid in that situation. What the client wants to know is: “How long am I going to be here?”, “What are the consequences if I’m charged?”, “What will happen if I end up appearing before the magistrates court?” and, at the end of the day, “What will happen if I am convicted?” The question is not: “How much do you earn?” That is the last thing that the client will want to put their mind to. Indeed, the solicitor in attendance would not be acting in a proper way if they asked that question. I firmly believe that everybody should be entitled to free and independent legal advice while in a police station. It is a fundamental right in a democratic society, and to remove it would be a huge mistake.

I have spoken briefly about the practicalities, but it is also important to spend a moment thinking about what used to happen. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) mentioned the green form. Yesterday evening I spoke to a solicitor who has been around long enough to remember the days of the green form. He told me that he used to send his secretary, or anybody in the office who was available. Things have changed for the better. People need to be qualified; they have to attend courses. I remember doing them: I did not like it very much at the time, but I went along, I paid the money—or the people who employed me did—I did the homework, I passed the examinations and I carried on with my CPD, or continuing professional development.

I did that because when I am called to a police station as a solicitor, it is important that I know what consent means in relation to an allegation of rape. It is important that I can explain what defences might be available. It is important that I have enough knowledge and experience to be able to say to a client, “It’s in your best interests to speak to the police,” or, “In my professional opinion, it’s not in your best interests to speak to the police.” We must not think that everybody who attends at a police station is guilty of a terrible crime. In my experience the contrary is true. The vast majority of detainees in police stations are either not charged, released on bail pending further inquiries, or, if they are charged, acquitted. A minority of cases make their way to the courtroom and end in a conviction. Everybody is entitled to access to a solicitor. It is a fundamental right, which, in my opinion, this Government are putting at risk.

I should mention the situation before the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Hon. Members have touched on it, but we had the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four—great miscarriages of justice—and we learned from that. I think I am right in saying that the current Lord Chancellor was responsible for the 1984 Act, which was the right thing to introduce. Before PACE was introduced, people were making “confessions” that it later transpired were not proper confessions at all. It is important to remember that time. Miscarriages of justice cost the country an awful lot of money, but it is not just about money; it is about the effect on society when people can be convicted for something that they did not do and when they were nowhere near the scene. That seems appalling and very short-sighted.

Another concern for me is adverse inferences from silence. I have not looked at case law recently, but eminent barristers on both sides of the House will be familiar with it. The most recent case I am aware of is Murray v. UK. If my memory serves me correctly—I admit I have read only a summary of the court case—it says that a jury could not be invited to hold an inference against a person’s silence in the police station if that person was prevented from seeking legal advice in that police station. I believe that this is one of the unintended consequences that the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) spoke about.

Let us imagine this scenario. A solicitor turns up at a police station to see a client and quickly establishes that the client has enough money to be able to pay for his own legal advice. Acting quite properly in the best interests of my client, I would say, “Keep your mouth shut.” I would tell the client to say absolutely nothing. I cannot afford to hang around because I am not getting paid and I am not sure that I will be paid even if the client makes an undertaking and assures me that the money will be brought to the firm of solicitors for which I work at some point in the future. I would probably be thinking, “I’m going. I’m not going to get any disclosure from the police, but in the best interests of my client I am going to tell him or her to keep their mouth firmly shut.” That provides an opportunity at some point in the future for that suspect effectively to make up their defence. It removes a valuable tool for the judiciary and the jury to decide whether they think an inference should be made from the client’s silence at the police station. This is a massive mistake.

This Government have not consulted on this proposal in clause 12. From a sedentary intervention I told the Minister earlier that it was probably written on the back of a fag packet. With respect, I think it probably was. There has been absolutely no consultation. I have spoken to many solicitors who have said that this proposal just came out of the blue. Nobody expected this. The Law Society was shocked. I have had meetings with the Bar Council and the Law Society, and they have told me that they did not expect this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

I support everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) said from the Front Bench about the cuts in welfare rights, and I also agree with the comments by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). I shall not reiterate everything that they said as time is short, but I want to address clause 12 and ask the Minister to remove it from the Bill.

Before I go into the reasoning behind that request, I have a general caveat. What I am about to say is not a criticism of police officers. In all professions and walks of life there are people who do not do their jobs properly and have mala fide motives. Section 52 of PACE, which was introduced in 1984 by a Conservative Government, gave people arrested at a police station the right to see a solicitor of their choosing. As hon. Members may remember, that particular piece of legislation came about because of several riots over the sus laws, and Lord Scarman was asked by the then Government to investigate the cause of those riots.

In those days, under the old sus laws, the police could stop anyone walking on the street without any justification and without having to show reasonable cause. Inevitably, a lot of the people stopped were young men of Afro-Caribbean origin in London and young men from working-class backgrounds in the rest of the country. As a result of Lord Scarman’s inquiry and investigation, the then Conservative Government passed that piece of legislation, which, generally, was a good one that brought us up to date with many other countries with similar economies to ours and with what we could call western democratic institutions. We would be hard-pressed to find, in any of those countries, a defendant at a police station being denied the right to free legal advice. Taking away that right will almost put us back three centuries. It is not compatible with modern, 21st-century Britain and its place in the world.

We talk about saving money, but more money is saved when people are advised properly at a police station. I agree with the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Simon Reevell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner). From the prosecution and defence perspective, they talked about how such advice should be allowed. As someone who has both prosecuted and defended for the past 20-odd years, I think that access to legal representation at a police station is not only the fair, right and proper thing for a civilised society, such as ours, to do, but in the long term it saves money. It avoids unnecessary not-guilty pleas and saves unnecessary time going to court and prosecuting people. If people are spoken to by a solicitor, often—in most cases, I would say—solicitors advise their clients correctly. In my experience, if there is evidence against clients, the solicitors and lawyers tend to advise people to plead guilty. This proposal, therefore, will not save money, but waste more money. If the argument is about economy, I would have to point out that it is a false economy.

I shall give an example involving the Crown Prosecution Service. Following the Narey review, which looked into why so many cases going to court were leading to acquittals, Crown prosecutors started going into police stations, looking at cases and working with the police in order to speed up the criminal process. As a result of that direct input by lawyers at the beginning of the criminal prosecution system, the number of cases going for not-guilty pleas has been reduced and many more people now plead guilty.

I also want to mention the disclosure system, which was introduced under a fantastic piece of legislation brought in, again, by a Conservative Government—the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996. Prior to that, we had a system under which some police officers and police forces withheld material evidence in criminal cases, leading to many miscarriages of justice. The new disclosure regime came into being to deal with that and, as a result, everything now has to be disclosed.

Those were Conservative Government policies, which is why I am so surprised that the Government have proposed clause 12. It will not save any money, but there is a more fundamental point. The worst thing that a person can face is being arrested, detained, taken to a police station—often a very hostile environment—and having no one to speak to who understands the procedures. This proposal will remove a fundamental right.

Despite our financial difficulties, we are still a rich nation in comparison with the rest of the world. When I worked for the United Nations Mission in Kosovo, I helped to deal with criminal justice issues, and one of the first things we did when we got the system up and running was to draft—I was involved in it—the regulation of access to a lawyer for a person arrested by the police. That was 11 years ago in a country that had suffered 10 or 12 years of civil unrest. Its institutions were not working properly and it was financially not very solvent, but even there, 11 years ago, this particular provision was brought in because it was recognised that a person who is arrested and taken to a police station must have independent legal advice.

[Mr Ward]

Does the hon. Lady not think it quite telling that although we had intervention after intervention from those on the Government Benches last night when it was argued that existing legislation allowed action to be taken against squatters, we have had no interventions today to explain why we are wrong about clause 12 or new clause 17, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue)?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that observation, and I agree with him.

I shall conclude my remarks, because I know that we want to get on to the next piece of business. My fundamental plea is this: please do not take away the right to legal advice at a police station.