Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Jonathan Djanogly Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1B.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to consider the Government motion to disagree with Lords amendments 2B and 196B, the Government motion to insist on its disagreement with Lords amendment 31, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.

[Mr Djanogly]

As you have reminded the House, Lords amendment 1B, dealing with the statutory duty for legal aid, impinges on the financial privileges in this House. I should also say that my interests remain as I declared at the last stage of ping-pong on 17 April. I ask the House to disagree to this amendment, and I will ask the Reasons Committee to ascribe financial privilege as the reason for doing so.

Let me first address Lords amendment 31, which concerns the sensitive and important issue of mesothelioma, in the light of the amendment we have tabled. I should emphasise at the start that the Government take very seriously the plight of mesothelioma victims and do not believe that mesothelioma cases are being brought inappropriately. We should appreciate that the issue in mesothelioma cases is not so much causation as process. In effect, the challenge for the Government, employers and insurers is how we ensure that we have procedures in place that enable sufferers to receive compensation more quickly and without the stress of having to pursue protracted litigation.

Much has been done by recent Governments to improve the position of mesothelioma sufferers when the employer’s insurer can be traced. There is now also a consensus that more needs to be done in respect of sufferers who cannot trace their employer’s insurer. Let me be clear that the Government are committed to action on that point. We are working closely with insurers and other stakeholders on this pressing issue with a view to making an announcement before the House rises in July.

I have considered very carefully the points that have been made both in debates in the House last week and the other place last night. We have also held ministerial meetings with campaigners on behalf of mesothelioma victims, including with Lord Alton, the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch).

The Jackson reforms in part 2 of the Bill are due to come into effect in April next year. We have reviewed that timetable in the context of mesothelioma. On careful reflection about the special position of mesothelioma sufferers, I can now give the House the assurance that we will not commence the relevant provisions in clause 43, on success fees, and clause 45, on after-the-event insurance, in respect of mesothelioma claims in April next year. Rather, we will implement the clauses in respect of those claims at a later date, once we are satisfied on the way forward for those who are unable to trace their employer’s insurer. The amendment commits the Lord Chancellor to carrying out a review of the likely effect of the clauses in relation to mesothelioma proceedings and to publish a report before those clauses are implemented.

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

The concession that the Government are making goes some way to dealing with the concerns that many on both sides of the House have expressed in relation to mesothelioma, but it does not deal with the point raised in the other place by Lord Thomas yesterday, which was that success fees should not be claimed in such cases because liability is not in issue. What will the Government do about that?

[Mr Djanogly]

As I have said, this is not an issue of causation. I heard Lord Thomas speak in the other place yesterday, and I very much agree with what he had to say, which was essentially that in cases in which causation is not an issue, there is—in many respects—no reason why solicitors should have a success fee for that type of work. But the Opposition have made their case, as have others, and the Government have to deal with things as they stand. That is why we are offering to make this concession, but it is a time-limited concession only. The overall Jackson reforms stand as our preferred way to move forward.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for having listened closely to the debate last week and to the debate in the House of Lords. But is it not the case that this legislation facilitates a solicitor recovering a success fee from the client’s damages, and that if this legislation did not proceed, that could not happen?

[Mr Djanogly]

No. The hon. Gentleman rather distorts the implications of the legislation. We are capping success fees, which are currently 100%, at 25%.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

On the point about the delay until the review has been undertaken, is that merely a delay or is it a genuine review? If it is a review, what will it consider and will he give an indication of its timetable?

[Mr Djanogly]

Given the timing of this development, we have not thought through the exact procedures of the review, but it will certainly be undertaken before we move to ending the provisions that remain.

We now come to the amendment in lieu passed by the other place in respect of clause 1, and what has been described as a purpose clause. It was suggested variously in the other place yesterday that this amendment would have no effect; that it would have some effect, although that effect was not entirely clear; and that it would have a future effect in guiding successive Lord Chancellors when consideration was being given to what services might be added to the scope of legal aid under clause 8(2).

The difficulty the other place has so far had in establishing the precise effect of the amendment is instructive as this House decides whether it should stand. A duty with an uncertain effect is desirable neither in legislative terms nor for the person attempting to discharge that duty. However, it is the Government’s view that the effects of this duty can be described and are highly undesirable. The amendment would remove the uncontroversial, unambiguous duty the Bill places on the Lord Chancellor to ensure that legal aid is made available according to part 1 of the Bill. This made a clear link between the duty and legal aid. In terms of a clear duty, it does not get much clearer than this. However, the amendment would not only remove that but would replace it with a duty that would bring ambiguity and uncertainty. It refers to “legal services” rather than “legal aid”.

The argument was also made in the other place that the amendment had no effect other than to underline the Government’s commitment to the principle of access to justice. We contend that the imposition of any duty on the Lord Chancellor in legislation must create in law a potential course of action through challenges to the discharge of that duty. If it is accepted that the imposition of such a duty must give rise to a potential course of action, the amendment’s effect must be to bring into question the range of services provided under the Bill. The matter would then turn on the question of which legal services meet people’s needs. That contrasts with the clear and unambiguous duty in clause 1(1) requiring the Lord Chancellor to

“secure that legal aid is made available in accordance with”

part 1.

The Government believe that the question of which legal services meet people’s needs is not relevant to the Bill. Schedule 1 lists the services that Parliament, following consideration of first principles and extensive consultation, believes it appropriate to make available under legal aid. To reopen that question via an ongoing duty would frustrate our intention to bring certainty and clarity to the scope of services funded by legal aid. The amendment would result in only one thing: numerous expensive judicial reviews—more than likely at taxpayers’ expense as the boundaries of the new duty are tested and because the question of which services should be provided would be reopened.

It was said yesterday in the other place that such JR applications would almost certainly fail, and that consequently there would be no cost implications to the amendment. However, even rejected applications have an inherent cost: lawyers are paid legal aid fees for their work up to that point and the Government pay their own lawyers to defend such cases.

I would also like to address the argument put forward in the other place about the amendment’s effect in guiding future Lord Chancellors. It seems novel to include in the Bill an overriding duty that activates when the Lord Chancellor considers adding a service or services to the scope of legal aid. I am not convinced this is possible, and I am certain it is unhelpful. Adding services to the Bill requires the affirmative approval of both Houses. Such a process will be more than adequate to ensure that the Lord Chancellor takes account of the relevant factors when considering what, if any, services should be added to the scope of legal aid.

I emphasise, however, as Lord McNally did in the House of Lords yesterday, that the Bill’s present form arises from extensive debate and consideration across both Houses and reflects decisions about the future nature of legal aid. In short, the amendment is incompatible with the Bill. It would muddy both the duty to which the Lord Chancellor is subject and the scope of services that might be funded.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

I am not arguing that the House should agree to the Lords amendment, but the Minister will know, as the Lord Chancellor does, that I have asked that the Government consider bringing immigration matters—whether onward appeals by judicial review or when a judge gives permission for a case to go to a higher court—back within the scope of legal aid. Will he put on the record the response to that plea, which I have made to the Lord Chancellor and him several times?

[Mr Djanogly]

My right hon. Friend finds the right moment to ask about something not subject to the amendment. It is an important point, however. My right hon. and learned Friend has written to him about onward appeals in immigration cases. The Department will conduct a review of the impacts of withdrawing legal aid in such cases once we have sufficient data and after implementation of the reforms. I envisage allowing about a year for the reforms to take effect before starting such a review.

Lords amendment 2 was passed in the other place yesterday by the extremely narrow margin of three votes. Unusually for this topic, no one spoke other than the mover and my right hon. Friend Lord McNally. That indicates how far we have moved. I remind the House of the main points. First, and crucially, legal aid to obtain the full range of injunctions and orders to protect against domestic violence will remain exactly as at present. There is no evidential gateway for legal aid for these remedies, and those who need legal aid to protect themselves can get it, regardless of their means.

Secondly, although we have removed most of private family law from the scope of legal aid in favour of funding mediation and less adversarial proceedings, we have made an extremely important exception for victims of domestic violence. That is so that they can take or defend proceedings about child contact or maintenance, or about the division of property, without being intimidated by their abuser during the proceedings.

We have made significant changes to the detail of this exception in response to concerns expressed in both Houses. We have accepted in full the Association of Chief Police Officers’ definition of domestic violence. We have also significantly widened the list of evidence that we will accept as demonstrating domestic violence for the purposes of the exception. That list will now include undertakings, police cautions, evidence of admission to a refuge, evidence from social services and evidence from GPs and other medical professionals. That is in addition to the range of evidence that had already been confirmed, including the fact of an injunction or order to protect against domestic violence having been made, a criminal conviction or ongoing criminal proceedings for domestic violence, a referral to a multi-agency risk assessment conference and a finding of fact by the courts that there has been domestic violence. We have also doubled the previously announced time limit for evidence for this exception from 12 months to two years.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

We all noted the Lord Chancellor’s commitment in the Chamber last week to extending the time limit to two years. Will the Minister clarify whether that will also apply in cases of child abuse, which seem to be encompassed by the definition of domestic violence that now applies in the Bill? Clarification would be welcome on that, as there are clearly instances in which proceedings might be brought in relation to child abuse after more than 12 months, including in care proceedings, in which it would be entirely appropriate to grant legal aid.

[Mr Djanogly]

Yes, I am pleased to be able to confirm to the hon. Lady that that is the case.

We think that we have struck the right balance, although some will disagree. However, such disagreement misses the fact that there are two important safeguards to our system, which will provide genuine victims with a route into legal aid even if they do not have the headline forms of evidence. First, when a court has to consider whether domestic violence is a factor in a private family case, it may consider any relevant evidence, including police call-outs or evidence from domestic violence support services, or other types of evidence that have not even been suggested by the Opposition. This is also relevant in regard to the time limits. When a case involves older incidents of domestic violence and a court considers that the matter is still relevant and makes a finding of fact, legal aid funding could still be triggered. There is also the more generic safeguard of the exceptional funding regime.

We continue to believe that the evidential requirements should not be in the Bill. The level of detail required means that those requirements will be much better left to regulations, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, rather than to primary legislation. Given how far we have moved on this topic, and the safeguards that I have outlined today, I invite the House to disagree with Lords amendments 2B and 196B.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

I shall try to keep my comments short, as I know that a number of colleagues wish to speak in the debate. The Bill sustained 11 defeats on Report in the Lords, which is a record for this Parliament, and a further three yesterday. The Government need to show some humility when they have suffered 14 defeats, and I am pleased that we have seen some evidence of that today.

It is still unclear why the Government are so resistant to Lords amendment 1B. They have given different reasons on different days for their opposition to Lord Pannick’s amendment. A statement of legislative purpose is frequently included in legislation of this nature. Lord Pannick’s drafting of the amendment would result in a statement of purpose within the financial limits set out in the Bill. The key question is whether there should be a duty on the Lord Chancellor to take into account citizens’ needs before making arrangements for legal aid provision. The amendment has been drafted with reference to the financial resources available, and would therefore not incur further expense for the Government. The Government cannot have it both ways. They say that the amendment replicates provisions that are already in place, and that it is therefore unnecessary. They also say that it would add to Government expenditure. We will be voting against the Government on Lords amendment 1B.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sadiq Khan]

What my hon. Friend has said echoes some of the powerful speeches that were made last week.

It is worth bearing in mind that the progress that has been achieved is due to work done by Members in all parts of both Houses. We welcome the concessions that have been made today, we welcome the pause, and we approach the amendment in good faith. For reasons that we appreciate, the details could not be fleshed out today, but we assume that there will be an independent assessment of the evidence gathered during the due diligence phase.

We hope that the review will consider the impact on victims’ damages. According to some, they will increase by up to 10% as a result of the Government’s proposals, but others disagree, and we expect the review to look into that.

[Mr Djanogly]

It would, in fact, be a matter for the judges who would apply the 10% increase, rather than for the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), who has played a brave and important role in discussions over recent days. I pay tribute to her for that. In relation to Lords amendment 31 and amendment (a) in lieu, the whole House is rightly paying tribute to Lord Alton and his supporters in another place for raising the issue in the first instance and for then persisting in their opposition to what the Government have until now been proposing in the Bill.

I also want to thank Lord McNally and Lord Freud for the constructive approach that they took in a meeting that I attended with Lord Alton last week, and in the days since. I welcome the concession that the Minister is offering this afternoon, and I appreciate that he cannot go into great detail about any proposals, which he said he hoped the Government would be able to bring forward before the summer recess. However, I can tell the House that his ministerial colleagues made it clear in the meeting I attended that they are striving to negotiate and implement a system of compensation and support for mesothelioma victims that is swifter and more sympathetic than the one currently in place. I am sure that the whole House would want to encourage them in their endeavours.

Whether amendment (a) in lieu is sufficient will depend entirely on the answers to a number of questions. In particular—this has already been raised—what will the extent and conduct of the review be? Crucially, how will the commencement of the relevant provisions of the Bill be aligned with the proposals that the Department for Work and Pensions hopes to publish before the summer recess? I would be happy to take an intervention from the Minister if he wishes to make a clear commitment this afternoon that he will not seek to implement the relevant provisions in the Bill unless and until an improved system of compensation is in place.

[Mr Djanogly]

I do not want to give any binding commitments about the process today, because things have not been finalised. However, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that if the process is to be improved by the Department for Work and Pensions, which we hope it will be—he will have some insight into our proposals from the discussions he has had—that could well require DWP legislation, in which case we would look to roll the ending of the provisions into the commencement of the DWP provisions. That is how I foresee the process now, but again, I am not making that a commitment.

[Paul Goggins]

I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful intervention, because if there is to be legislation to introduce the new system, there will have to be full parliamentary scrutiny of those proposals in both Houses.

It has been a privilege and a pleasure to support Lord Alton in his efforts to protect mesothelioma victims. He has asked me to say that he is grateful for the cross-party support he has received from this House, and that, along with other Members of both Houses, he awaits with interest the outcome of the review and the details of the new compensation scheme. Above all, he is pleased that Parliament has acted to protect mesothelioma victims.

For my part, I am pleased that the Minister’s comments of last week—in particular that the families of dying mesothelioma victims should, and would, be watching the lawyers’ clock as fees mounted—have now been overtaken by an acceptance that mesothelioma victims are not part of a compensation culture and that they should not be expected to pay their lawyers a success fee out of their damages, and, finally, that through the amendment in lieu and other measures that will follow Parliament should continue to do all in its power to give mesothelioma sufferers the best possible help and support.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Jonathan Djanogly Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Lords amendments 3 and 4, Government motions to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.

Lords amendment 5.

Lords amendment 24, and Government motion to disagree.

[Mr Djanogly]

Lords amendments 1 and 24 impinge on the financial privilege of this House. I ask the House to disagree to them and will ask the Reasons Committee to ascribe financial privilege as the reason for doing so. Notwithstanding that, the House now has the opportunity to debate the substance and effect of the amendments, and shortly I will state the Government’s full reasons for rejecting them. Before I start, I remind the House of the statement that I made on Report on 31 October 2011 relating to my declaration of interests. It can be found at column 626 of Hansard, and I confirm today that it remains accurate. I ask the House to agree to the Government amendments in lieu of Lords amendments 3 and 4, which relate to the director of legal aid casework.

I turn to the Lords amendments. Access to justice is of fundamental importance to our legal system and to this Government, but our legal aid system is by any measure extremely expensive and sometimes prone to aggravating disputes unnecessarily by pushing them into the courtroom. The question for the Government has never been whether to reform it but how, and our approach is one with a principled basis of focusing scarce resources on the most urgent and serious cases while seeking a broader shift to earlier resolution of disputes. We have always been happy to accept amendments that deliver on those principles, so it should come as no surprise that the Bill is much revised. The Government have listened and made significant concessions, and I am grateful to the other place for its concern to improve the Bill.

In another place, Lords amendment 1, tabled by Lord Pannick, was said to identify the aims of the legal aid system in our society. It would place a duty on the Lord Chancellor, reflecting the provision in section 4(1) of the Access to Justice Act 1999, to secure within the resources made available and in accordance with part 1 of the Bill that individuals have access to legal services that meet their needs effectively. However, clause 1(1) already sets out a clear duty on the Lord Chancellor to ensure that legal aid is made available in accordance with part 1 of the Bill, so the Government are concerned that the amendment replicates what is already in place.

Worse than mere duplication, technical problems with the amendment risk muddying the waters, creating legal uncertainty and undermining the Bill’s clear purpose. Unlike the clear duty in clause 1(1), which relates to legal aid made available under part 1 of the Bill, with legal aid being defined in clause 1(2), Lords amendment 1 would impose a duty in relation to legal services. Despite the purported qualifications in the words in brackets, it can be read as imposing a wider duty on the Lord Chancellor than that intended under the Bill, in that it risks imposing a duty on him to fund legal services beyond the realm of legal aid provision.

We believe that there are potential additional costs attached to the amendment, which would create uncertainty. It runs contrary to the policy intention of creating certainty through the unambiguous description of services in schedule 1 and the clearly defined circumstances in which exceptional funding is available. Both the uncertainty that would be created and the possible costs are undesirable outcomes.

The problem with the amendment is that it conflates the two important but separate principles of access to justice and the provision of publicly funded legal advice. It could be understood in the context of the 1999 Act, which, because it was drafted on an exclusionary basis, specifies what services cannot be funded under civil legal aid but leaves rather vague exactly what the Lord Chancellor is responsible for funding. However, the Bill is carefully drafted on an inclusionary basis, which means that it is explicitly clear about what services can be funded, thereby representing Parliament’s view on services that should be provided under legal aid to meet people’s needs.

Lords amendment 1 risks providing the basis for myriad new legal challenges seeking to widen the scope of the Bill. The central purpose of our legal aid reforms is targeting resources where they really matter, not providing work for lawyers. We cannot accept an amendment that might prompt endless legal dispute and judicial review.

Lords amendments 3 and 4, which were tabled by Lord Pannick, and the Government’s Lords amendment 5 all concern the director of legal aid casework. Lords amendments 3 and 4 are born out of concern that the director’s decisions will be subject to political interference from Ministers. I reassure the House that the Government absolutely agree with Members of the other place that the Lord Chancellor should have absolutely no involvement in a decision about legal aid funding in an individual case. However, we ask the House to reject Lords amendments 3 and 4, because they would have the unwelcome effect of preventing the director from being appointed as a civil servant.

I must remind the House that we are abolishing the Legal Services Commission to improve the administration of legal aid, not to create greater fragmentation of responsibility and accountability.

Clause 4 provides protection to the director by creating, in clause 4(4), a statutory bar on the Lord Chancellor’s involvement in funding decisions by the director in individual cases. The Lord Chancellor may not give directions or guidance to the director about the carrying out of the director’s functions in relation to an individual case. In addition to that protection, the Bill imposes a duty on the Lord Chancellor to publish any guidance and directions that he issues to the director.

Lords amendment 5, which is a Government amendment, goes further by requiring the director to produce an annual report for the preceding financial year on the exercise of their functions during that period. That annual report will be laid before Parliament and published. We consider that further offer of transparency to be an important safeguard.

I am aware that the question of directorial independence was one that exercised the other place considerably. It is because we agree that that is a vital issue that we are happy to put the matter beyond doubt. That is why I am asking the House to agree to the Government amendment in lieu of Lords amendments 3 and 4. That will reinforce the protections already set out in clause 4(4) by requiring the Lord Chancellor to ensure that the director acts independently of the Lord Chancellor when applying directions and guidance given under clause 4(3) in relation to an individual case. That provides additional assurance on the director’s independence without compromising common-sense administrative arrangements designed to improve control and accountability.

Finally, Lords amendment 24 concerns the provision of advice over the telephone, on which I am afraid I cannot agree with many of the sentiments of the other place. The effect of amendment 24 would be to weaken a key measure to modernise the system and bring it up to date. The aim of the telephone gateway is to route access to legal aid, in the first instance, by the phone. That is not only much more efficient, enabling calls to be properly triaged, but simpler to access and generally of higher quality.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

Has the Minister done any studies on the effectiveness of telephone advice lines for people whose first language is not English?

[Mr Djanogly]

We have, and if one were to call the telephone hotline, one would be able to speak in any of 170 different languages, which is more languages than one would find used in a high street solicitor’s office.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

It is fine for hon. Members to use telephone hotlines, but what about those with mental illness, special educational needs, learning difficulties or no English? What will happen to ensure they get legal advice and do not give up before they can get anywhere?

[Mr Djanogly]

I confirm to my right hon. Friend that it will be possible for all such people to have face-to-face advice. If the people who take the call, who are expert in finding out whether a person needs face-to-face advice, feel that people need face-to-face advice, they will get it. I am not just speculating. We know that that is the case because a modern, phone-based service currently exists, namely the Ministry of Justice community legal advice helpline. Its record is one of excellent public service. In 2010-11, more than half a million calls were made to it. More than 90% of respondents to the last survey who subsequently received advice from the specialist service found it very helpful.

Concerns have been raised about accessibility. However, contrary to the claims of those opposed to the reforms, phone-based advice has been shown often to be more convenient and accessible than face-to-face advice, particularly benefiting those living in remote areas or those who have a physical disability.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

Will the Minister accept that currently, the CLS gateway is a choice—people can choose to use the phone system or to have face-to-face advice? For people under stress, who cannot bring themselves even to open an envelope with their bills in, face-to-face advice is often the most appropriate route.

[Mr Djanogly]

I simply disagree that face-to-face advice will be appropriate in all cases of disability—quite the opposite. In many cases, people with disability would prefer to use telephone advice.

Such advice is also high quality. Contrary to the assumption that face-to-face advice is always better, specialist telephone advice providers are currently required to meet higher standards than their face-to-face counterparts. That will continue under the new contracts required to implement the Bill.

Under our plans, an individual seeking advice will simply need to ring the community legal advice helpline. They will be greeted by a trained operator who will assess whether they are eligible for legal aid or not. Their goal will be to ensure that people get a high quality, accessible service that delivers the right help, either by transferring them to specialist telephone advice providers or face-to-face providers if telephone advice is not appropriate, or by signposting them to other possible support if their issue does not fall within the scope of the legal aid scheme.

[Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)]

We know from our own experience as Members of Parliament that many of our constituents insist on coming to see us in our offices and working face to face, because that is how they can best get across their grievances. Why are the Government insisting on denying people the right to see somebody face to face?

[Mr Djanogly]

In many cases the support that my hon. Friend’s constituents receive will be better received over the telephone than face to face. Crucially, the staff concerned will be trained not just to help the caller identify the nature of their problem, whether it is in scope and whether they qualify financially, but to assist with the prior issue of whether they need support in accessing the service. That could include the operator calling them back to reduce the cost of the call, a third party, such as an available family member, assisting the caller with the call, or a very good telephone translation service, if a person has limited or no spoken English. With 170 languages available, a better service will be delivered than someone could possibly get in a law firm’s offices.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

The hon. Gentleman said at the commencement of his remarks that this measure was about targeting resources a bit better. The Government’s impact assessment says that they might save between £1 million and £2 million under this unfortunate scheme. However, the cost will be three times that amount, in terms of people being let down, losing their homes, not being able to receive assistance, and so on, along with all the other problems that will flow from this. The cost will be far more than £1 million to £2 million.

[Mr Djanogly]

The right hon. Gentleman’s points go more to scope, which is not the subject of this debate, than the telephone service.

Some in the other place raised concerns about the gateway being mandatory and what that means for access by particular categories of vulnerable callers. However, that is precisely why we are applying the gateway in a limited number of areas—debt, discrimination and special educational needs—but not community care, which we have agreed should not be available initially. It is also why we are building in strong safeguards. Not only will there be an exemption for emergency cases, those in detention and under-18s, but even where a case is in scope and not in those groups, face-to-face advice will always be available where deemed to be required. Although those seeking advice in the three areas of law will be required initially to contact the helpline to apply for legal aid, callers eligible for legal aid who cannot give instructions or act on advice given over the telephone will be referred to face-to-face advice. I should also emphasise that, in response to concerns raised in another place, a review of the implementation of the mandatory gateway, including the operation of the gateway in the three areas of law, will be undertaken, and the report of that review will be published.

In all those areas—a duty to provide legal aid, the independence of the exceptional funding scheme and the operation of the gateway—the Government’s priority is to protect access to justice while modernising the service and ensuring that it is affordable. We agree with the need to underline the independence of a funding decision in an individual case. However, we cannot accept measures that would create legal confusion about what services the scheme provides, nor can we agree that it is unreasonable to ask claimants in three areas of law to access the service by the simple expedient of ringing a phone line—a modernisation entirely familiar from other walks of life.

I ask hon. Members to support the Government on all these amendments.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

We have the first set of knives at 5.30 pm, so we will have had less than 26 minutes to discuss the four amendments from the House of Lords in this group, and we will have less than five hours in total to discuss the 11 amendments passed in the other place—the 11 defeats for the Government.

Let me deal first with Lords amendment 1. This 23-word amendment was supported by a number of prestigious Members of the other House, for whom I have a great deal of respect. Some are Cross Benchers, some are members of the Justice Secretary’s party and some are members of my party. Many Government peers voted with Lord Pannick in the other place when he pressed the amendment to a Division, which was won with a majority of 45. The amendment was carefully drafted; indeed, I should point out that none of the technical deficiencies pointed out today was raised by Lord McNally when he responded in the other place.

The speakers in the debate in the other place included the former Leader of the House of Commons and former Cabinet colleague of the Justice Secretary, Lord Newton of Braintree, who sadly recently passed away. His last contribution in Parliament was on this Bill, and he spoke powerfully against many bits of part 1. I would like to echo the tremendous tributes that have been paid to him in the other place recently, as I am sure would all Members of all parties in the Chamber.

The Bill, as drafted, contains no duty on the Lord Chancellor to provide the services that the Bill permits. Lords amendment 1 would ensure that he had to meet the needs of citizens within “the resources available” and the scope of legal aid, as defined by the Bill. It would quite simply be a statement of legislative purpose at the outset of the Bill. The wording in the amendment has been included in legal aid statutes since the first Act in 1949. Even given the understandable budgetary constraints on the Government, a clause such as this would show that the Government recognised that legal aid was regarded as an essential element of access to justice. It would be modest and sensible, and it would not cost the taxpayer anything, but it would enshrine an important constitutional principle in part 1 of the Bill.

In fact, the amendment does not go as far as the House of Lords Constitution Committee wanted to go. Lord McNally stated:

“I also accept that the duty that the amendment would place on the Lord Chancellor would be qualified by the reference to the duty being subject both to the resources available and to the provisions of Part 1.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 March 2012; Vol. 735, c. 1569.]

It is therefore unclear how on earth the Government can claim financial privilege in relation to this amendment, or, more pertinently, why they are so unwilling to accept it. We shall oppose their attempt to overturn Lords amendment 1.

Lords amendment 24 seeks to ensure that the telephone gateway that the Government intend to create will not be mandatory, as proposed in the original Bill. This is important for many vulnerable groups, such as those with mental health issues or communication problems. The other place voted by a majority of 28 to support the amendment tabled by Baroness Grey-Thompson to remove the provision of a mandatory telephone gateway and the delivery of legal aid services exclusively by telephone. It is particularly disappointing that the Government are seeking to overturn this amendment as well. Without it, the Bill will give the Government wide powers to make legal aid services available exclusively by phone or other electronic means. For the avoidance of doubt, we accept that telephone advice might suit many people; we are not against its use. We are, however, against it being the only way of getting initial advice. This goes to the matter of access to justice, and the Government just do not get it.

It has been emphasised many times in our debates on social welfare law that it is often the most vulnerable in society who rely most on the support of social welfare—for example, those with learning difficulties, mental health issues or communication problems. Some in those groups already suffer from chaotic lives and find it hard to communicate complex, multi-faceted, challenging problems. I wonder how many of the Ministers on the Front Bench conduct their surgeries exclusively by telephone. Those people’s problems can be further compounded by having to explain them and seek advice over the telephone. Many do not have a landline, and others cannot afford the cost of using their mobile, with waiting time eating into their scarce credit.

The Government appear to agree with that. In response to a question about the impact assessment from my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), the Minister did not give the entire information. The Government’s own impact assessment highlighted the fact that the disabled, and those whose first language is not English, would find this a particularly hard way of engaging with the legal aid system. I fear that the result will be that many vulnerable people are deterred from seeking support.

--- Later in debate ---

Exception in respiratory (industrial disease or illness) cases

[Mr Djanogly]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 31.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendment 32, and Government motion to disagree.

[Mr Djanogly]

The Government recognise that mesothelioma is a truly terrible disease—a terminal illness that has a devastating impact on the families of its victims—and we are wholly committed to doing everything we can to help its victims to achieve justice and get the support that they deserve. The Lords amendments seeking to exempt mesothelioma and industrial disease cases from our reforms to no win, no fee agreements in part 2 of the Bill are not the right way to advance the cause of sufferers.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Djanogly]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give me a chance to put forward our opposition to the amendments.

First, the amendments are unnecessary. The legal climate in which mesothelioma cases can be brought has wholly changed in recent years, and nothing in our proposals should prevent cases from being taken or those affected from receiving appropriate damages. Secondly, in making an exception to our change to the no win, no fee conditional fee arrangements regime, the amendments would create inconsistency and damage the wider goal of our reforms—to restore sense to the costs of litigation, which have been substantially increased by the way in which no win, no fee cases operate, largely to the detriment of defendants.

[Ian Lucas]

How can appropriate damages be recovered by mesothelioma victims if a proportion of those damages is to be taken from them to cover the cost of legal fees?

[Mr Djanogly]

This is not a question of whether mesothelioma sufferers receive adequate legal support but of how much their lawyers get paid for providing it. We are saying that that must be more reasonably assessed, and that is the point of our reforms.

Let me remind hon. Members that the current regime of no win, no fee conditional fee agreements was meant to promote access to justice but has frequently ended up as something of a racket allowing risk-free litigation for claimants, inflated profits for legal firms, and punitive additional costs for defendants.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Can the Minister tell us of one case in which a mesothelioma sufferer has taken something to court that did not deserve to go there—one case in which a sufferer from this horrible disease, which leaves them dying in a horribly painful way, has in any way abused the system?

[Mr Djanogly]

Let me repeat what I said: this is not a question of whether the person making a claim has a valid claim but of how much his lawyer gets paid. That is what we are looking at, and that is where the system needs reform. To be clear—I say that because I have heard that some hon. Members are not clear about this specific point—I emphasise that under our proposals the client’s lawyer’s costs will still be recoverable from the losing other side.

However, clauses 46 and 48 abolish the recoverability of the success fees and insurance premiums that have pushed up prices for everyone.

[Helen Jones]

Is the Minister aware that the lead asbestos case was very complicated and took six years to get to the Supreme Court? Does he really think that lawyers will take those kinds of cases without an assurance that their costs will be met?

[Mr Djanogly]

As I have just said, lawyers’ costs will be met in the usual way. What we are talking about is the success fee. That is where the problem has come into the system.

[Helen Jones]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Djanogly]

No; if the hon. Lady listens, I will answer the question.

Our reforms are intended to redress the unfairness that exists in our civil litigation system between claimants and defendants. They will move conditional fee agreements back to the position that they were in before the Opposition’s disastrous reforms in the Access to Justice Act 1999. Our proposals are premised on the similar treatment of classes of cases, based on the costs or difficulty of bringing a claim. The Lords amendments would introduce a new unfairness between claimants, based only on the type of disease or illness, and essentially dependent on whether it was caused in the workplace.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

A number of my constituents who worked on the docks in Goole and in power stations have been affected by this illness. There seems to be a lot of confusion in this debate. For simplicity’s sake, will the Minister say whether my constituents who worked at the docks and who are suffering from this awful disease will receive more or less money in compensation under the Government’s proposals than they receive at the moment?

[Mr Djanogly]

That will depend on the arrangements that they make with their lawyers. Under the new system, for the first time since the Opposition’s reforms which did so much to create a compensation culture in our country, the client will have an interest in what their lawyer is being paid. Until we get back to that situation, there will be an ongoing ratcheting of costs, which is not in the interests of such claims.

The Opposition’s Lords amendments rate one sort of claim above another. Somehow, a mesothelioma claim is automatically more worthy than a personal injury claim. The Government simply do not accept that. I acknowledge the concern in the other place, which underpinned Lords amendments 31 and 32, that the new arrangements will prevent lawyers from being willing to take mesothelioma cases and leave claimants out of pocket, but I believe it to be mistaken.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The Minister says that a mesothelioma claim is not, by definition, more serious than a personal injury claim. That obviously depends on the personal injury claim. However, every single mesothelioma claim is a serious matter. Will he at least acknowledge that there is a difference between all mesothelioma claims and some personal injury claims?

[Mr Djanogly]

All non-clinical negligence personal injury cases, including respiratory disease claims, have been out of the scope of legal aid since 2000—let us acknowledge that—under changes introduced by the last Government. Although some expert reports may be required in respiratory disease cases, the Government are not persuaded that they differ substantially from other personal injury cases in a way that merits the retention of the recoverability of after-the-event insurance premiums.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister may be aware that Barrow is the constituency with the second highest number of mesothelioma suffers in the country. Does he not understand how insulting and potentially distressing it is to those sufferers to be branded as part of a compensation culture?

[Mr Djanogly]

As I said, this is a question of what lawyers get paid. I am in no way assessing the vulnerability of the individuals whom the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

I point out to the hon. Gentleman that significant steps have been taken in recent years to lower the barriers to bringing compensation claims for these disastrous diseases. A fast-track procedure for mesothelioma cases has been introduced in the High Court. Over the past few years, various legal changes, including primary legislation such as the Compensation Act 2006 and judgments of the Supreme Court, have removed many of the hurdles for sufferers of respiratory diseases in bringing claims.

The legal climate in which such cases are brought has been transformed in recent years. Judgments of the Supreme Court have removed many hurdles, and a judgment only last month means that victims of this dreadful disease who are able to trace an insurer will now be paid and not miss out on compensation. As I said, a fast-track procedure has been introduced to ensure that claims are dealt with as quickly as possible.

A key outstanding barrier is identifying the employer’s liability insurer when an employer no longer exists, and the Department for Work and Pensions continues to work with stakeholders to see what more can be done to address that. Overall, however, cases are much less difficult to undertake than in the past, and there is no reason to believe that legal firms will stop bringing them, even under the new arrangements, or that they will be particularly expensive.

[Kate Green]

Does the Minister not accept, though, that some cases will now simply go unrepresented and unpursued, and that victims will instead have to rely on the Government’s own compensation scheme, in which the average payment is £16,000? This change will be an expensive choice for the Government, because it will lock people out of access through the courts.

[Mr Djanogly]

Decisions are made about such cases now, and even under the existing system, if there are large sums involved, ATE insurance companies want to know the likelihood of losing. A lawyer also has to make such an assessment. As things stand, the balance is not right, and we want to rebalance the situation.

Partly as a consequence of what I have said, I do not believe we should accept the view that critics sometimes advance that our reforms will leave victims of this terrible disease out of pocket. It is true that under our plans individuals will pay legal costs out of their general damages. Crucially, though, damages for future care and losses are protected, and general damages are being increased by 10% to offset a success fee capped at 25%. It is of course entirely up to the lawyer whether any success fee is taken from a claimant’s damages at all.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Even if damages for future care and losses are protected, the average life expectancy for advanced mesothelioma has been disclosed as being about nine to 12 months—so that is a great comfort. How can the Minister seriously tell the House that there will be no loss of damages given that the 10% uplift, which is very indistinct, is compensated for by a 25% loss of damages? We should not blame the lawyers, we should blame the Government, who are taking damages away from mesothelioma and asbestosis victims.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Djanogly]

I am actually saying quite the opposite. I am saying that damages are going to be increased, not decreased.

The aim of our reforms is to end the current situation whereby legal firms can get away with charging what they want because the claimants do not have a stake in keeping an eye on the bill. At a time when the cases in question are becoming easier to bring, we should not accept amendments that would reduce pressure on legal firms to cut their fees. Instead, our focus should be on cutting inflated margins, not making exemptions for one type of disease.

I understand claimants’ fear of being left liable for high defendant’s costs should they lose, but under our reforms, we are protecting personal injury claimants from the risk of paying such costs, including in industrial disease cases, by introducing qualified one-way costs shifting.

[Helen Jones]

Even if I accepted the Minister’s argument about plaintiffs keeping an eye on fees, which I do not, how would someone with no legal training who was dying of mesothelioma be supposed to keep monitoring their lawyers’ fees?

[Mr Djanogly]

People entering into a conditional fee agreement have a relationship with their lawyer, and it is quite right that someone who employs a lawyer has some idea of what is on that lawyer’s clock and what they are charging. That is very important. If someone is sick, they will have family who can help them through their sickness.

The Government are determined to see more proportionate costs in civil litigation, with greater fairness in the risks borne by parties. Without our reforms, high and disproportionate costs in civil litigation would continue. Moreover, if the Lords amendments were accepted, claimants in mesothelioma cases would have an advantage over others who may be suffering from equally debilitating conditions. That cannot be justified.

[Mr Slaughter]

I will be as brief as I can, because a number of my hon. Friends also wish to speak to the two amendments on industrial diseases. If appropriate, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall say a brief word about the Lords amendment on metal theft as this is the only opportunity to do so—[Interruption.] In that case, I shall deal with it later.

The first amendment ensures that victims of respiratory industrial diseases—for the main part asbestos-induced diseases such as mesothelioma—will not have their damages taken away by lawyers and insurers. The second ensures that victims of industrial diseases as a whole are treated in the same way.

The Government plan to allow claimants’ lawyers to take up to 25% of industrial disease victims’ damages and for the victims’ insurers to take an uncapped additional amount. The current system says that the losing defendant or their insurer should pay the costs of bringing that case. They are still highly contentious and contended cases. Some 60,000 people in Britain will develop mesothelioma over the next decades because of past exposure, and almost 40,000 have died thus far—the highest levels in the world. The Association of British Insurers continues to obstruct victims of asbestosis in high-profile, Supreme Court cases to try to absolve insurers from paying out. After a recent ruling in favour of victims, the Insurance Times headline read, “Disappointment at pleural plaques ruling”.

Asbestosis is not the only problem, which is why the other place made two amendments. One amendment was specific to respiratory disease and the other encompasses serious industrial diseases. These are not slips and trips, minor accidents at work or road traffic whiplash cases; they are diagnosable medical conditions that can, with difficulty, be proved to have resulted from a breach of duty by an employer. Symptoms include deafness, blindness, spinal degradation, leukaemia, cirrhosis of the liver caused by exposure to chemicals, organ damage, loss of limbs and more.

The diseases are the by-product of hard and often manual work over decades. They are inflicted on people who have spent their lives contributing to the economy of this country in heavy industry, manufacturing and public services. Many of the diseases do not manifest for years—they are the legacy of our heavy industries and of our proud traditions of manufacturing. In time, modern industries will cause diseases as yet undiagnosed.

The Minister has repeatedly said in debates on the Bill that the aim of part 2 is to fix the “compensation culture” or to lower motor insurance premiums, but whose car insurance is affected by mesothelioma sufferers getting their full and just compensation?

Eighteen noble lords from all parties and none signed a letter supporting the amendment. I shall not name them all, but I should mention Lord Alton and Lord Bach, who moved the amendments in the House of Lords, Lord Avebury, and the late Lord Newton, who spoke so powerfully to the amendments. They demonstrated the depth of feeling that the Government should be so crass as to treat mesothelioma sufferers in the same manner as those affected by whiplash. As the noble Lord Avebury said:

“Unscrupulous claimants may be able to fake road traffic injuries, but not mesothelioma or asbestosis. It is impossible for the victims of these horrible diseases to launch a frivolous or fraudulent claim, and it is unconscionable that people on their deathbeds should be mulcted of thousands of pounds out of the damages that they are awarded by the courts.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 March 2012; Vol. 736, c. 313.]

The Government contend that that is not relevant and that they are trying to get people to shop around for the best rates, but who, diagnosed with mesothelioma, with perhaps months to live, will shop around for the lawyer that takes the least damages from him—the so-called skin in the game so beloved of the Minister? On average, cancer caused by asbestos exposure kills in about 12 months. General damages are, on average, about £65,000. The victim’s lawyer will now receive up to 25% of that sum. The after-the-event insurer, who insures the claimant in case his action fails, will take an unlimited sum for the premium. Because insurance companies fight mesothelioma cases to the end—often until after the victim dies—such cases are inherently risky to bring, and the cost of insuring the claim can be huge.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Woodcock]

It is an honour to follow such a powerful and brave speech from the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). She spoke incredibly well on the subject.

I wish to speak briefly in support of Lords amendment 31, and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) will listen carefully. I also hope against hope that he will reconsider his decision, because the sight of him sitting there laughing while this subject is being discussed, and labelling victims in my constituency and across the country who suffer horribly as being part of a compensation culture and a racket, does a gross disservice to those people, and ultimately to the Government he represents.

Let us be clear—as the Bill stands, individuals who have contracted horrific and rapidly life-shortening diseases could now be required to pay the cost of bringing their case out of the damages they receive rather than have the defendant meet the costs. This represents a major change to the underlying principles of criminal damages cases in the UK, creating the potential for unlimited costs to be borne by successful claimants. In extremis, it could lead to a defendant, having successfully proven that their employer’s negligence has left them with an almost certainly fatal disease, being left with a bill to pick up for bringing the case.

[Mr Djanogly]

It is important to get this right. The particular disease falls within the Government’s proposals to introduce one-way cost shifting, which will mean that losing claimants will not pay defendants’ costs.

[John Woodcock]

As the shadow Minister has made clear, it does not cover disbursements. The Minister has not been able to set out a proper case. He has tried to claim that compensation will go up as a result of these reforms. Frankly, all the people looking at this—I see the Minister nodding his head now—do not agree. Given the level of concern and alarm expressed by victims who contract the disease incredibly quickly, many thousands of people are left wondering when they are going to be struck, and the families left behind cannot understand the Government’s attitude towards this incredibly difficult subject.

On average, those who successfully pursue claims for mesothelioma see compensation in the order of £65,000. Under the unamended Bill, their lawyer could receive 25% of that. On top of that, their after-the-event insurer could take an increased premium, and because mesothelioma claims are risky, those premiums can be very high indeed.

From my own constituency, I have seen the appalling impact of mesothelioma on the lives of those who suffer and their families. The industrial tradition of Barrow and Furness means that shipyard workers are particularly affected because of the historic use of asbestos in ship construction. This has left the town, as I said in my intervention, with the second-highest mortality rate from this disease among males anywhere in the country—topped only by West Dunbartonshire, which is, of course, another shipbuilding area. These people served their country through the fine ships they built to defend our shores. They were failed by successive Governments, and this Government now have a duty to address that wrong. That is why sufferers have pushed and pushed for better compensation, and that is why it would be a travesty for this House to vote today to reduce the payments they can get.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Llwyd]

I agreed with everything the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) said. His views are shared by many Members on the Opposition Benches—and one or two on the Government Benches as well, I am sure.

I want to speak briefly to amendments 31 and 32. I am sure I am not the only MP who has received many representations on the important issue in question. Lawyers should not skin people who are dying. I was a lawyer—both a solicitor and a barrister—and I would be ashamed of taking back as much as possible from the damages claims of people who may not have long to live. That is disgusting, but there is a very real worry that the Government are creating that problem in attempting to address what they call the compensation culture. Many of us do not recognise that such a culture exists, but even if it does, it involves petty claims such as whiplash injuries and people tripping up, or pretending to trip up, on pavements. In trying to sort out that problem, the Government are creating a problem for industrial injuries cases.

Under clause 43, a success fee under a conditional fee arrangement will not be recoverable from a losing party in all proceedings. Instead, it will be paid out of the damages of the injured person, meaning they may lose 25% of their damages.

[Mr Djanogly]

I should address this point as it has been raised about half a dozen times. The 25% is a maximum. Because under the current system people will always pay the lawyers the maximum, Members seem to be assuming that under the new system the maximum will still be claimed, but under the new system people will be encouraged to pay their lawyers less, not the maximum.

[Mr Llwyd]

Well, that is what a person such as the Minister thinks will happen, as he believes in the market ideology. He was a commercial lawyer, and never got his hands dirty as some of us have had to do over the years.

Clause 45 removes the recoverability of the after-the-event—ATE—insurance premium from the losing defendant. Therefore, that premium will in many instances be taken out of the damages awarded to the injured party. The amendments passed in another place would exclude industrial disease claims from these provisions, thus allowing the claimants to keep 100% of their compensation. We must uphold those changes and exempt such individuals and therefore prevent what would be a glaring miscarriage of justice.

Industrial disease cases are utterly different from road traffic claims. Cases centring on diseases such as asbestosis and mesothelioma are complex and require intensive research before liability is admitted. As a result, fraudulent industrial disease claims are almost an impossibility. Because of their complexity, such claims cannot be dealt with by inexperienced litigators, but if there is neither the uplift required to allow a solicitor to take a case on a CFA nor a recoverable ATE premium, many experienced solicitors will be unable to take on cases where the chance of recovering their costs is low without the client having to pay them from their damages. That is particularly true of low-value cases in which the additional liabilities may dwarf the amount of damages awarded, leaving the claimant worse off than when they started.

The potential for injustice, I am afraid, is huge. The defendant in such cases is often a multi-million pound organisation with access to teams of lawyers. It is also worth noting that after-the-event insurance also pays for additional expenses such as medical reports, without which industrial disease claims would fall at the first hurdle. Thus, without expert reports, which are necessary to prove liability, and the support of experienced solicitors who know this area of law thoroughly, claimants will simply be unable to proceed with their cases.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. The Minister is welcome to respond if he wishes, but he is not under any obligation to do so.

[Mr Djanogly]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Speaker]

No, he is not going to respond.

The hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) will know that I came into the proceedings relatively late, and in those circumstances it is not for me to act as umpire on the matter, which would be wrong. However, her observations, sincerely expressed, have been noted, and all I would say is that each and every one of us in this place is responsible for his or her own behaviour and for the impression that we give in the conduct of debate. Let us leave it there for tonight.

Coroner Services

Jonathan Djanogly Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

The Government are today publishing the new “Charter for Coroner Services”.

Charter for Coroner Services

The charter sets out for the first time the standards that bereaved family members and others who come into contact with coroner services across England and Wales can expect to receive. It also sets out what someone can do if they are unhappy with the level of service they have received.

The charter has been revised following a public consultation in 2011 and, as proposed in the consultation, is being published in a single booklet with an updated version of the Ministry of Justice’s “Guide to Coroners and Inquests”. Combining the guide and charter in this way will ensure that those coming into contact with coroner services have accessible and concise information on the processes and standards in a coroner inquiry and know their rights under the system. It will also ensure that all coroners’ offices in England and Wales are aware of the standards they should be meeting.

The guide and the charter apply to current coroner services under the Coroners Act 1988. We will update the booklet as and when changes to the coroner system are introduced.

The charter is an integral part of the Government’s plans for reform of the coroner system and, alongside the appointment of a chief coroner and implementation of most of the provisions in part 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, will help to ensure much more consistent standards of service between coroner areas.

The charter comes into effect today and we are distributing hard copies of the booklet to all coroners’ offices across England and Wales, as well as publishing it on the Justice and Directgov websites.

Copies of the guide and charter booklet have also been placed in the Libraries of both Houses, in the Vote Office and in the Printed Paper Office. The guide and charter is also available online at:

http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/burials-and-coroners/coroners.htm

and

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/Death/WhatToDoAfterADeath/DG_066713

Appointment of the Chief Coroner

Under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, appointment of the chief coroner is a matter for the Lord Chief Justice, in consultation with the Lord Chancellor. Detailed discussions are taking place and I will make a further statement once these discussions have concluded.

Litigation Friends

Jonathan Djanogly Excerpts

Wednesday 21st March 2012 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) on securing this Adjournment debate today on a subject in which I know he has significant experience and interest. He mentioned a number of live cases, which he must appreciate I am restricted in discussing, but he also discussed a wide variety of interrelated and serious topics, which I shall do my best to address.

I acknowledge that the family courts and the Court of Protection deal with some of the most difficult questions affecting the lives of individuals and families, their rights and capacity to make decisions about their own future, as well as decisions about who is best able to take care of children and to provide them with a loving and caring home environment. The courts take such matters seriously, and rightly so. They are sensitive and personal matters and there is a difficult balance to be struck between respect for an individual’s privacy, in particular that of children and other vulnerable people, and promoting openness to support public confidence in the court system.

On litigation friends or guardianship, my hon. Friend has written to me on several occasions regarding the effectiveness of the Mental Capacity Act 2005—he has doubts about the effectiveness of the Act and how it is used. The Act is, however, widely supported by stakeholders for the empowerment it gives to individuals. He referred to an article by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights—I thank him for sending it to me before the debate—on persons with intellectual and psycho-social disabilities under guardianship being deprived of their legal capacity in several European countries. In the article, the commissioner calls on European Governments to review their legislation on legal capacity and urges recognition that supported decision-making alternatives should be developed for those who want assistance in making choices or communicating them to others.

As my hon. Friend is aware, the Mental Capacity Act provides a statutory framework to empower and protect people aged 16 and over who lack or might lack capacity to make certain decisions for themselves because of illness, a learning disability or mental health problems. Implemented in October 2007, the Act encompasses five main principles. First, there is a presumption of capacity—that all adults have the right to make their own decisions and must be assumed to have capacity to do so unless it is proved otherwise, and that capacity is presumed to be ongoing until there is evidence to the contrary. Secondly, it sets out the right of individuals to be supported to make their own decisions—that all reasonable help and support should be provided to help individuals to make their own decisions and, if necessary, to communicate those decisions, before it can be assumed that they have lost capacity. Thirdly, the Act provides that it should not be assumed that people lack capacity simply because their decisions might seem unwise or eccentric. Fourthly, if people lack capacity, anything done on their behalf must be done in their best interests, and the Act provides a checklist of factors that all decision makers must work though when deciding what is in the best interests of the incapacitated person. Finally, if people lack capacity, before a decision is made on their behalf, all alternatives must be considered and the option chosen should be the least restrictive of their basic rights and freedoms.

The Act is intended to assist and support people who might lack capacity and to discourage anyone who is involved in caring for someone who lacks capacity from being overly restrictive or controlling. It also aims to balance individuals’ right to make decisions for themselves with their right to be protected from harm if they lack capacity to make decisions to protect themselves. The Act covers a wide range of decisions made or actions taken on behalf of people who might lack capacity to make specific decisions for themselves. Those decisions can be about day-to-day matters such as what to wear or what to buy when doing the weekly shopping, or about major life-changing events such as whether the person should move into a care home or undergo a major surgical operation. Certain decisions, specified in the Act, can never be made on behalf of a person who lacks capacity to make those specific decisions, either because they are so personal to the individual concerned, or because they are governed by other legislation. Such decisions concern family relationships, such as consenting to marriage or a civil partnership, consenting to have sexual relations, treatment under the Mental Heath Act or decisions on voting in an election or referendum.

The capacity to litigate is based on a common law test of capacity set down by the courts. My hon. Friend is aware of the Masterman-Lister case which makes it clear that the presumption is that all adults are competent to manage their property and affairs; it is for the person alleging incapacity to displace that presumption and to prove incapacity, not for an adult to prove his own capacity; and it is a fundamental right of a person to conduct proceedings. That presumption is not removed lightly. The assessment of litigation capacity is a matter for the court in the individual case to decide and—this is important—not for an expert giving evidence on capacity. I confirm to my hon. Friend that the legislation in force in England and Wales supports individuals to make their own decisions, as called for in the commissioner’s article.

My hon. Friend also questioned how litigation friends are appointed. The appointment of a litigation friend is governed by procedural court rules. The duty of a litigation friend is set out in rules and associated practice directions. The courts would not wish people to be deprived of their autonomy or prevented from conducting their own proceedings in the absence of cogent evidence that they lack the mental capacity to do so.

[John Hemming]

My intervention might be reasonably long, to deal with some of the Minister’s points. I accept that the Government do not comment on individual cases at all, not only on individual live cases. I accept the Minister’s argument that to some extent the Mental Capacity Act is compliant with the UN convention of 2006 and that movement has been in the right direction, if not as far as one might hope. My argument is that the system itself has no real accountability or any proper checks and balances. The court makes the decision, but it is based on opinion from a social worker or expert, and there is no real opportunity to check that process.

[Mr Djanogly]

I have addressed the position of the courts, which are independent of the Government. I will come to the question of experts later.

My hon. Friend also queried the role of the Official Solicitor as a litigation friend. The Official Solicitor is an independent office holder of the senior courts whose duties include acting as a last-resort litigation friend to those who lack the capacity to conduct their own litigation. He is not accountable to Ministers or to the Ministry of Justice for his decisions in individual cases, nor are Ministers or the Ministry responsible for those decisions. The Official Solicitor will conduct the litigation on behalf of the person for whom he is acting as litigation friend fairly, competently and in their best interests.

[John Hemming]

I asked the Minister a question about the Official Solicitor, who I accept is supposed to be the litigation friend of last resort. My point is that he is often the litigation friend of first resort. The most important question is: how do we know that the Official Solicitor is doing his job properly?

[Mr Djanogly]

That question could be asked of any lawyer who has a relationship with his client.

[John Hemming]

The Official Solicitor may be legally qualified, but his role is not that of a lawyer: his role is to make decisions and to instruct lawyers. Normally, the Official Solicitor instructs another firm to act. The question is: how do we know that the Official Solicitor is doing his job properly?

[Mr Djanogly]

The Official Solicitor is an independent appointment, and my hon. Friend could ask the same question about a judge, for example. How do we know that a judge is doing his job properly?

[John Hemming]

It obviously comes back to the question of secrecy and monitoring of the legal system. If there is transparency, one can have some comfort that people are doing their job properly. I see many examples of people apparently not doing their job properly.

[Mr Djanogly]

I will come back to my hon. Friend in more detail, but I have to get through quite lot of his other points in the remaining three minutes—

[John Hemming]

The Minister has more than three minutes; he has nine minutes.

[Mr Djanogly]

Five minutes perhaps.

I turn now to the family justice review and expert witnesses in the family courts. In their recent response to that review, the Government set out plans to implement a comprehensive programme of reform of the family justice system. We are grateful for the impressive work undertaken by David Norgrove and his fellow panel members in diagnosing the problems of the current system and setting out clear recommendations to remedy them.

The review was clear about the need to create a more coherent system, characterised by trust and co-ordination between the different courts and agencies involved. As the first step towards that, we are establishing a Family Justice Board to provide greater leadership and co-ordination across delivery agencies nationally and locally, and to prepare the system for the changes to come. In private law, we are determined to put in place a framework that will support separating couples to resolve their disputes more reasonably and more quickly. Whenever possible, there should not be a need to resort to litigation in court.

In public law, when the state intervenes to take children into care, our overriding priority is significantly to reduce the current unacceptable levels of delay. The average care case now takes 55 weeks, and many take much longer. That means months of uncertainty for a child trapped in a difficult situation. That must not continue. We intend to legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows for a six-month time limit on care and supervision proceedings. That will send a powerful message that the current level of delay is unacceptable.

We appreciate that the six-month limit will not be achieved without fundamental changes to the way the system works. One aspect of the reform is to the way in which expert witness evidence is used in the family courts. The evidence suggests that in public law family proceedings, expert witness evidence is used in about 90% of cases, and on average, nearly four reports per case are requested. That high number of reports may well reflect an understandable desire for certainty and for as thorough a process as possible to be gone through before life-changing decisions are made. As the family justice review acknowledged, expert witness evidence can often be necessary to ensure a fair and complete court process—for example, to establish whether a child has been harmed by accident or not. Nevertheless, we agree that too many reports are commissioned that add little value to the court’s understanding of the issues and add further delays to the process. We have already announced our intention to legislate to ensure that reports are commissioned only when they are necessary to resolve the case.

In family proceedings involving children, the court must decide whether to permit an expert witness to be instructed, or to allow expert witness evidence to be used in court. Expert witnesses have an overriding duty to the court that takes precedence over any obligation to the party or parties who have instructed them. They are under a duty to assist the court with objective and independent advice and to provide advice that conforms to the best practice of their profession. My hon. Friend mentioned recent research and cases reported in the press showing that there is a problem with expert witnesses in the family courts.

My hon. Friend referred to practice in the United States, and I would be interested to see data on the systems used there, but we do not agree that a review is necessary. The family justice review has already conducted a thorough analysis of the problems in the family justice system, and the Government have made a commitment to significant reform. We will consider carefully the findings of the recent research on psychological expert witness reports. We accept the need for reform of the use of experts in family proceedings and for more research following the study.

[John Hemming]

I do not think that the family justice review managed to identify the real problems in the system. It was flawed from the start inasmuch as the panel members were generally people who worked within the system, instead of people who have had experience of it and are critical of it. I do not agree with the Government’s conclusions or those of the family justice review.

[Mr Djanogly]

I hear what my hon. Friend says, but the family justice review has been well received widely and across all sections and stakeholders, and that is the basis on which the Government are proceeding.

My hon. Friend mentioned Professor Jane Ireland’s recently published research on psychological expert witness reports used in family public law proceedings, and I agree that it is a useful contribution to our understanding. As Professor Ireland points out in her report, it is the first study of its kind and is based on only a small sample of family cases. While it is indicative of weaknesses in the practices of some psychologist expert witnesses, it is not possible to determine from this preliminary study whether the findings are representative. Nevertheless, the Government accept that there is a need for further research in this area, including on the quality of expert witness reports, to further our understanding of the issues identified by Professor Ireland and the family justice review.

We also agree that there is a need to improve the quality of expert reports. We intend to work with the relevant bodies, including the Legal Services Commission, expert witnesses, health sector bodies and local authorities, to develop quality standards. Others in the system also have a role to play: they include legal sector professional bodies providing support and guidance to lawyers who are responsible for commissioning expert witnesses; those responsible for maintaining ethical and quality standards within the medical profession: and expert witness representative bodies. Each has an important contribution to make to ensure that expert witnesses undertaking this vital work for the courts have the right training, skills and knowledge.

My hon. Friend discussed openness in family courts, and there are often calls for greater openness. It is of course vital that the family justice system commands public confidence and that justice is not only done, but is seen to be done. At the same time, there is a clear need to balance the desire to be more open with ensuring that the privacy of vulnerable children and families involved in these cases is protected.

[John Hemming]

Does the Minister accept that there are people like me who perceive that justice is often not done?

[Mr Djanogly]

I cannot argue against my hon. Friend’s position. He goes to courts and sees cases, and he takes a view. It is not an easy balance to strike. The debate on this issue has been long running and is controversial. It has been subject to two public consultations, but little consensus of opinion has resulted. The Government have accepted the concerns expressed by the Select Committee on Justice in its inquiry into the operation of the family courts and agreed that we should not commence the provisions in part 2 of the Children, Schools and Families Act 2010. We are still looking at ways in which the family courts can release more information. In doing this, we will take into account the findings from the final report into the family courts information pilot, which was published in September 2011.

I emphasise that the Government firmly support the right of every adult to make their own decisions about their future whenever possible, and to be assisted to make those decisions if necessary. We also support the need for greater transparency in the operation of the courts. We accept that the current position in the family courts is unsatisfactory and we are considering ways in which more information can be released. We are committed to radical reform of the family justice system to help to improve the lives of thousands of children and families.

Legal Aid

Jonathan Djanogly Excerpts

Thursday 15th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

I declare any interest I may have as a non-practising solicitor. First, let me congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) on securing this debate. I recognise that this is a timely and important discussion to have at present.

Let me start by saying that measuring and understanding the effects of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill on the providers of publicly funded legal aid services is something to which the Department of Justice has been committed throughout the policy development process. I invite hon. Members to consider both the impact assessments and the equality impact assessments published alongside the Government’s consultation paper and our response to that consultation. These are extensive in their consideration of the impact of the reforms on legal aid providers, with the equality impact assessment providing very granular detail on the potential for differential impacts in respect of different provider types—whether for solicitors, not-for-profit organisations or barristers.

We recognise that such assessments have their limitations. They use a method analysts refer to as counter-factual assessment. This operates by taking a given set of assumptions—in this instance, a snapshot of income in the legal aid market in a given financial year—and applies a narrow set of changes to this snapshot, which here means the reduction in income implied by the changes in the Bill. What the assessment cannot do is measure things like how providers will respond to those changes in terms of the structure of their firms, the business model they employ, their employment profile or the areas of law covered by their organisations. This is a crucial point for me in this debate. In other words, one cannot say with any real certainty how individual providers will respond to the changes, and that will be major factor in the overall “effect” experienced by the providers of legal aid. However, following the commitment made in our consultation response, we have commissioned a study that we hope will provide a better understanding of the dynamics of legal aid providers.

It should also be recognised that our discussions today are not purely theoretical. I simply do not recognise the picture of a failing environment for providers that the hon. Gentleman portrayed. Almost half the savings being taken from legal aid for the spending review period are derived from the remuneration changes implemented last October, which have now been in operation for up to six months—and there have been no discernible negative impacts on the supply. In fact, there has been strong confirmation that the market is willing to work at the new rates. The most recent Legal Services Commission tenders for family work were conducted using the new reduced rates, and were over-subscribed. This suggests that the rates offered are sustainable, and that providers are able to absorb and respond to the impact of reduced fees.

Returning to the Bill, at the macro level there are, of course, some obvious realities. I have always been very open about these, as the hon. Gentleman will know, both in Parliament and in my extensive engagement with the sector. A contraction in the range of services funded under legal aid will most probably mean a contraction in the number of firms providing such services, as well as a reduction in the numbers of lawyers practising in legal aid. I disagree, however, that this will translate into widespread advice deserts; it is certainly not the case at the moment.

This is a natural corollary of the changes we are making to scope, and I make no apology for that. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that in most, but not all, cases, this is not a debate about so-called “fat-cat lawyers”. The legal aid system is there to provide advice, assistance and representation for those who need it most, not to maintain existing numbers of lawyers—but we do, of course, need a sustainable provider base, because without those who deliver services there would be no legal aid system. To this end, we are finalising our approach to the first round of contracting under the new scheme, which we expect will commence soon after Royal Assent.

There are, of course, two sides to this coin, and sustainability is not something that Government, as the purchasers of services, can or should provide purely on their own. No market is static, nor should it be. The legal aid market has historically shown itself to be adept at responding to changes and seeking out commercial opportunity—and I see no reason why it should not do so again.

If any business is to thrive, it must be flexible and adaptable—that is true of any sector—and the Government are creating the conditions that will allow legal aid providers to flourish. The Legal Services Act 2007, for instance, establishes a new licensing regime, which is now fully operational and which affords more flexibility, innovation and opportunity in terms of the type of business structures and providers that can offer legal services. The significance of that change, and the commercial opportunity that it represents, cannot be overstated.

That is not to suggest that the innovative models made possible by the 2007 Act are the only way in which providers can remain sustainable under the new scheme. The impact assessment figures published alongside the Government response to consultation suggest that even after the reforms have been implemented, approximately £1.7 billion a year will still be spent on publicly funded legal aid services. It is likely that, following the savings, we will still be spending more on legal aid than any other country, and it is undeniable that that level of expenditure represents a viable market. Given the range of services that will still attract funding, it will be open to providers to diversify and seek income across a range of areas of law, although for some providers the most prudent option will be to concentrate on their area of core expertise and expand their market share in that field.

It will also possible to bid for complementary services. The Government have made clear their commitment to alternative dispute resolution. They expect to fund an additional £10 million in mediation services within the new framework, and the Legal Services Commission will be tendering for additional mediation contracts to provide those services. The introduction of the mandatory telephone gateway—which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and which we intend to reinstate in the Bill—also presents opportunities. Providers will still be able to run telephone-based contracts alongside face-to-face contracts in areas that will continue to attract funding.

The overall message that I wish to convey is that—while challenging and sometimes traumatic—the changes will not come without opportunity, provided that there is a willingness to engage with them and think constructively about how to respond to them. Although steeped in great tradition, the legal profession has demonstrated resilience and fluidity throughout its history, and I would expect nothing less in response to these changes.

As the hon. Gentleman said, some people outside the private legal profession will be affected. Both he and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) pointed out that the equality impact assessments also consider the likely impact of the proposals on not-for-profit organisations. Such organisations have traditionally had a significant presence in a number of the areas that the Bill removes from scope, and the Government fully recognise the cumulative effect that the changes could have when coupled with local authority reductions in funding for them. However, as I have consistently made clear to the House, the Government also recognise the benefits that early generalist advice can have in a range of contexts. We want to help the sector to continue to deliver such services, but not necessarily in the context of legal aid.

We have already seen the creation of the £107 million transition fund and the £20 million advice services fund to help the sector to deal with the legal aid changes and with what will happen after that. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury has now indicated that additional funding will be available after the current financial year to help the sector further, and it will be announced in the forthcoming Budget statement. That underlines the Government’s commitment to the provision of advice services such as this, and it is expected to ameliorate the effects of other funding reductions.

However, that is not to say that everything will remain the same. Because of our current fiscal situation, savings must be made, and the not-for-profit sector will need to demonstrate the same adaptability and resilience that I have described in respect of the legal profession.

The Government understand, and are sympathetic to, concerns about the scale of the change that the Bill represents, but we stress that it is incumbent upon the providers of services to think constructively and creatively about how they will establish themselves in the new market. Change will, naturally, be a challenge to the sector, not least because the current system has operated for a significant time, and providers will have become accustomed to a particular way of working. However, for the reasons I have given, there will be real opportunities for those who wish to take them, and for those outside the scope of the new scheme additional funding is being made available to provide for the future.

May I conclude by returning to the topic of the—rather technical-sounding—counter-factual assessment, to which I referred at the outset? We must avoid falling into the trap of predicting the future on a basis that does not allow for the very human response of adapting to changing circumstances. There is a future for legal aid providers, and the market can thrive, but the willingness of providers to adapt will be key to achieving that. Given what I have seen to date—not least providers’ response to the fee reductions—I have every confidence that that will be achieved.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jonathan Djanogly Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

3. What his proposed timetable is for legislation to allow broadcasting of selected court proceedings.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

We are planning to legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows to permit broadcasting of selected court proceedings as part of our commitment to increasing transparency in public services. Initially, we will allow broadcasting of judgments in the Court of Appeal, and we expect to extend this to sentencing remarks in the Crown court in due course.

[Mr Buckland]

I thank the Minister for that answer. Will he confirm that information will be the watchword, not sensationalism, and that any conditions imposed will have that very much in mind?

[Mr Djanogly]

Yes, I can assure my hon. Friend that we will not allow our courts to become places of public theatre. Victims, witnesses, defendants and jurors will not be filmed.

[Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)]

The Minister just said something very important when he said that witnesses will not be filmed. Will he repeat that guarantee, because a court appearance is a very traumatic process for a witness or victim? We need a red line that cannot be crossed not only by current Ministers but by Ministers in the future, so that witnesses are protected.

[Mr Djanogly]

As I said, that is our position. We will be consulting—and are—with a wide range of stakeholders, including broadcasters, victims groups and others, to ensure that appropriate operational arrangements and safeguards are in place.

[Mike Weatherley (Hove) (Con)]

5. How many prosecutions have been brought in respect of illegal encampments involving vehicles on public parks in the last 12 months.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

7. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the effect of his proposed changes to legal aid on the number of cases concerning benefits requiring early stage legal advice.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

No such discussions have been held, as the withdrawal of legal aid would have no impact on the number of cases concerning benefits requiring early stage legal advice. The need for advice will be determined by decision making at the Department for Work and Pensions, not the availability or otherwise of legal aid. Of course, I recognise that many people find that the type of general advice concerned is useful in resolving their problems, which is why the Government have announced additional funding for the not-for-profit sector.

[Jessica Morden]

Two people a day will become homeless over the next few months according to Shelter. Does it not now make sense to invest more in homeless advice, not less?

[Mr Djanogly]

As I said, there is a difference between legal advice and general advice. We are investing in general advice.

[Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)]

Charnwood citizens advice bureau works very closely with my office in Loughborough on benefits matters. Will the Minister, when he has such discussions, tell the Department for Work and Pensions that it needs to simplify the benefits system as that would be of great assistance in helping to keep some cases away from the legal system and administrative tribunals in the first place?

[Mr Djanogly]

I agree with my hon. Friend and can confirm that we are working very closely with the Department for Work and Pensions as part of its wider welfare reform programme to improve the quality and effectiveness of initial decision taking.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

Lord Newton of Braintree, who was the Secretary of State for Social Security in a Conservative Government in the 1980s and early 1990s—in the days when the Conservative party won elections in its own right—said last week that 81% of all cases heard in the first-tier tribunals relating to benefits are to do with disability benefits. In 2009-10 an appellant at the first-tier tribunal who received advice before going to the tribunal was 78% more likely to win their appeal than an unadvised appellant. The advice that citizens advice bureaux, law centres and advice agencies give to their clients is very important. These are not fat-cat lawyers or litigious clients. Will the Government now accept the votes passed in the House of Lords over the past week, which will not only save taxpayers’ money in the medium to long term but will also avoid unnecessary misery and suffering for some of the most vulnerable in our society?

[Mr Djanogly]

I have to say that the Government are disappointed by the position taken in the Lords and we will return to the issue when the Bill comes back to the Commons. We remain of the view that these cases are primarily about financial entitlement and as such do not raise the fundamental issues involved in cases concerning liberty or safety. I can say to the right hon. Gentleman that the user-friendly nature of the tribunal means that appellants can generally present their case without legal assistance.

[Sadiq Khan]

If that is the case, why is the success rate 78% higher for those who do receive advice before they go to appeal? We have said from the outset that we agree that savings need to be made to the legal aid budget. If we were in government, we would be making cuts as well, but our values and connections with ordinary people mean that our priorities would be very different. Figures from the Ministry of Justice say that by the end of this Parliament, criminal legal aid provided largely by well-paid QCs, barristers and solicitors will be cut by 6%, whereas family legal aid will be cut by 29%, but social welfare legal aid, which is delivered by CABs, law centres and small voluntary organisations, at which some of the lowest-paid advisers and lawyers work, will be cut by 53%.

[Sadiq Khan]

Will the Minister explain why the cuts are being made to the most vulnerable instead of to areas where cuts can be made more fairly?

[Mr Djanogly]

We simply are not doing what the right hon. Gentleman suggests. Social welfare law will still receive £50 million in legal aid and we are redirecting the money we spend on legal aid towards helping the most vulnerable. When it comes to advice on benefits, people do not currently receive legal aid for representation. Before people go to appeal they will still be able to receive advice for many such cases from a general advice practitioner such as their local CAB.

[Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)]

8. What discussions he has had with the Lord Chief Justice on the potential effect of his planned changes to legal aid on the number of litigants in person.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill is designed to protect victims of domestic violence. It protects funding for advice and representation in private family matters for victims of domestic violence, as well as public funding in respect of protection orders for victims of domestic violence. We will also continue to waive financial eligibility limits in these cases.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I thank the Minister for that response, but he will be aware that when the matter was debated in another place, serious concerns were raised that genuine victims of domestic violence would not receive the legal aid support and ability to take action that they need, because of the legislation that the Government are bringing through. Organisations such as Refuge have expressed similar concerns. Will the Minister assure us that all victims of domestic violence will receive the help and support they need?

[Mr Djanogly]

Again, the Government were disappointed by the position taken by the Lords and will return to the matter when the Bill comes back to the Commons. We are very concerned about the victims of domestic violence. Indeed, it was because we are removing legal aid for private family law that we realised there will be certain categories, such as domestic violence, that will not be suitable for mediation, which is why we are concentrating on that area.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

It is widely recognised that specialist domestic violence courts have been very successful, but 23 of them are due to close. Will the Minister assure me that the expertise and multi-agency working that have been a feature of their success will continue in this changed landscape?

[Mr Djanogly]

It is important to point out that those specialist domestic violence courts are closing not because of what they do, but because the courts in which they are based are closing. I am pleased to say that those specialist courts will be moving to other courts, so no specialist domestic violence courts will be lost.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

17. What recent progress he has made on his plans to reform libel laws; and if he will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

23. When he plans to bring forward legislative proposals to allow television recording and broadcasting of court proceedings.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

As soon as parliamentary time allows, the Government plan to legislate to remove the ban on cameras in courts. We are working closely with the Lord Chief Justice, the judiciary and the broadcasters on achieving this.

[Henry Smith]

I very much support the broadcasting of court proceedings because of the transparency that it will bring, but will my hon. Friend confirm whether a fee will be charged to broadcasters for the use of the material so that the cost does not fall on to the taxpayer?

[Mr Djanogly]

I can assure my hon. Friend that the negotiations that are being conducted with broadcasters are taking place on the basis that they will be paying for the service.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[Mr Ellwood]

In these tough economic times, more people are borrowing money, getting into debt and, sadly, having to deal with the bailiffs, who are, on occasion, aggressive and intrusive. What is being done to ensure that creditors and debtors are aware of their rights and responsibilities?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

The Government are clear that aggressive bailiff activity is unacceptable, and we are committed to bringing forward effective proposals that protect the public and ensure that such action is proportionate. We have made a start by publishing our updated national standards for enforcement agents, and we have followed that up with a consultation paper issued on 17 February on a new, legally binding regulatory regime for bailiffs.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Before the contract with Applied Language Solutions for court interpreting started this year, the Minister was warned that it would fail by almost every qualified interpreter, by Labour Members, by Back Benchers of all parties in a debate here last November, by the Lord Chancellor’s own constituents at his surgery—so they tell me—and even by ALS itself. The contract has failed, so why did he decide to risk £300 million of public funds with an untried, small-time company?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

T4. The Office for Judicial Complaints has been investigating the poor performance of the Teesside coroner since August but, seven months on, we still have no indication of when the investigation will conclude. Has the Minister set a finish date for the investigation? When will matters improve? Has he merely kicked the subject into the long grass?

[Mr Djanogly]

I can assure you, Mr Speaker, that we have not kicked the matter into the long grass. It is a judicial investigation and it must take its course.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

T10. Last year, the Government found it necessary to close several smaller courts because of low utilisation rates, particularly in rural areas such as Norfolk. Will the Minister update the House on the effect of those closures on court efficiency in the remaining courts?

[Mr Djanogly]

The efficiency of the courts is being improved because of the closures. We have now closed 130 of the 142 that were on the closure list. In all cases, the closures have gone very well and magistrates have all transferred to local, surrounding courts.

[Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

T6. It is clear that the ALS contract is a disaster, but I would like to question the Secretary of State and Ministers about the impact on the deaf community. The resulting poor employment conditions have forced British sign language interpreters into other work, contributing to a trend of recruiting BSL interpreters who may not be fully qualified, which may lead to a miscarriage of justice. What safeguards are in place to ensure that deaf people—a protected group with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010—and their officially recognised language, BSL, are afforded proper regard, enabling them to have fair and proper access to justice?

Not-for-profit Advice Sector

Jonathan Djanogly Excerpts

Tuesday 6th March 2012 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) on securing the debate, and on her contributions to a vigorous and informative discussion of an important issue. I understand and share the strong concerns expressed, and the high level of interest, in debates on the value of the not-for-profit advice sector throughout consideration of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill in both Houses. Today, I would like to deal with the concerns expressed on behalf of Jeannie, Sharon and other vulnerable people, and assure the hon. Lady that we have listened and are taking action.

The Government value highly the important role of not-for-profit organisations such as Citizens Advice and law centres in delivering advice services locally. The Government want to support such organisations, particularly at the current time. Reforms to the legal aid system will, as the hon. Lady is aware, reduce the organisations’ income, and my colleagues throughout Government and I appreciate that times are difficult for free advice services, which are understandably concerned about their future. Given the financial climate, however, any Government today would have to take difficult decisions and make major changes to the services that they fund. Legal aid expenditure is approximately £2.2 billion per annum, which is 25% of the Ministry of Justice’s budget. Legal aid must play its part in fulfilling the Government’s commitment to reduce the fiscal deficit and return this country’s economy to stability and growth. The proposed legal aid reforms therefore have the additional aim of achieving substantial savings.

We are not making the changes lightly, although the importance of seeing them in context cannot be overstated. Our structural deficit, which we inherited from the Opposition, and their mismanagement of the economy present a range of challenges to our economy and to our ethos on public service provision. I am, however, confident about, and stand by, the criteria that we have employed in determining what areas should attract funding under the Bill.

In the Bill, we have sought to define clearly those areas that the Government believe should attract public funding in future under a reformed legal aid scheme. That will allow at least some certainty as to the areas in the legal aid market that we will continue to support and that, I hope, will thrive. We are aware and fully acknowledge that there will be implications for future provision: fewer legal aid providers are likely to be needed; the methods through which many services are delivered will change; organisations might change; and advice provision will also change. That is alongside other changes to the legal market, such as alternative business structures. The full impact assessment has been published, but the hon. Lady also asked about the knock-on costs, and it is true that those are sometimes difficult to define because they often depend on behavioural change, such as people switching from family courts to mediation.

The result of the changes is not necessarily the decline of a thriving legal aid market; the market can still thrive if it adapts. We must acknowledge the need for acceptance and recognition of the fact that the market will be different. We must consider constructively how best people can be assisted, and how sustainable voluntary organisations can be run under the new framework. The important issue is whether services will be available for clients, rather than whether that service is provided by any particular type of provider in a particular way. The expansion of telephone-based advice, to which the hon. Lady referred, will create contracting opportunities, and we already have examples of providers, including those from the not-for-profit advice sector, that run face-to-face contracts alongside centralised telephone advice contracts as part of their business model.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

How would the Minister answer Steve Hynes from the Legal Action Group, who said that if we wanted to create a system that removes access to advice, we should make it a telephone-based system?

[Mr Djanogly]

I have spoken to the gentleman about that, as I have to the hon. Lady, who made the same point in Committee. The Government are determined in their view that telephone advice, if used appropriately and provided for the right clients, can be a helpful service, not least for those who are disabled or live in remote rural areas, for instance.

[Andrew Percy]

I appreciate what the Minister is saying. As he must know from his surgeries, many constituents come to us and say that the last thing that they want to do is have a telephone conversation with us—they want to see us face to face. Can he assure us that residents who need assistance and do not want to access it down the telephone line—a lot of older people in particular have problems with that—will continue to be able to get face-to-face advice?

[Mr Djanogly]

The telephone service will be used only in a limited number of areas, so that we can see how it works, and yes, if someone is unsuitable for receiving telephone advice, perhaps because of their age, the alternative of face-to-face advice will be available.

I am pleased to see good examples of not-for-profit organisations acting innovatively, forging partnerships with other organisations and adapting to the changing face of advice provision. I accept that the proposed reforms are likely to be particularly challenging to the not-for-profit sector. Legal aid, however, is only one of many funding streams that citizens advice bureaux and law centres receive. For example, legal aid represents only 15% of the income of citizens advice bureaux. I also point out that our scope changes have not yet happened and will not do so for another year, giving us time to look at the changing needs of the market. Indeed, one of the major issues for the sector is changes to other sources of funding, such as local authority cuts, which are determined by local priorities, not central Government.

[Toby Perkins]

I am encouraged by the Minister’s suggestion that he has an open mind when it comes to listening to the concerns of the not-for-profit sector. I recognise what he says about the need to reduce the overall legal aid bill, but he will be aware of amendment 11, which was proposed in the House of Lords and which deals with social welfare law. My concern is that if the Minister comes through with this policy without identifying an alternative, the most vulnerable people, who are used to being on benefits and suddenly find that they are not eligible, will be desperately marooned. Will the Minister give us a sense of who might pick up the slack in those cases? If not, will he consider giving Government support to that amendment, rather than scrapping the entire savings proposals?

[Mr Djanogly]

No. What I will do is give the hon. Gentleman a clear idea of what the Government propose to do to ensure that that slack, as he called it, will not be forgotten or missed. We are committed to ensuring that people will continue to have access to good-quality, free advice in their communities. That is why the Government acted, and set up the £107 million transition fund to support the voluntary sector in managing the transition to a tighter funding environment. That is why we also launched the £20 million advice services fund, and a Government-wide review of free advice services. The advice services fund was always intended to provide support to the sector in the short term only, with the Cabinet Office review of the advice sector providing longer-term solutions. I can advise the hon. Member for Makerfield that the review is expected to conclude later this spring, and it will provide recommendations on proposals to secure the long-term sustainability of the sector.

As the hon. Lady said, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced only yesterday that the Budget statement will set out that further additional funding will be made available to the not-for-profit advice services in the current spending review period to support the Cabinet Office review, so that advice services are sustainable over the long term.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

I very much welcome the Cabinet Office’s work on changing the advice landscape. Will the Minister assure me that when discussions are held with the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, it is encouraged to ensure that it passes the new money down to the local citizens advice bureaux, which is where most people experience the organisation’s high-quality work?

[Mr Djanogly]

Yes. The work that is being done through the Cabinet Office is looking at local CABs. I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, and also for highlighting that NACAB is funded quite separately from local CABs. It is mainly funded by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills; that is bringing a new player into the debate. That point also highlights the complexity of the debate. One of the problems we have had in the run-up to and passage of the Bill was confusion when people misunderstood the nature of legal advice, and the general advice that is the core of CAB provision, which we are so keen to maintain.

With regard to the issue of existing contracts for law centres—community legal advice centres and networks—which was raised by the hon. Member for Makerfield, we will honour those contracts and review how best to implement the Bill when contracts need to be re-let. The needs of Manchester and the local area will be carefully considered as part of that review.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

I do not think there is a lot of confusion between generalist and specialist help in the minds of the people who use and provide it; it appears to be just in the mind of the Government. The specialist help is needed for areas such as welfare benefits. The Government have tried on many occasions to say that that is about simple form-filling. It is not. There are 8,690 pages of Department for Work and Pensions guidance given to its decision makers.

[Mr Djanogly]

As the hon. Lady knows, where there is a risk to someone’s security or liberty, or where someone is at immediate risk of losing their home, we are not ending legal aid for civil advice. There seems to be a misconception that we are taking away all legal aid for civil advice. That is simply not the case. We are prioritising our help for those who are most vulnerable, given the overall funding that we have to work with.

I can confirm that my Department is working closely with colleagues across Government, and particularly with the Cabinet Office, which is leading on this area, to support this important cross-Government work. The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister are aware of the ongoing work; I hope that will assure hon. Members that the Government are listening to the concerns being voiced about the not-for-profit sector, and are urgently taking work forward to address those concerns.

Transforming Bailiff Action

Jonathan Djanogly Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

On 17 February the Government published a consultation paper on transforming bailiff action. This is the next step in the Government’s work to provide more protection against aggressive bailiffs in England and Wales following the recently published new standards defining acceptable behaviour for those working in the industry.

The need for a workable means to enforce the payment of debts and fines is important to both the economy and the justice system. Without assurance that it is possible, with due process, to recoup money from debtors unwilling to pay, it would be too risky for creditors to lend, and the effectiveness of courts would diminish.

Yet for too many ordinary people bailiff action is an intrusive, expensive and stressful experience. Two of the worst features of the current process are the complexities surrounding bailiffs’ powers and the absence of a clear and fair charging regime. We also need to do much more to protect the most vulnerable in society. It is not acceptable that some bailiffs are aggressive, and use threatening behaviour to gain entry to premises, especially when children are the only persons present.

This package of proposals seeks to restore balance to the system, improving clarity so that both debtors and creditors know where they stand, strengthening protections for the vulnerable, and ensuring that individuals, business and Government are able to collect the debts they are owed. Its aim is to respect both the competing rights of the creditor and the debtor.

So our first proposal is to prohibit the use of force against a person, introduce safeguards to protect children and ensure there is a clear and effective complaints process available to the debtor. We are also introducing a compliance stage in the proposed costs regime enabling the bailiff to recover initial administrative costs, therefore reducing the need for the bailiff to attend a debtor’s property. Underpinning these changes, the paper sets out the minimum standards expected from bailiffs and a certification process to ensure that they are fit to operate.

Equally importantly, we recognise that the law in this area is antiquated, archaic and confusing—so much so that too often it thwarts effective and proportionate enforcement. Our plans for change will ensure that the law is fit for today’s society. We will introduce a comprehensive code which sets out when and how a bailiff can enter a property, prescribe precisely to whom and under what circumstances reasonable force to enter premises will be available, what goods can and cannot be seized and sold, and what costs a bailiff can recover.

Copies of the consultation paper have been placed in the Vote Office and in the Printed Paper Office. The document is also available online, at:

http://www.justice.gov.uk/consultations/consultations.htm.

The consultation will run until 14 May 2012. A response paper is scheduled to be published in October 2012.

Civil Justice Consultation (Government Response)

Jonathan Djanogly Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

I am today announcing the publication of the Government’s response to the civil justice consultation on “Solving disputes in the county courts”, which included proposals to modernise the civil justice system and make it simpler, quicker, cheaper and more effective.

The consultation was launched by the Ministry of Justice on 29 March 2011 and closed on 30 June 2011.

Based on the broad support many of the Government’s proposals received, we plan to increase the small claims limit to £10,000 initially, with a possible further increase to £15,000 in the future after evaluation. We do not recommend an increase to the fast-track limit at this time.

All small claims will be referred automatically to mediation, on the basis that this is not compulsory mediation, but rather a requirement to engage with a small claims mediator. Mandatory information sessions for higher-value claims will not be introduced.

After liaising further with stakeholders we will be extending to £25,000 the existing RTA PI scheme to provide a speedier, more transparent system for dealing with low-value personal injury claims arising out of accidents. This will assist in deterring spurious claims, while ensuring compensation is available more quickly where it is merited.

The Government will proceed with streamlining procedures and commencement of certain provisions of part 4 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, which have already been approved by Parliament.

A single county court for England and Wales will be established and provisions introduced to enable cases and judges to be allocated more efficiently and effectively. Specialist claims will be placed under the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court.

The document is available online at: http://www.justice. gov.uk.

Broadcasting of Court Proceedings

Jonathan Djanogly Excerpts

Wednesday 8th February 2012 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), who is the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, on securing this timely debate. In an impressive and knowledgeable speech, he presented a view that is fairly close to that of the Government.

Open justice is a long-standing and fundamental principle of our legal system. Justice must be done as much as it must be seen to be done if it is to command public confidence. As my hon. Friend set out, the Master of the Rolls said last year:

“Public scrutiny of the courts is an essential means by which we ensure that judges do justice according to law, and thereby secure public confidence”.

Very few people have direct experience of court proceedings. In principle, our courts are open to all members of the public who wish to attend, but in practice very few people have the time or opportunity to observe what happens in our courts in person. For many, the criminal justice system is still seen as opaque, remote and difficult to understand. We need to make it a reality that our courts are open and accessible to as many people as are interested in seeing them work.

Media coverage is often the prime source for public understanding of the criminal justice system, and many people base their views of the courts on their portrayal on television or film. Those dramatised accounts inevitably do not give an entirely accurate portrayal of what happens in a court case. The Government and the judiciary are committed to improving the public’s understanding of the criminal justice system through increasing transparency. The more informed people are about the justice system, the more confidence they will have in it.

Our evidence shows that a key element of confidence in the criminal justice system is how fair the public believe it is. People want information that has not been spun about what happens to criminals and why. The majority of respondents to the Department for Constitutional Affairs consultation on broadcasting in courts in 2004 believed that broadcasting could increase understanding of court processes and make courts more accessible. That is why the Government believe that removing the current ban on filming in courts will improve public understanding of the justice system.

The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice announced last year that the Government plan to allow judgments and sentencing decisions in cases before the Court of Appeal, in both the criminal and civil divisions, to be broadcast. We intend to introduce legislation to give effect to those reforms as soon as parliamentary time allows, although I cannot, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon appreciates, pre-empt the Queen’s Speech. We are working very closely with the judiciary to take that work forward.

My hon. Friend made a case for the eventual full recording of all trials. That is not being reviewed at the moment, although I appreciate that he understands that a step-by-step approach, which was how he put it, will be required. Over a longer period, we expect to extend broadcasting of sentencing remarks to the Crown court, given a reasonable time after the introduction of broadcasting in the Court of Appeal.

All hon. Members will remember the media furore over the O. J. Simpson trial in the United States of America, and, more recently, the trial of Michael Jackson’s doctor. My hon. Friend mentioned selected excerpts from the Knox case. The Government and the judiciary will not permit our courts to become show trials for media entertainment. We therefore have no current plans to allow the broadcasting of trials from the Crown courts, other than sentencing remarks.

Currently, the Criminal Justice Act 1925 prohibits anyone taking, or attempting to take, a photograph in any court except the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the Contempt of Court Act 1981 prohibits the use of a tape recorder, or other device, to record the audio of the court proceedings. Primary legislation, as my hon. Friend made clear, will be required to amend that legislation, and any proposals the Government bring forward will be subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny and debate.

With certain limited exceptions, most courts are open to the public, and journalists are allowed to be present in court and report what they see and hear, subject to reporting restrictions. At the end of last year, the Lord Chief Justice published new guidance for journalists wishing to use live text-based communications, including Twitter from mobile phones, in courtrooms during the conduct of a court case. Journalists and legal commentators no longer need to apply to use text-based devices to communicate from a court during a case, although the presiding judge always retains full discretion to prohibit such communications in the interests of justice.

Broadcasting of court proceedings is not without precedent in this country, as my hon. Friend made clear. We already allow broadcasting of live footage of the UK Supreme Court, and many people watched Julian Assange’s appeal to the Supreme Court last week. All hearings in the Supreme Court can be viewed online from anywhere around the world through the live stream on Sky’s website. Figures from the first three months of broadcasting from last summer show that that stream was seen 139,000 times, proving there is a public appetite for watching court proceedings. Limited televised excerpts from inquiries—my hon. Friend mentioned the Hutton and Leveson inquiries—have been broadcast, and have engaged the public as they have progressed.

We must remember, however, that the courts deal with very serious matters that can affect the liberty, livelihood and reputation of the parties involved. It will be vital that proper safeguards are introduced to ensure that the parties are treated fairly, and that their rights are respected. Our paramount concern in opening up our courts to broadcasting must remain the proper administration of justice.

We are very clear that television must not give offenders opportunities for theatrical public display. Offenders will not be allowed to be filmed, and we are clear that the judge will have the right to stop filming in the event of any demonstration or disruption in the courtroom. We will also not allow victims, witnesses or jurors to be filmed. Victims and witnesses will be protected, and we will not introduce any measures that would make their court experience even more difficult or make them even more reluctant to give evidence. We are seeking the views of victims’ groups on our proposals, and potential safeguards to ensure that the identities and rights of victims, witnesses and jurors are protected.

[Mr Whittingdale]

I accept, of course, that this will be a step-by-step process, but I hope that the Minister will not close his mind completely to the suggestion that eventually witnesses should be allowed to be televised. I know that it is not the same, but I chair televised hearings, one or two of which have achieved quite large audiences. I know that appearing before a Select Committee may be intimidating, but I do not think that it makes a great deal of difference if it is broadcast. The fact that witnesses are appearing in a parliamentary forum may be intimidating, as it might be in a court, but the cameras are very discreet, and people are largely unaware of them.

[Mr Djanogly]

Such an inquiry may be similar to a criminal trial, but often it is not. The circumstances and sensitivities may be different, as may the outcome.

Existing reporting restrictions on cases will continue to apply to broadcasting, and in all cases the judge will have the final say on whether proceedings should be broadcast. We are considering how to ensure that any use of the footage is appropriate to the dignity of the courts as part of the legislative framework. This will not happen overnight. The 2004 pilot of filming in the Court of Appeal, which was not for broadcast, demonstrated that it is possible for cameras to be allowed into courts without disrupting the administration of justice. However, before any plans can be agreed, we must take into account the views of a wide range of interests, and we will have discussions with the judiciary and others to ensure that we have considered the complex legal, practical and technical issues.

Allowing the broadcasting of judgments and sentencing remarks is one of a number of measures intended to open up the court process to the public, including to those who do not have the occasion or opportunity to attend court in person. The Government are committed to providing the public with information on the operation of public services in their area, and the justice system is no exception. We are taking significant steps to open up the courts to the public, and to get as much information as possible about their performance at local level into the public domain.

On 24 November last year, we published anonymised, individual-level sentencing data by court so that the public can see what sentences are being handed down in their local courts, and can compare different courts on a wide range of measures, such as timeliness. At the beginning of this year, on 12 January, we published performance data for individual courts that enable local communities to find out how their local court is performing on a range of measures. The data include, among other measures, information on case timeliness in criminal, civil and family courts, and the proportion of cracked and ineffective trials at the Crown court. That represents a significant step forward in keeping the public informed about how the courts are operating in their area. In May, we will go a step further and provide justice outcome information on police.uk. That will enable the public to see what happens after a crime is reported—police actions followed by justice outcomes—and will reinforce the link between crimes being committed and justice being delivered.

In addition to the new data we have published on court performance, the Government have taken other steps to provide the public with information on how the criminal justice system works. For example, our release on court-level sentencing data in October 2010 was made available in a user-friendly format on the “Making sense of criminal justice” microsite, and was significantly more popular than normal statistical releases. Crucially, the data were released alongside the award-winning “You be the Judge” tool, which aims to promote public understanding of the sentencing process. The Government believe that providing adequate contextual information to increase public understanding of the criminal justice system is key to making data meaningful to the public, and we plan to provide such information with every transparency-data release.

I believe that the crime and justice sector is at the vanguard of transparency across Whitehall, and good progress has been made to date. However, we are committed to making the justice system more transparent, and I am confident that we will continue to make good progress in this area. The Government believe that television has a key role to play in increasing public confidence, and that is why we plan to introduce broadcasting from courts. However, although it is important for justice to be seen to be done, it is more important that justice is done. The administration of justice remains our primary aim, and our proposals to permit broadcasting from courts will not be allowed to affect that in any way.