European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Jonathan Djanogly and Andy Slaughter

Wednesday 13th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

One reason why we need to make a decision now is that businesses are already relocating. International broadcasting contributes £1 billion to this country and it is prominent in my constituency. It dominates Europe, and it will move to Europe because it will not be able to get the licences that it needs in this country. That is happening now. We cannot wait three or six months.

[Mr Djanogly]

I accept that business wants consistency and answers, and that it wants to know which way it is heading. However, even under the amendment it would not have that, so I still say that we should stick with the Prime Minister, who has her plan.

The Lords amendment on the customs union is a more complicated scenario, as it does not mandate us to join a customs union, as the amendment to the Trade Bill would. Rather, the Lords’ proposal in this Bill is simply that a Minister should lay a report outlining the steps taken to negotiate a customs union. In theory, therefore, the Minister could comply simply by reporting that steps had been taken, even though they were leading nowhere. On the other hand, I appreciate that having this amendment would give some comfort that the Government had not written off a customs union as a fall-back if Brussels were to reject the Prime Minister’s proposals. It also makes a statement that this House rejects the concept of a hard Brexit—a lesson that needs to be understood by many Members of this House.

However, it has been put to us by the Prime Minister that any vote on this issue will, in her opinion, seriously undermine her negotiating position in Brussels. I was told directly that such an amendment could lead Mr Barnier to throw out the Government’s negotiating proposals on the basis that the EU could say that it was being manipulated by them. I would dispute that interpretation, but I also accept that it is ultimately the Prime Minister who is going to negotiate for us on what I believe will be a fair basis.

Furthermore I recognise the Government’s concession a couple of days ago, after no little debate, in allowing the Lords amendment if the words “customs union” were changed to “customs arrangement”. That also needs to be put into the context of the Government’s concession on Northern Ireland in the amendments to Lords amendment 88. Importantly, those amendments require everyone to act with regard to the December 2017 UK-EU joint report. So I suggest that, if we add the “customs arrangement” wording to the Irish compromise in the joint report, which will need to be applied throughout the UK, and throw in the Irish backstop proposals for good measure, we will be much closer to a customs arrangement resembling a customs union than we were before. I note that the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) and various other hon. Members have made the same point.

For all those reasons, and despite all the confusion, the lack of policy and the Brexiteer antics, I have decided to back the Prime Minister in her June EU meetings, and I will vote with the Government on these amendments.

Courts and Tribunals Fees

Debate between Jonathan Djanogly and Andy Slaughter

Monday 4th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Much of the preliminary work on court and tribunal fee reviews was carried out in the early days of the coalition Government, when I had the pleasure of minding those issues at the Ministry of Justice. I acknowledge the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill): the issues are complex and dependent on the differing circumstances. I think, however, there is now a level of understanding that was not generally prevalent back then—first, that it costs money to have, as we do, a decent court service, decent quality courts and an excellent quality of judges; and, secondly, that this cost should not just be for the taxpayer to shoulder.

We invested £300 million in the state-of-the-art Rolls building to hear large international and money cases. This gave the UK the quality of courts required to retain our premier status as the place to seek justice, using English and Welsh jurisdiction clauses, and thereby added greatly to the offering and income of UK plc. I have to ask, however, whether very high-value cases should be subject to a £10,000 fee cap. The first case to be heard in the Rolls building involved two Russian oligarchs and would have cost them hundreds of thousands of pounds per week in lawyers’ costs but, relatively, peanuts to hire the court and judge. I appreciate concerns that fees should not be so high as to impact on international competiveness, but I would appreciate hearing from the Minister whether he feels that we have the balance right.

On employment tribunals, the claim figures may be smaller—most of the time—but the principle remains that the service has to be paid for. Given that an employment contract is a private contract that does not involve the state, except when the state is the employer, why should the taxpayer subsidise the private claim? I think we now have the right formula: so far as possible, and as the starting point, the fees paid by the applicant should cover the cost of the application, but following that, where it is in the interests of justice, people who need help should be individually assisted via a remission scheme.

In that context, I do not agree with the Justice Committee’s suggestion that the overall quantum of fees should be reduced, and I do not believe that its report justifies that in any event, although I accept that the Chairman has just acknowledged that more data are required to make the assessment.

The figures for employment tribunals are material. There were 67% fewer single cases from October 2013 to June 2015, although that still represents tens of thousands of claims per year. The fall in multiple cases by 72% was more expected, as lots of public sector equal pay claims were working their way through the system. There seems to be some debate, however, about the extent to which fees have put people off claiming, and this will always be a hard figure to tie down. The Committee speculated that it could be 13,000 a year, based on 26% of ACAS claimants saying they would not progress their claim because they found the fees off-putting. Of course, a significant proportion might have believed this, but possibly only or mainly because they had weak claims. We would need more research.

The debate around employment tribunal fees often focuses on the questions raised by vexatious or highly risky claims and the impact on business and the economy. I shall come back to these important issues, but they did not form the starting point of our initial review, which was, first, to get those who could pay to do so; secondly, to encourage parties to seek alternative methods of dispute resolution, where possible; and, thirdly, to maintain access to justice. I still maintain that those were sound principles on which to proceed, and I think that this has been justified by the very many judicial reviews, brought mainly by the trade unions, that have to date consistently failed.

I strongly believe that when a claimant could issue a claims form at zero cost to themselves, he or she had every incentive to do so—but, most importantly, every incentive to do whatever the weakness of the claim itself. The Justice Committee report describes a witness who suggested that vexatious claims may be less than 5% of claims, but that still represents a significant number for the unfortunate companies that are subjected to them. Witnesses also stated that fees had deterred claimants who would otherwise have won as the proportion of successful claimants has not increased, despite a fall in the number of cases.

[Andy Slaughter]

The hon. Gentleman says that 5% is significant, but we are talking about falls of 70%. If he is genuinely concerned about discouraging unmeritorious or frivolous claims, a small charge—not one of £1,200—might be appropriate. Does he not think that that amount is disproportionate, even if he agrees with the principle?

[Mr Djanogly]

I am coming on to alternative ways of funding. The starting point is to get cost recovery and then to look at individual circumstances, where necessary. I would have liked hon. Members to spend a little more time talking about the remission system rather than fees—perhaps one of my hon. Friends is about to do so. More winnable cases leads to more of them being settled before going to tribunal, but even if this is an access-to-justice issue it should be dealt through the remissions system rather than the fee itself.

I certainly recall personally the significant numbers of businesses complaining that the threat of employment claims alone was enough to put them off employing more people. Interestingly, this was very much more prevalent among small businesses than large ones. Indeed, this is reflected in the Justice Committee’s report, as the Chairman said, which clearly shows the CBI to be more relaxed on the issue than the FSB. This is undoubtedly because it is the larger companies that have the large HR departments that can manage claims as part of their overall business. For small businesses, processing a claim, let alone taking time off to go to tribunal, can take up an impossible amount of the principal’s time.

Family Courts

Debate between Jonathan Djanogly and Andy Slaughter

Thursday 24th May 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Djanogly]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. This was what came up in Australia. The Government have looked carefully at the lessons of the Australian experience of legislating in this area, which was highlighted by the family justice review. Direct comparisons with the experience in Australia are misleading; it is certainly not our intention to mirror the structure of the Australian legislation or to create new layers of complexity in our existing system.

Contributors all mentioned the importance of early intervention. I agree with my right hon. Friend that it is an essential component in solving this issue. The Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Education and the Ministry of Justice are working closely together on this so that a parent’s first port of call will be an online hub that will provide practical information and advice and will signpost appropriate services.

We have introduced measures to strengthen consideration of mediation and to explore how that can work alongside parenting programmes and other interventions to help parents focus on a child’s needs. I will say a bit more about mediation later. In addition, we are working to develop parenting agreements as a tool to help parents agree arrangements that are child focused and practical.

The DFE is providing an early intervention grant worth about £2 billion, which is flexible funding for local authorities to spend on their early intervention priorities from Sure Start through to crime prevention. The Justice Committee will know about the Youth Justice Board and the custody pathfinder projects, which give pilot areas custody funding up front for the under-18s. That will incentivise local authorities to intervene early before young people become serial offenders.

Many other cases could be settled away from court. Too many people go to court to resolve their private disputes and fail to grasp the fact that the court is required to focus on the child’s welfare needs. That may mean that neither parent is happy with the decisions that are made. For many such parents, the family courts are not the best way of settling disputes about a child’s future. Mediation can be quicker and cheaper, and can provide better outcomes, especially if compared with drawn-out court hearings. It is important that mediation is considered at the earliest opportunity before positions become entrenched. An amicable solution is better than a litigious one.

Referrals to mediation in publicly funded cases are up by nearly 12% since the introduction of the pre-application protocol last April. However, I remain concerned about the protocol’s effectiveness in privately funded cases, and there is a need to tackle inconsistencies in approach across the courts. That is why we will make statutory changes to make it a prerequisite that anyone who wishes to begin court action must first attend a mediation information and assessment meeting to find out about and consider mediation. We remain committed to make public funding available for mediation through legal aid for those who are eligible and expect to fund an additional £10 million for mediation services.

I should point out to the hon. Member for Hammersmith that the Government have no plans to stop making available legal aid for children where they are a party to family proceedings. Various hon. Members mentioned litigants in person. We accept that the reforms will mean an increase in litigants in person. However, unrepresented parties have always been a feature of the justice system—some because they cannot afford representation and others because they choose not to be represented. Paying for a lawyer, whether out of private pockets or public funds, is not always necessary. Judges make significant efforts to assist litigants in person, explaining procedures and what is expected of them. We estimate that about 40% of private law children’s cases involve one or more litigants in person. The proportion in divorce cases is much higher than that.

[Mr Slaughter]

Will the Minister accept that replacing advocates with litigants in person can typically increase the length of a case by up to 100%? If he does not accept that there is robust evidence of that, should the Government not collect such evidence and make their assessment of what the changes will mean for the length and cost of a case?

[Mr Djanogly]

From a review of the literature, we know that sometimes these cases can take longer, but not always. Sometimes they are actually quicker. The picture is complex. However, we expect fewer cases to come to court in future because there will be 10,000 extra family mediations, which will help offset any additional burdens on the courts from dealing with litigants in person. Overall, we do not expect a likely increase in litigants in person to lead to significant additional burdens on the court.

In recognising that there is an existing problem with litigants in person—no matter what happened in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill—we are seeking to improve the system by introducing single family courts, which will provide one route into the system that people can understand; by changing court processes so that they are easier and quicker to understand; by introducing a new child arrangement order; by creating processes to deal with breach of order more quickly and effectively; by simplifying and streamlining the divorce process; and by improving the information made available to the public. In addition, support for separated and separating parents will be provided through new web and telephone services led by the Department for Work and Pensions, which will provide trusted independent information suited to people’s needs. The web service will be commissioned in 2012 and the telephone service in 2013.

Other practical steps include welcoming the Civil Justice Council’s report on self-represented litigants that was published late last year. It contained a number of practical and pragmatic recommendations, many of which are applicable to the family as well as the civil courts. We are working with the CJC and the Family Justice Council on how to take these matters forward. Recommendations include guidance to court staff on how to deal with unrepresented parties and information about pro bono assistance. We have also made funding available to support this work, some of which is being used to support the expansion of the Personal Support Unit, a charity based in the Royal Courts of Justice, which provides volunteers to accompany people to court and to fund guidance produced by not-for profit organisations specifically tailored to unrepresented parties. We envisage the funds being used on online tools, guides to the court process, including on video content, and other initiatives, and we are working with relevant organisations such as the citizens advice bureau to that effect. These will all be in place before the legal aid reforms take effect. These changes are radical and cannot happen overnight, nor can they happen in a family justice system that lacks leadership and coherence.

We agree with the family justice review and with my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed that transferring CAFCASS to the Ministry of Justice will bring court social work closer to the courts and make it easier to improve the whole system’s performance. We will transfer the sponsorship of CAFCASS from the Department for Education to the Ministry of Justice by the end of this spending review period. I should say that CAFCASS’s performance has improved significantly in recent times, but I agree with him that moving CAFCASS will not be enough; integration of services will be key.

Crucially, we are already putting in place the governance arrangements that will drive those changes. We have established the Family Justice Board, which brings together senior figures in the core organisations within the family justice system. The board will give family justice national leadership and visibility, and will be led by an independent chair and supported by a performance improvement sub-group and a young people’s board. We are also establishing new local family justice boards to drive momentum at a local level. The new national governance arrangements will provide a more joined-up family justice system and ensure consistency between national strategy and local delivery. Together, the new structures will have a clear remit to focus relentlessly on system performance.

[Mr Joe Benton in the Chair]

In taking forward work to improve the system’s efficiency and effectiveness, we must not overlook the need to make it more responsive. We are considering how we can simplify processes further and provide practical information to help unrepresented parties navigate their way through the system, as I described earlier.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley mentioned CAFCASS and guardians, in the context of the child’s voice being heard. We agree with the FJR’s strong views on the centrality of children’s interests and endorse the panel’s proposals on listening to children’s voices and ensuring that their wishes and feelings are taken into account. We will put the child back at the centre of the system. We take seriously our obligations to promote and implement the UN convention on the rights of the child, and throughout our proposed reforms, we will introduce practical measures to ensure that children’s voices are heard. The Family Justice Board will have a key role to play in supporting children’s right to have their voices heard, which is why one of its sub-groups will be a young people’s board, building on the benefits gained from the CAFCASS young people’s board.

There has been considerable debate over the years about the opening up of family courts. Slightly different positions have been stated today by right hon. and hon. Members, who I accept all care passionately that we get it right. Understandably, there are many different views on the subject, and there is a balance to be struck between confidence and privacy on one hand and publicity on the other. The challenge is balancing the need for public scrutiny with the parties’ need for privacy. I accept that the current position is unsatisfactory.

The Government’s response to the Justice Committee’s report last year, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed restated today, accepted the recommendation that the provisions in part 2 of the Children, Schools and Families Act 2010, which allow for greater reporting by the media, should not be enacted. As the Committee recommended, one lesson learned from the outcome of the last attempt to achieve transparency in the family courts is that a solution to this important and contentious area of policy should not be rushed. Given the issues at stake, we will work to find ways to achieve greater transparency in the family courts.

The work that the Government are doing to implement change in response to the Justice Committee’s report and the recommendations of the family justice review represents a broad and ambitious programme of reform, as I hope I have explained to some extent today. The programme that I have outlined shows our commitment to providing a modern family justice system where delay is the exception rather than the norm; one in which people are supported to resolve disputes themselves as early as possible and away from the court if possible; one that is coherent and well led by the Family Justice Board, with buy-in from all partner agencies: in short, a family justice system that children and families can trust and rely on. I know that all right hon. and hon. Members share that objective, and I am grateful to them for their contributions to this debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jonathan Djanogly and Andy Slaughter

Tuesday 15th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

We are retaining no win, no fee for conditional fee agreements, but we are getting rid of the reforms that the Labour Government put in place whereby success fees and after-the-event insurance were recoverable. We will effectively return to the position of the last Conservative Government, which I hope and expect will put balance back into the claims equation.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

To get his Bill through, the Minister promised a 10% uplift in general damages and protection from costs for losing personal injury claimants. Those are poor substitutes for the current rules that his friends in the insurance industry wanted rid of, but where are those concessions? Are they more broken promises?

[Mr Djanogly]

No. All those procedures are being put in place, not least because of our concern to retain access to justice. As the hon. Gentleman said, we are introducing several measures that will help personal injury claimants pay their solicitors’ success fees and, if necessary, insurance premiums. For example, there will be a 10% increase in general damages, and we are introducing a system of qualified one-way costs shifting, which will be in place before the Act commences next April.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Jonathan Djanogly and Andy Slaughter

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[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]

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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jonathan Djanogly and Andy Slaughter

Tuesday 13th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[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?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jonathan Djanogly and Andy Slaughter

Tuesday 31st January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Writing in yesterday’s Daily Mail, Matthew Elliott, the chief executive of the TaxPayers Alliance, pointed out that:

“advice costing £80 to deal with a housing problem can save thousands for councils who are legally required to house homeless families…cutting £10.5m for legal aid in clinical negligence cases will cause knock-on costs to the NHS of £28.5m.”

He says:

“Almost everyone who has looked at these particular cuts”—

even Norman Tebbit—

“thinks that too many of them will end up costing taxpayers more than they save.”

Is he right?

[Mr Djanogly]

No, he is not right. The figures have been repeated by the Law Society. The point is that legal help is not the same as legal aid. We certainly appreciate the strong need for legal help so that problems can be dealt with early, and that is why we are very supportive of not-for-profit organisations.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jonathan Djanogly and Andy Slaughter

Tuesday 13th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

By implication, yes.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The press were, of course, briefed on the domestic violence review before the House was. It was clearly stated at the weekend that the Deputy Prime Minister would undertake it, but perhaps he cannot be found now, which is why the Home Office will be in charge.

If the purpose of the review is to broaden the ambit of what constitutes domestic violence, why are the Department and the Secretary of State narrowing not just the definition but the evidential criteria, so that whether a woman is supported by a GP or hospital doctor or by a refuge, she will no longer be able to obtain legal aid?

[Mr Djanogly]

We have no intention of narrowing the definition, and we do not believe that the definition in the Bill does that. I can say, however, that our policy is to end legal aid for most private family law applications relating to, for instance, divorce, ancillary relief and child contact. The main exception is legal aid in domestic violence cases, which we are anxious to retain.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Jonathan Djanogly and Andy Slaughter

Wednesday 2nd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

I want to try to avoid delay today, so I shall speak to Government amendments now and respond to the points made in debate later, rather than pre-empting in my opening remarks what hon. Members may have to say about their amendments.

Government new clause 4, which is a technical amendment, has two purposes. First, it seeks to provide clarity about the role of the director of legal aid casework, by ensuring that the exercise of the functions of the office is on behalf of the Crown, and that service as the director is service in the civil service of the state. The second purpose of new clause 4 is to ensure that the Lord Chancellor is treated as a corporation sole for the purposes of part 1 of the Bill.

The new clause is necessary in order to clarify the position in relation to the Lord Chancellor’s ability to hold an interest in land for those purposes, and so applies to charges that transfer from the Legal Services Commission to the Lord Chancellor at the point when the LSC is abolished, and for future charges to be taken over property under clause 24. The statutory charge is the charge that arises under clause 24 on any property recovered or preserved, including costs, by a legally aided person in respect of the amounts spent by the Lord Chancellor in securing their legal aid services and any other amounts payable by them under clauses 22 and 23. The amendment is essential, as the current value of charges held by the LSC is £212 million.

Government new clause 9 and new schedule 3 make provision on information sharing in relation to checking a person’s financial eligibility for legal aid in Northern Ireland. They replicate for Northern Ireland the information gateway for England and Wales created by clause 21 and further provided for in clause 32. Government amendments 26 and 27 are technical amendments that make it clear that regulations made under new schedule 3 will be prescribed not by the Lord Chancellor but by the Northern Ireland Assembly. Government amendment 54 is also a technical amendment that makes it clear that the Bill extends to Northern Ireland for the purposes of new clause 9 and new schedule 3, which create the information gateway, and for the purposes of clauses 38 to 40. I should point out that under paragraph 2(4) of new schedule 3, it will be a criminal offence to use or disclose information contrary to the provisions of paragraph 2.

Government amendments 25 and 64 to 68 relate to the transfer of LSC employees to the civil service when the LSC is abolished. The powers currently set out in the Bill include a power, in schedule 4, for the Lord Chancellor to make transfer schemes to transfer to the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State the LSC’s rights, powers, duties and liabilities under or in connection with an LSC occupational pension scheme, of which there are currently two, or compensation scheme. The occupational pension and compensation scheme arrangements for LSC employees are different from those for existing civil servants. When the employees transfer to the civil service and become civil servants, they will join the principal civil service pension scheme.

Amendment 64 confers new powers upon the Lord Chancellor that can be exercised as part of any transfer scheme. Proposed new sub-paragraph (6A), set out in amendment 64, allows for the Lord Chancellor to apply legislation with modifications as far as it is necessary to give effect to any transfer scheme. That is appropriate when transfer schemes are of an administrative nature relating to the specific issues in question. For example, it will allow the Lord Chancellor to provide that an aspect of pensions legislation applies in a particular way to that particular scheme. It will assist, as appropriate, in enabling the continuation of the LSC pension scheme or schemes after the abolition of the LSC so that they can continue for the benefit of their pensioner and preserved members. Those are members who have contributed to the schemes before leaving LSC employment and either draw a pension from the scheme or will be entitled to do so in future.

For compensation scheme arrangements, as well as allowing the modification of legislation, proposed new sub-paragraph (6B), set out in amendment 64, provides that the transfer scheme may amend or otherwise modify the existing LSC compensation scheme. That will allow compensation arrangements for LSC employees transferring to the civil service to be brought into line with those of other civil servants over a transitional period.

Amendment 65 reflects the fact that when LSC employees transfer to the civil service there will no longer be any active members of the two current LSC occupational pension schemes, known as the No. 3 and No. 4 pension schemes. The amendment provides the Lord Chancellor with the power to make a scheme to merge the two residual pension schemes. It is explicit that a scheme exercising this power must not result in members of the pension schemes, or other beneficiaries under the schemes, being deprived of any rights accrued prior to the merger.

The LSC’s No. 3 pension scheme has fewer than 100 pensioner and preserved members, and no current LSC staff members. The No. 4 scheme is for current staff and also has a number of pensioner and preserved members. At present there is much duplication in the administration of the No. 3 and No. 4 schemes, such as producing two sets of accounts and actuarial valuations. Merging the schemes would allow us to cut significantly the administration costs of running two trust-based schemes. The amendment will also give the power to wind up an LSC occupational pension scheme.

Amendment 25 corrects a slip in clause 38(7)(j). The intention was not to make regulations that contain free-standing provision that modifies an Act either directly or indirectly, subject to the affirmative procedure. Amendments 66 to 68 clarify the fact that the regulation-making power provided to the Lord Chancellor under paragraph 10 of schedule 4 can be used in connection not only with transfers affected by schedule 4, but with schemes under schedule 4, meaning schemes dealing with something other than a transfer.

Government amendments 137 and 138 concern schedule 4 to the Bill, which governs transfers of employees and assets following the abolition of the LSC. They are purely technical amendments that simplify existing provisions. Paragraph 10(1) of schedule 4 currently allows the Lord Chancellor to make consequential supplementary, incidental or transitional provision by regulation, and paragraph 10(2)(b) specifies separately that such regulations may include transitory or savings provision. Rather than continue to separate these related provisions, for the purposes of simplification amendment 137 brings them together in a revised paragraph 10(1) and amendment 138 amends paragraph 10(2) to reflect that simplification. That mirrors an identical amendment to clause 115.

Finally, Government amendments 1, 2 and 19 are minor and technical amendments to clause 32 and schedule 5, consequential on the removal in Committee of what was then clause 71.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

If the Minister was sincere when he said in his opening remarks that we will make good progress and deal with as many of the groups of amendments as we can today, I applaud him for it, but it is a challenging task. There has been a statement so we have barely four hours left to debate huge chunks of the Bill, which is impractical. It will no doubt be assisted by the fact that, with the exception of the Minister’s Parliamentary Private Secretary, who has just appeared, there is not a single Conservative Back Bencher here. [Interruption.] I apologise to the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr Offord); I thought he was a Liberal Democrat. I withdraw that slur on his character immediately.

There is a serious point. We had a disgraceful situation in the House on Monday when the Minister called in Conservative Back Benchers, one by one, to speak on domestic violence and clinical negligence, particularly as they affect the most severe injuries and brain-damaged children, and to waste time. By wasting time and then voting against amendments that would deal with those issues, the Government prevented us from moving on to a substantive discussion on legal aid. I will not dwell on that point, because I wanted to move on, but I hope that in discussing these amendments, of which there are a broad range, we will be able to do justice to that important subject.

I will speak principally to amendment 123, which stands in my name. I will get my contributions out of the way in one go by speaking to new clause 17, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue), amendment 148, tabled by Liberal Democrat Members, who for some reason rejected a similar amendment I tabled, and new clause 43, tabled by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), which is a very good one. I will say at the outset that we support all those amendments. I will not deal with amendment 116, which stands in my name, because my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mrs Chapman) will make a contribution on that later. For the avoidance of doubt, I will say at the outset that the Opposition will press amendment 116 to a vote, and other hon. Members may wish to press their amendments to a vote.

Amendment 123 deals with a fairly straightforward point, but an important one, which is in no way party political. The independence of the new director has raised considerable alarm and concern across the professions and the voluntary sector, and indeed with anyone who deals regularly with legal aid. We attempted many times in Committee, with a variety of amendments, to try to push at this and get the Government to give a little. We asked for an appeals process, a vetting process before appointment, which would give some independence, and for assurances in relation to the civil service, which will be working in this area. Every amendment, as was the case throughout the Committee’s proceedings, was rejected. I hope—this is the case in other common law jurisdictions which have moved to a similar system—that the Minister is listening to these proposals. This is not an issue that divides the parties on the abolition of the Legal Services Commission, but it is an issue that strongly divides the parties on the adverse influence, be it perceived or real, that the Government will bring to bear on to the director post once it is firmly ensconced within the Department.

There is a trend in this Bill towards Government control and authoritarianism, and we will see it when we debate clause 12, whereby the same director of legal aid will get the power to decide whether legal aid is granted to those in extremis—in the worst circumstances—when they have been arrested. We also see the trend in relation to the constraints on the powers of the judiciary, and, although I doubt that we will get time to debate remand today, I note that the Government wish severely to tie the hands of magistrates and judges in relation to whom they can remand in custody. All the time, these measures restrict either citizens’ rights or the rights of independent parties, whether they be the director or the judiciary, to make decisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Slaughter]

The presenter made a mistake—I hope the Minister is not making the same one—in relation to talking about legal aid, as presenters often do, but I assure the House that Mr Jefferies was clearly talking about conditional fee agreements and no win, no fee. The answer is—

[Mr Djanogly]

Yes, but we are talking about legal aid.

[Mr Slaughter]

I know the Minister does not want to hear this, but in relation to the director the point is that the Government wish to decide who has merit and who does not. That is the charge that the Government have to answer, and in this case they will do so only by ensuring the independence of the director.

Let me move on, because we are in the midst of a radical reform of the social welfare system. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has embarked on restructuring the way benefits are assessed, calculated and provided, local authorities have had budgets radically reduced, and a housing benefit cap is being introduced. In short, the benefits system is in a period of turmoil, and as a consequence the system of checks and balances on state decision making through the first-tier tribunals is also significantly under pressure, such that more staff are being taken on daily to deal with a growing number of appeals against decisions taken by Jobcentre Plus.

When in October last year the coalition produced its Green Paper on the reform of legal aid in England and Wales, we were shocked to see that there were cuts of £450 million, as defined in the latest impact assessment, and that they overwhelmingly came from civil legal aid. Things such as education, employment, welfare benefits, debt, housing matters and clinical negligence were taken out of scope, either in their entirety, as in the case of employment, welfare benefits and clinical negligence, or substantially, as in the case of debt, housing and education.

Means-testing will also change. The Government have proposed the abolition of capital passporting, by which those receiving certain income-based benefits are automatically eligible for legal aid, and the introduction of a new minimum capital contribution, a personal financial contribution towards legal costs.

The philosophy behind the cuts is explained in the Government’s impact assessment, in which they state:

“Legal aid may be regarded as a redistributive transfer of resources from taxpayers to those who are most needy, in relation to both the nature and merits of their case and also to their financial position… The Government may consider intervening if there are strong enough failures in the way markets operate…or if there are strong enough failures in existing government interventions”.

The amendments under discussion simply seek to address the Government’s failure to abide by those principles as set down in their own impact assessment. We are in a period of great need and of great changes to the system, and many meritorious cases are being referred to tribunal. By definition, the financial position of those requiring help with welfare benefits, employment law, debt and housing is necessarily the most precarious of any in society, and £70 a week is often all that stands between some of my constituents and utter destitution. They are in a desperate place.

Let me give the House one example, in relation to eligibility for disability living allowance. There are so many problems with the private contractor Atos that many seriously ill people are being judged fit for work. I leave aside operational issues, such as the fact that, according to its own website, 20% of Atos’s 141 medical assessment centres do not have wheelchair access, because, according to a newspaper report, one third of those refused DLA by Atos have appealed to the first-tier tribunals, and 39% of decisions have been overturned. Furthermore, the report states:

“The tribunals service…has had to double its capacity in the social security section to deal with the large number of appeals, recruiting an extra 170 paid medical panel members.”

In a letter to The Guardian, leading mental health charities and a senior consultant from the Royal College of Psychiatrists say:

“We’ve found that the prospect of incapacity benefit reassessment is causing huge amounts of distress and tragically there have already been cases where people have taken their own life following problems with changes to their benefits.”

These are not just economic issues; they profoundly affect the most vulnerable individuals.

The Government’s proposals will seriously damage access to justice for the most vulnerable in society, and their own impact assessment shows that there will be a disproportionate impact on women. Similarly, there is the potential for the cuts to impact disproportionately on black and ethnic minority clients and on those with disabilities.

That is something the Minister himself acknowledges. When it was put to him that groups with protected characteristics would be affected, he dismissed it, as only a Conservative Minister can, although the Liberal Democrats are getting there, by saying, “Well, that’s because they are disproportionately represented among the most vulnerable.” That is the logic of the Government’s case—“Because vulnerable people get legal aid, and we are cutting it, what do you expect to happen?” Those principles show an absolute absence of moral guidance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Slaughter]

I was not talking about the Minister; I was talking about the Bill. I am not surprised that the Minister’s PPS is embarrassed by the Bill, after sitting through our proceedings in Committee.

The common link between parts 1 and 2 of the Bill is the destruction of access to justice in a way that we have not seen since the introduction of legal aid by a Labour Government after the second world war. The insurance industry is being given one of the biggest pay-offs in history which, as we know from experience, will go into the pockets of their directors and shareholders. While other aspects of this Bill display the startling incompetence of this Government, none shows their intent more truly than the provisions in part 2, which would give the whip hand to large public and private corporations, while taking rights away from ordinary people. What is the point in having rights if they cannot be enforced?

I ask the Liberal Democrats to look at amendment 21, which would deal with cases such as Trafigura and pleural plaques, and amendment 163, which would deal with cases such as that of Milly Dowler, and join us in the Lobby tonight.

[Mr Djanogly]

Amendments 21, 22, 72, 163, 164 and 165 all seek to undermine a fundamental element of the package of reform of civil litigation funding and costs based on the report prepared on behalf of the judiciary by Sir Rupert Jackson and now included in this Bill—the abolition of recoverability of success fees and after-the-event insurance premiums. I must say that I am rather perplexed by the amendments as in Committee the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) agreed that the intention of part 2 is

“perfectly sound, and it is one with which we have a great deal of sympathy.”––[Official Report, Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Public Bill Committee, 13 September 2011; c. 501.]

I will also deal with new clause 39, which is on the related but slightly separate matter of recoverable costs for low-value road traffic accident claims.

It is worth emphasising, as the Justice Secretary has just said, that we are not proposing to end conditional fee agreements or no win, no fee deals. What we are addressing is the substantial legal costs that go to lawyers under the current no win, no fee regime. Our reforms are designed to make these legal costs more proportionate, while enabling meritorious claims to be brought. This applies equally to defamation and privacy claims and multinational claims as to other categories of case, but it is worth reminding ourselves of some of the disproportionate costs that have arisen and that emphasise the need for our reforms across the board.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Jonathan Djanogly and Andy Slaughter

Tuesday 1st November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

Alternative business structures will be set up by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, probably before or just after the end of this year, so the hon. Lady makes an important point. At that stage, claims management companies will be able to purchase solicitors, and vice versa, which means that it would indeed be possible, as we discussed in the Transport Committee, for a claims management company to own a solicitor and effectively act as the advertising arm of a firm of solicitors. However, the important difference is that the claims management companies will then be regulated by the SRA, which will give consumers a significant amount of comfort.

Referral fees are one of the symptoms of the compensation culture in this country. The Government are determined to put an end to them while at the same time addressing the underlying cause of recoverability of no win, no fee success fees.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Following what my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Justice said earlier this afternoon, I rise to discuss proposals that have not been given due scrutiny in Parliament. We are all aware that the Government were bounced into taking action on referral fees only by the sustained campaigning by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw). In their haste to cover up their inaction and disregard of the abuses of the insurance industry, they have failed to consult on their proposals, which are incompetent, ineffective and will lead to problems further down the line. Indeed, it was reported this week that a judicial review has already been launched citing that lack of consultation.

Referral fees are paid by one party to another in exchange for what are essentially sale leads. They are analogous to brokers’ fees, commission for salespeople, marketing agreements or, in the most basic sense, advertising, because each of these represents part of the cost of sales. Every non-monopolistic industry has a cost of sales. Let me take the example of the insurance industry, an industry with which the Minister has more than a passing familiarity. Admiral is the UK’s leading specialist motor insurance company. Last year it received net insurance premium revenue of £288 million, but its total net revenue was £639 million, part of which was made with referral fees. It spent £151 million on the acquisition of insurance contracts and other marketing costs, including brokers’ costs, paying insurance websites and expensive advertising. Those costs drive up premium costs and the desire to make profit also drives up premium prices—Admiral made £283 million in profit last year on its net revenue of £639 million. That is how it works in the insurance industry.

It works in a similar way when law firms pay independent brokers, some of which are known as claims management companies, another area with which the Minister has more than a passing familiarity. They will pay referral fees in order to get leads for their practice. The lawyers often do this because, frankly, they are not very good at sales, marketing or advertising. However, the problems arise in the behaviour that that encourages. Although there are reputable and decent claims management companies out there that bring together those who want help with those who can provide it, there are also many claims farmers, often based overseas, that abuse the system, send unsolicited spam to people’s e-mail accounts and mobile phones and abuse their data.

It is right to deal with people who act in such a way, but the claims management regulator, which until a few weeks ago was the Minister, but which I understand is now the Secretary of State, has proven singularly unable to do so. An internal review of claims management regulation from the Ministry of Justice, dated 25 October 2011—just last week—states:

“It is evident that many of the more objectionable practices of Claims Management Companies such as cold calling in person, unauthorised marketing in hospitals and using exaggerated marketing claims have been reined in as a result of action taken under CMR.”

Nothing could make clearer what delusions have set in with claims management regulated by the Minister, because we all know from personal experience that the opposite is true and that such abuse is still out there at large and, if anything, is increasing. Our constituents are harassed by claims farmers, and their objectionable messages, but the Department that he has mismanaged for the past year and a half believes it is doing an excellent job. That is why we must take corrective action.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Jonathan Djanogly and Andy Slaughter

Monday 31st October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

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

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

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

[Mr Djanogly]

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

[Mr Slaughter]

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

[Mr Djanogly]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Djanogly]

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

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

[Mr Slaughter]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Djanogly]

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

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

[Mr Slaughter]

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Mr Djanogly]

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

[Mr Slaughter]

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

[Mr Djanogly]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jonathan Djanogly and Andy Slaughter

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

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

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

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

[Mr Djanogly]

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jonathan Djanogly and Andy Slaughter

Tuesday 17th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

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

“no further cutbacks in legal aid availability or eligibility”

because

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

[Mr Djanogly]

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jonathan Djanogly and Andy Slaughter

Tuesday 29th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

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

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

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

[Mr Djanogly]

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jonathan Djanogly and Andy Slaughter

Tuesday 15th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

We have no proposals to put a cap in place. The amount of work that is carried out will be just that. We are looking at the rates that are paid in certain circumstances, and people’s eligibility to receive advice in the first place.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Citizens Advice, the main provider of face-to-face advice, faces cuts of up to 45% and law centres face cuts of 70%. Legal service funding is an essential part of the income of all law centres and most CABs, but, according to the Government’s own figures, it is being cut by 90%. I welcome the Business Secretary’s U-turn on reinstating debt advice for one year only. Will the Under-Secretary take the opportunity, in considering the many responses to his consultation, to perform his own U-turn and drop his plans to end social welfare legal aid? If not, does he accept that the whole country will become an advice desert, and that he will be known as the man who ended universal access to justice?

[Mr Djanogly]

Anyone who suggests that there is universal access to justice in the context of access to legal aid has missed, for a start, the restrictions that the previous Labour Government put on access. We need take no lessons from the hon. Gentleman’s party, which, on the day the election was called, cut criminal legal aid by 13%. We take no lessons from him.

Legal Aid Reform

Debate between Jonathan Djanogly and Andy Slaughter

Thursday 3rd February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

I would love to give way, but with so many points having been made, I cannot. I apologise.

I believe that that has too often encouraged people to bring their problems before the courts even where the courts are not best placed to provide the best solutions, and discouraged them from seeking simpler, more appropriate remedies. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) on her excellent article this afternoon.

Indeed, the scheme now costs more than £2 billion a year, making it one of the most generous schemes in the world, even taking jurisdictional differences into account. We need to understand that, even after the proposed reforms, we are still going to have one of the most expensive schemes in the world. The previous Government made many attempts to reform legal aid, conducting more than 30 consultations since 2006, but the changes were of a piecemeal nature and failed to address the underlying problems. Rather than continue with this “cut and come again” approach, we have gone back to basic principles to make choices about which issues are of sufficient priority to justify the use of public funds, subject to people’s means and the merits of the case.

The Opposition’s general position on legal aid is staggeringly inconsistent and opportunistic. Labour appears to be backing down on its commitment to support legal aid reform. In an article on Left Foot Forward, the shadow justice Minister, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), wrote:

“It is nonsensical…to cut these long established public services.”

The article seems to reveal a split between the shadow Justice team and its party leader, who said at a recent press conference that with regard to the reductions in legal aid

“Labour has shown it is ready to make difficult cuts which we believe are necessary for the long term health of our economy.”

Its leader was, of course, reiterating the promise made in the 2010 Labour manifesto:

“We will find greater savings in legal aid”.

It also contradicts the statement of the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) offering support to the Government when the reforms were announced last year. He said:

“Let me be clear: had we been in government today, we, too, would have been announcing savings to the legal aid budget. That is a reality that we all have to acknowledge.”—[Official Report, 15 November 2010; Vol. 518, c. 663.]

[Mr Slaughter]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Djanogly]

I think I do have to give way on this one.

[Mr Slaughter]

I think the Minister does, now that he has read out the central office briefing. I urge him either to read the shadow Lord Chancellor’s article in the Solicitors Journal today, or even my speech in Westminster Hall before Christmas, which he would have heard had he turned up for it. If he does, he will see exactly where we would make the cuts and that we have made it clear throughout that we would not cut essential social welfare legal aid.

[Mr Djanogly]

I am pleased to hear some clarification of what the Opposition are not going to do; perhaps the hon. Gentleman will come back to the House to tell us what they are going to do, so that we can take a view on where they are coming from on this issue, because they have been thoroughly unimpressive to date.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jonathan Djanogly and Andy Slaughter

Tuesday 11th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

The question of expenses, which would be included in what my hon. Friend mentions, is mentioned in the consultation document. If he gets in touch with me, I will specifically make sure that it caters to the point that he has raised.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

In answer to a recent question, the Minister stated that appeals against decisions on incapacity benefit were 65% more likely to succeed if the appellant were represented. If we apply that to all areas of social welfare law where he is proposing to cut legal aid, that would mean at least 40,000 people each year losing appeals that they would win today solely because of the lack of representation. In the light of that and of the answer that he has just given to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), will he withdraw his earlier claim that individuals will be able to prepare their appeals without formal legal assistance, and reconsider these draconian cuts, which will hit the poorest hardest?

[Mr Djanogly]

In most cases, individuals will be able to appeal to the first-tier social security and child support tribunal without formal legal assistance. Legal aid is not currently available for legal representation as the appellant is required only to provide reasons for disagreeing with the decision in plain language. For those who need assistance on welfare benefits matters, which I think was the point the hon. Gentleman went on to make, advice and assistance is available from, for example, Jobcentre Plus, the benefits inquiry line and the tribunal itself.

Courts Service Estate

Debate between Jonathan Djanogly and Andy Slaughter

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to announce the Government’s response to their consultation on Her Majesty’s Courts Service estate. Thank you for allowing me to release details of the courts covered in the statement to Members in advance.

This statement will be of interest to many hon. Members and to many hard-working members of HMCS staff. It will also be of interest to the judiciary, both to professional judges and the very many magistrates who give freely of their time to serve their communities. My announcements pave the way for a better, more efficient and more modern justice system that has more efficient courts, better facilities, and the faster conclusion of cases for the benefit of victims, witnesses, defendants, judges and the public at large.

The announcements complement the Department’s wider plans to help and encourage people to resolve their issues out of court, using simpler, more informal remedies such as mediation where appropriate; to overhaul case management procedures and get rid of wasteful layers of bureaucracy; to move forward with technological innovations such as video links, which have the potential to revolutionise the way in which justice is delivered in our country; and to involve communities much more closely in the justice system, particularly through problem solving and restorative justice approaches.

On 23 June, my right hon. and learned Friend, the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, made a written statement announcing consultations on proposals to close 103 magistrates courts and 54 county courts in England and Wales, and to merge some local justice areas. The consultation was clear that failures in the last decade to manage the Courts Service estate properly have led to a service that would be unsustainable at any time, let alone in the current financial circumstances.

It is unsustainable that in 2009-10, our 330 magistrates courts sat for less than two thirds of their available time and that courtrooms in our 219 county courts sat on average for only 180 days a year. It is unacceptable that dozens of buildings never intended, and not fit, for the requirements of a modern court system are still being used. It is undesirable in the current financial position that the taxpayer continues to fund buildings that offer outdated and inadequate facilities to victims and witnesses.

I am grateful for the many contributions to the consultation. I understand the strength of feeling that is has generated, and I have listened to the many points made by respondents. Much has been said by Members about travel times to court. I can reassure the House that our plans will only very slightly reduce the percentage of the population able to access their nearest court by public transport in under an hour, from just under 90% to 85%. I also remind the House that very few of us actually attend court more than once or twice in our lives, and even fewer use public transport to get there. It is simply not good use of taxpayers’ money to operate courts simply to shave minutes off a journey that many will never need to make.

Arguments were also made during the consultation about the potential erosion of local justice. I take that accusation extremely seriously, but the closures will not mean people losing access to local justice. In fact, I would suggest that they will mean quite the opposite—better local justice. They will mean the provision of a better, more efficient and more modern justice system with good facilities, efficient courts and the faster conclusion of cases for the benefit of victims, witnesses, defendants, judges and the public.

Having taken all those points into consideration, the Government have decided to close 93 magistrates courts and 49 county courts. Of those county courts, however, 10 will remain open for hearings under the control of other local county courts. We will also retain 10 magistrates courts and five county courts on which we consulted, and I will list them. Magistrates courts will be retained at Abergavenny, Harlow, Kettering, Newbury, Newton Abbot, Skipton, Spalding, Stroud, Waltham Forest and Worksop. County courts will be retained at Barnsley, Bury, Llangefni, the Mayor’s and City of London, and Skipton.

It is estimated that those measures will save £41.5 million during the spending review period, excluding closure costs, and bring in £38.5 million in receipts from the sale of assets. In addition, I expect substantial cost avoidance through avoided maintenance costs for closed courts and better targeting of resources for the Courts Service, as well as savings for the National Offender Management Service and the Crown Prosecution Service. Copies of all the relevant documents, and of the decisions on local justice area mergers and counter services, have been placed in the House Library.

This is the start of an important programme of reform for the Courts Service. I am determined to develop a proper, modern Courts Service and estate that does our communities proud. We are taking the difficult action on court closures that the last Government failed to take, so that we can raise the quality of the courts estate significantly across the board.

With that in mind, I can announce today that £22 million of capital will be reinvested to improve and modernise the courts to which work will be transferred. Within that are three particularly large projects: in London at Camberwell Green magistrates court, in Staffordshire at Newcastle-under-Lyme magistrates court and in Wales at Prestatyn magistrates court. There are also smaller schemes to make some receiving courts better. They include additional interview rooms and a secure dock at Huddersfield magistrates court and the conversion of rooms at Watford magistrates court to provide additional staff accommodation and security. In the next spending period, new courts will open in Chelmsford, Colchester and Westminster, and Woolwich Crown court will be extended. We will make further announcements on new court building schemes early in the new year.

We have, however, cancelled existing plans for a new magistrates court in Liverpool, because the scheme that was proposed is unaffordable, but I will investigate more affordable options to provide suitable accommodation for magistrates court work in Liverpool.

Our courts are failing fully to embrace technological advances that have the potential to revolutionise the way in which justice is delivered in our country. There is much that can be done. Court-to-prison video links provide a much more efficient way of doing things, but they are used in too few cases. In future, we want victims and witnesses, when appropriate, to be able to give evidence in trials by live video link from a more convenient location.

We will begin by testing the principle of police officers giving evidence in summary trials by live video link from the police station. We expect that that will save the police time and money and enable more officers to spend more time out on patrol. We intend to test the idea in London in January, and in at least one other area soon afterwards, with the first cases likely to be heard in that way before the end of March. If successful, that could pave the way for civilian and expert witnesses to give evidence from a police station or other, more convenient locations, rather than having to travel to court.

We also want to give communities a greater say in how justice is administered in their areas. Proposals for problem solving and restorative justice were included in my Department’s sentencing and rehabilitation Green Paper, published last week. We will consult on the use of neighbourhood justice panels to deal with low-level cases, empowering people to develop their own solutions to local problems and increasing community confidence.

In summary, this announcement forms an important part of my Department’s clear vision for a step change in our justice system—one that protects communities from crime and works for, rather than against, the most important people in the system: the victims and witnesses. I commend the statement to the House.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I am pleased to see the Minister at the Dispatch Box for this important statement on the delivery of justice in local communities. I thank him for a copy of his statement in advance.

We missed the Minister in the debate on legal aid in Westminster Hall this morning. Members from all parties spoke passionately in defence of their law centres and citizens advice bureaux, which, like local courts, are facing wholesale closure. He will be pleased to hear that his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General did as well as the Minister would have done in carefully avoiding responding to the many points that were raised.

Launching the consultation on court closures in June this year, the Minister said:

“The Government is committed to supporting local justice, enabling justice to be done and seen to be done in our communities.”

I agree with that statement, but his statement today does not achieve that ambition. Perhaps a clue as to where the Government started to go wrong can be found in the next paragraph of the statement launching the consultation, which said that

“we increasingly use the internet and email to communicate…and we travel further…to do our weekly shop.”

Perhaps we do, but that misses two points. First, courts are not like Facebook or Tesco. They are an important part of many communities in the same way as people regard police stations and town halls.

Claimants and defendants, witnesses and victims will all be inconvenienced and, in many cases, disconcerted by the loss of the local criminal or civil court, or both, only to find them replaced with anonymous court centres many miles away. Secondly, not everyone has the mobility or resources to travel long distances to find justice, especially in rural or remote areas. My first question to the Minister is to ask him to produce the calculations that have been done to determine the time it will take and the distance that will be covered in travelling to the replacement courts. He says that only a minority of court users will be disadvantaged, but that is not the view of the Lord Chief Justice or of his own colleagues. Responding on behalf of the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Justice Goldring noted that poor public transport meant it would be difficult for many people to

“arrive at court before 10am or return home after 4pm”.

Will the Minister look again at travel arrangements and the times of journeys to the remaining courts after the Department for Transport and council cuts have taken effect?

The Minister consulted on closing 103 magistrates courts and 54 county courts, 30% of the total in England and Wales. He said today that 90% of that number will close—some 142. That would give an annual saving, based on his previous figures, of about £13 million, which is not significant in the context of the wholesale cuts going on in other parts of his Department but is a sizeable proportion of the running costs of lower courts. Will all this simply be handed to the Chancellor in the compliant if not willing way the Lord Chancellor has taken to adopting in asset stripping his Department? Or will some be reinvested in the remaining courts estate to improve the service to the public that the Minister says he wishes to see and to cope with the increased traffic from the closed courts?

The Minister said that some capital will be reinvested in specific projects, but there is no allowance for the extra pressures on remaining courts. Is that not proof that this is no more than a crude cost-cutting exercise with none of the benefits that he half-heartedly claims? He also said in July that

“Providing access to justice does not necessarily mean providing a courthouse in every town or city.”

We would not disagree with that. Needs change and buildings wear out or prove unsuitable. It is right to seek economies while maintaining access and making the administration of justice more efficient. Although every closure decision is difficult, and many older courts have a historic and nostalgic importance, in government we were prepared to close less well-used or poorly functioning courts. We were endlessly criticised by the Minister for doing so, but the difference between our programme of review and his wholesale massacre of the local justice system is clear both from the quantity of closures proposed and the haste with which they will now proceed.

What is the Minister’s timetable for shutting the doors of those historic courts? Why has he not published the results of the consultation before today? What impact assessments have been done? Is he prepared to defend the debilitating effect that longer journey times and unfamiliar surroundings will have on the frailest in our society, who often attend courts as victims and witnesses? Many domestic violence courts and family courts will have to move or close. What arrangements has he made to ensure that they go to suitable locations?

Under the previous Tory Government between 1979 and 1997, courts closed at the rate of 25 a year and, under the previous Labour Government, that fell to 13 a year, but now the Minister is proposing to close almost 150 in this Government’s first year. To be fair, his colleagues have been as critical of the closure programme as Opposition Members, none more so than the Solicitor-General, the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr Garnier), who told his local paper:

“I urge residents of Harborough and the surrounding locality to respond to the consultation…we need to organise and get the campaign rolling.”

The International Development Secretary was even more incensed about the proposed closure of Sutton Coldfield court. He told his local paper that the

“very strong arguments which successfully defeated the attempt to close Sutton Magistrates’ Court eight years ago will be just as strong, if not stronger”.

The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), criticised the Treasury. He said:

“The Ministry of Justice seem to have made serious errors with their figures…it’s not just us they’re after, but 102 other courts across the country. Yet I believe the fight is worth having—and that we can win.”

No critic was stronger than the former shadow Justice Minister, who is now Attorney-General. He said:

“It makes a mockery of British justice that this government is considering closing 21 magistrates courts, despite the serious problems of violent crime and anti-social behaviour we face.”

Conservative and Lib Dem Members have all sounded off in their local press and in the House, but as reported in the Evening Standard, this is an

“I back cuts - but Not In My Backyard”

policy. Opposition to the Minister’s policy is growing all over the Government Benches, including from those on the Front Bench. Opening the gates of the prisons and handing ballot papers to the few left inside looks positively—

[Mr Slaughter]

I am most grateful, Mr Speaker—you predicted absolutely correctly that I am coming immediately to the end of my response to the Minister’s statement.

This wholesale closure sums up the Government’s approach to cutting local services in this and every other area—“Let’s get on with the cuts and worry about the effects later.” This programme of closures amounts to a wholesale destruction of this foundation stone of much of British justice, and the Minister should be ashamed to bring it before the House.

[Mr Djanogly]

In his rather concise statement—or perhaps it was not—the shadow Minister said that the savings are not particularly significant, and then immediately went on to accuse the Government of asset stripping. I do not see the consistency in that. However, the economic circumstances that Britain faces and the imperative of reducing the national debt pile amassed by the previous Government’s bout of carefree spending impacts on our proposals, which form part of the commitment of the Ministry of Justice to reducing spending by £2 billion.

Savings apart, I am convinced that the current court system is not efficient enough, that it should provide better value for money, that it should make better use of technology, and that it should provide a better service for court users. The hon. Gentleman accuses me of the wholesale closure of legal aid and CABs, and of the wholesale massacre of the Courts Service, but he must tell us where he would rationalise and save.

The Labour party manifesto said:

“To help protect frontline services, we will find greater savings in legal aid and the courts system”.

If the hon. Gentleman is to be credible, therefore, he must give us his view of how justice is to be delivered. If he would put more money into legal aid, would he take even more money out of the courts, or vice versa? Until he tells us how he would be prepared to spend the money, I am afraid that he will not get people’s trust on this matter. He seems to suggest that closing courts is bad in every case.

The hon. Gentleman asked for the financial workings, and I am pleased to say that the impact assessments have been published and are there for him to look at. The utilisation figures take into account the additional work and remaining courts that will come into existence. The timetable is that the first courts will start to close on 1 April next year, and I can confirm that travel arrangements will be organised on a local basis. It is important to make the point that during these reorganisation proposals, we have been considering not just closures but how we can best reorganise the remaining Courts Service. That includes looking at how people can best get to their local courts.

Delivering justice is about more than protecting bricks and mortar. The hon. Gentleman talks about it being like Facebook. In reality, courts are not like post offices either—they are not places that people go to every day of the week. Of equal importance is the quality of justice. It is important that people have use of a fit-for-purpose building that has good listing facilities and gets cases heard promptly. Proximity is important, but it is only one of a number of issues to be considered, and we have considered those issues carefully.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jonathan Djanogly and Andy Slaughter

Tuesday 23rd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

I will write to the right hon. Gentleman with that information, but I can tell him that it is an issue. Defendants’ representatives not turning up for hearings is also an issue.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Responding to Lord Carter’s 2006 review of legal aid, the Minister said it put very vulnerable individuals at risk, that people were not being represented and that the structure was “being destroyed”, and he concluded:

“I would say it’s a meltdown.”

Carter reduced the budget by about 5%, whereas the current Government’s Green Paper cuts civil legal aid income by 42%. How would the Minister describe that?

[Mr Djanogly]

The important point to make is that the last Government did, indeed, look at legal aid: they had more than 30 consultations over a five-year period, including Carter. The result of that was that providers and those in receipt of legal aid were lost within the system and did not know where cuts were coming from, and what we are doing now is putting forward a comprehensive review of legal aid, whereby providers and all stakeholders will be able to see their position within the system—and as a result the consultation will be accurate.

[Mr Slaughter]

Well, we can all make what we will of that, but the fact remains that more than half a million people who may have unfairly lost their job, their income, their right to decent housing or access to their children—or, indeed, who may have been deported from the country, as the Minister has just said—will now go without advice or representation, whereas criminal legal aid and some of the high-cost advocates earning more than £900,000 a year are largely untouched. The Secretary of State said in his statement on these measures that it was important to strike a balance. Does the Minister not think that the balance has been got wrong in this case?

[Mr Djanogly]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the consultation document, which has clearly got a section on very high-cost cases, and on which we have significant proposals. More particularly, the Labour manifesto said it wanted to cut legal aid, so if he is going to talk about our cuts, perhaps he might like to say where he would be making cuts in legal aid.