Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) (Amendment) (No.2) Regulations 2015

Karl Turner Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2015 General Committees

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. The Opposition welcome the widening of the merits test for civil legal aid, but the judgment of Mr Justice Collins in the IS case provides further evidence—if it is needed; frankly, it probably is not—that the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 is an unmitigated disaster. This really ought to be an opportunity for the Government to review the Act and have a look at it, rather than waiting two years for the review they have promised in 2017. They should do the review early.

The Government’s own figures show that the take-up of exceptional case funding has been woeful compared with their own predictions. The Ministry of Justice estimated that 7,000 applications for exceptional case funding would be made, with around 3,700 applications being granted funding. In fact, from April 2013 to September 2014, only 151 cases were granted funding. Figures from July 2014 to June 2015 show only a marginal increase, with just 308 cases given legal aid out of only 1,250 applications. There is a real problem, because the advice is not being given. I suspect the reality is that clients are litigants in person. They are not receiving legal advice from a solicitor or counsel, and they are clearly not being pointed in the right direction to receive support and advice.

It has always been obvious that this would happen, and the Government were warned about it by most commentators. Of the four objectives the Government planned to achieve, they have achieved only one. I will put on record what those objectives were. They aimed

“to discourage unnecessary and adversarial litigation at public expense; to target legal aid to those who need it most; to make substantial savings to the cost of the scheme; and to deliver better value for money for the taxpayer.”

Significant savings to the cost of the scheme have been achieved, but at what expense? What is the knock-on effect?

What assessment have the Government made of all these judicial reviews? I have not checked the figures, but in terms of part 1 of LASPO, the Government have been judicially reviewed more times than on any other legislation in the previous Parliament. It is an unmitigated disaster, and the review must be brought forward now—never mind waiting. This is my only question for the Minister: will the Government bring forward the review, so that we can see objectively what the failings of the Act are? People are desperate for legal advice. The door has been slammed in their faces, and they are suffering as a result of this provision.

Draft Maximum Number of Judges Order 2015

Karl Turner Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2015 General Committees

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, for the first time. Given the proceedings thus far, I am sure it will be a pleasure and a privilege. I must declare an interest. My wife is a fee-paid judge who sits in the first-tier social welfare tribunal. I do not think that that is recorded in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, but no doubt it will be now. The Opposition do not object to the order. We too want to congratulate Lord Justice Pitchford on his appointment to lead a very important inquiry.

I have some questions for the Minister. I think I am right in saying that there has been no need to extend the number of Court of Appeal judges since 2008; it is a relatively rare occurrence. I wonder whether an increase might be required again any time soon. Do the Government plan to increase the number of Court of Appeal judges? If they do, would that be due to the fact that there is clearly a delay in Court of Appeal cases? Cases are being bumped and there is a backlog. Might that require another increase in the number of judges in the not too distant future?

My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth properly raised the issue of diversity. Might the measure provide an opportunity for the Government to look at that again? Across the House, we are always concerned about diversity in the legal profession generally—among solicitors, the Bar and the judiciary. This might be an opportunity to improve the diversity of gender and ethnicity in the judiciary. That said, we have no real objection. Will the Minister clarify those points?

[Mr Vara]

I am very happy to do so. Before I do, may I take the opportunity to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his relatively recent appointment as shadow Solicitor General? The position carries huge responsibility. I wish him well and look forward to working with him.

We are making this appointment because, in the general scheme of things, 38 is not a large number of Court of Appeal judges. Taking one away from that contingent would have an impact on the current number of cases and how they are progressed. It is important that we continue with the current flow of dealing with cases, which is why we have this new appointment. Any future appointment is a matter to be considered at a later date. At the moment, we are simply filling an existing gap.

The hon. Gentleman rightly raised the issue of diversity. I made some comments about that earlier. I emphasise those and add that diversity is critical. We have to ensure that the judiciary, at all levels, is representative of mainstream society. Given the interest that he declared, he will be aware that, at a certain level, there is diversity. It is crucial that we have that diversity in the upper echelons of judiciary—more women, more people from ethnic minorities and more people from other social backgrounds. I, for one, am very keen on that. I have regular meetings with the judiciary and the commission that appoints judges to ensure that that matter is foremost in their minds.

Question put and agreed to.

Civil Legal Aid

Karl Turner Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2015 Westminster Hall

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Eighth Report from the Justice Committee, Session 2014-15, on impact of changes to civil legal aid under part 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, HC 311, and the Government Response, Cm 9096.

I am delighted to have secured this debate on the operation of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, or LASPO as it is often called. I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Justice to his place. We now commence our discussion of the second of the Justice Committee’s important reports that we are considering today.

I was prepared to give these reforms of legal aid a fair wind when they were introduced, but I also have concerns about them, as I think the Committee does. I do not say that because the objective of saving money is not important and, indeed, a significant imperative. I sympathise with the predicament of the Minister and of his predecessors; having been a Minister in an unprotected Department myself, I am very conscious that the financial circumstances that the previous Government inherited were dire, and changes had to be made and economies found. I accept that entirely.

Nevertheless, I and the rest of the Committee are concerned that the reforms may have had some unintended consequences, which perhaps we can now sensibly revisit. I was not a member of the Committee at the time the report was produced, but reading through it, a number of the concerns expressed chimed with my own experience as a constituency MP and, for what it is worth, my experience at the Bar. Although I no longer practise at the Bar, I still keep in touch with those who do.

Perhaps we can deal with some of the main issues that were highlighted in the report, and I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend the Minister’s response. I say that because, once again, I detect in both his comments and those of the Secretary of State a willingness to be open-minded about revisiting situations where it can be shown that there are perhaps better, more nuanced and more effective ways of obtaining the objective that we all want to achieve—having a legal aid system that concentrates resource where it is needed and that helps those who are in genuine need, but that does not encourage unmeritorious litigation. I think that we all share that view.

The Committee raised several issues on which I am interested in hearing my hon. Friend the Minister’s comments. First, there was a concern that the reforms, in a sense, were undoubtedly financially driven. There is nothing wrong with that in itself; it was a necessity at the time. Both the then permanent secretary and my hon. Friend’s predecessor as Minister were frank and fair about that to the Committee; savings needed to be made, and made quickly. However, that meant that no research could be undertaken about the impact of the reforms. Now, we are about a year on and although, frankly, it is unusual to conduct a Select Committee inquiry on reforms after only about a year, we are now able to see some of the impacts and I hope that gives us a chance to revisit some of the issues.

The position, of course, is that the MOJ is unprotected. The Committee was concerned that, although it may not have been intended, in practice the reforms introduced in April 2013 may well have begun to impede access to justice. If that is the case, we need to be prepared to accept it, and we should revisit the issues.

There were four objectives that the Government perfectly reasonably set themselves: to discourage unnecessary and adversarial litigation at public expense; to target legal aid at those who need it most; to make significant savings in the cost of the scheme; and to deliver overall better value for money for the taxpayer. There is nothing wrong with any of those objectives, but the evidence that the Committee received suggested that at least three of them have not been successfully achieved. That is why we need to be prepared to look at them again.

Access to justice is fundamental to a system based on the rule of law, and it is therefore important that any changes we make to the ability of the citizen to access proper legal advice are based upon objective evidence. That is the first and primary concern.

In terms of a saving, the National Audit Office concluded that the Government had exceeded their savings target by £32 million, because they were not funding as many cases as was predicted. Many Members will have people come to their constituency surgeries with debt issues, and in debt cases the shortfall was in the region of 85%. That indicates to me that the projections were pretty much based on back-of-an-envelope calculations and may not have had a great deal of research behind them. I am happy to be corrected if that is not the case. Given the speed at which it was acknowledged that that was happening, I can understand why that might be the case, but perhaps that is all the more reason to look again at the matter, if that is what is happening.

I am happy to see an underspend when it is genuine, but if it is an underspend because people who ought to be entitled to legal advice and support are not getting it, that is a failure in the system, and we need to find out precisely why that is so. One of the Committee’s concerns was that there was a significant lack of public information on accessing legal aid, and I have found that in my surgeries. In a comparatively prosperous part of suburban London, I have a lot of constituents coming to me who are unaware of how best to access legal aid and what their rights are. I suspect that the situation may be very much worse in other, more socially challenged parts of the country. We urgently need to revisit that issue.

The suggestion that people are simply moving to pro bono is not good enough. The pro bono work done by members from both sides of the profession is very important, but at the end of the day that is not a substitute for proper advice. That needs to be addressed, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister says on that.

Secondly, we have the operation of the exceptional cases funding scheme, which is an important part of the legal aid system. It was specifically and properly designed to ensure that any changes did not put us in breach of our obligations under the European convention or the European Union, and that is right and proper. The then Lord Chancellor described the scheme as a “safety net” on Second Reading of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. I have no problem with a safety net, but we need to see how effective its operation has been. The evidence to the Committee on that raised concerns for us.

I appreciate things may have moved on—I am sure the Minister can update us if they have—but at the time of the Committee’s report, 7.2% of applications for ECF were granted. When the usual risk assessments and impact assessments were carried out for the legislation, the estimate was for that figure to be between 53% and 74%. I know from when I was a Minister that impact assessments are sometimes not entirely borne out in practice, but we are talking about a massive difference. When the figure is about one tenth of the top end of the impact assessment estimate, that indicates to me that something is going seriously awry. Either the impact assessment was very badly off indeed or the operation of the scheme has borne down much more heavily on deserving cases than Ministers ever intended. Some 60% of the grants that were made were for family representation at inquests, and that is good. I had a meeting recently with Inquest, which is an important and valuable body that does hard work in that field. Representation in that area is critical, but what about the rest of the significant shortfall? We need to examine that a little more.

We found—this is worth reciting—some exceptional cases where applications under the ECF were refused. They are exceptional cases; that is the whole point. An illiterate woman with learning, hearing and speech difficulties was facing an application that would affect her contact with her children. That was not regarded as suitable for exceptional cases funding, and that is difficult for many of us to appreciate. The judge in one case told us of a woman with modest learning difficulties who was unable to deal with representations from the lawyer on the other side. She is now facing possibly not seeing her child again. That troubled me in particular, because that coincides with my conversations with district and circuit judges and practitioners who operate in this field.

Anyone who goes to their county court will be aware of such issues, which raise a fundamental equality of arms argument. The other side is very often the local authority, which is represented by solicitor or counsel. Against that is someone who may not be able on their own to deal adequately with the process. To say that that is not an exceptional circumstance would be an unfair consequence of the scheme, and that sort of thing should not happen again in future.

I will give one further example. A destitute blind man with profound learning difficulties lacked the litigation capacity, so the official solicitor made an application on his behalf. Initially, that was rejected, and it had to go to judicial review. We should not be having to do that. That is clearly where the operation of the system, rather than the intention of Ministers, was at fault, but it means that we need to bear down carefully on how these cases are processed in the first place. I do not want a legitimate objective of efficiency and saving to get a bad name because of how it is carried out in practice.

Against that background, the Committee concluded that the low number of grants and some of those details meant that the scheme was not acting as the robust safety net that was intended. The risk of miscarriage of justice is real in some of those cases, and we should not allow such things to happen as a consequence of the reforms. We are concerned that so far we have heard no evidence of the Ministry investigating the significant disparity between the predicted number of grants—the 53% to 74% estimate—and the actuality of less than 8%. Will the Minister say what steps have been taken to investigate that enormous disparity? What steps are being taken to ensure that the scheme operates in a more equitable and just fashion? That is hugely important for the scheme’s credibility.

There has, in fairness, been an improvement in recent months, and I am sure the Minister will update me further. The statistics for April to June 2015 show an increase, with grants made to just over one third of all applicants. That is partly because Ministers reviewed the guidelines, and that was right and proper, but it required a review and decision by the Court of Appeal to make that happen. Ministers acted promptly on the basis of that decision, and I give them credit for that, but one third is still way short of the bottom end of the benchmark of 50%. We need more detail on what is being done to ensure that the percentage becomes more realistically near the estimate.

The number of applications remains low, and I would like to know what more can be done on that. The Committee’s inquiry involved some 35 oral witnesses over a period of months and some 70 pieces of written evidence. It is a not insubstantial piece of work that was undertaken by my colleagues who were on the Committee at the time. One reason that the Committee found for the low number of applications was the length of time that it takes to complete the form. That is not insignificant. I can remember sitting in the cells as a practitioner, completing the legal aid form before we went up on the first remand hearing. The form has gone well beyond that now, and the truth is that lawyers cannot claim the time for completing the form.

[Mr Graham Brady in the Chair]

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Brady, as always. I am not here to make the case on behalf of lawyers, but completing the form is generally beyond the capacity of many lay people, particularly those with any difficulties. They need help to do it and the solicitor will not be remunerated for doing it. Many do it out of their professional sense of duty and obligation, and they are right to do so, but the form is an impediment. In many areas of Government, we are successfully making forms simpler and putting things into plain English. If we are able to make forms simpler in a raft of areas, including planning applications, local government matters and court forms, we ought to be able to do it for the application forms for these matters. What are the Government going to do on that?

A separate issue that causes concern relates to legal aid in family law cases, particularly in what is sometimes termed the domestic violence gateway. Happily, I never practised in that field, but I know that it is one of the most stressful that a lawyer, judge or litigant can encounter. The intention was—I do not doubt its goodness—that legal aid would be available where a litigant can show evidence of abuse within the past two years, with an exception where there is clear evidence of a conviction arising from domestic violence. That is the easy bit. We were concerned by the evidence to our inquiry on the operation of that need, in the absence of a conviction, to show evidence of domestic abuse from within the past two years. We found that some 39% of women who contacted a domestic violence charity about abuse did not have one of the prescribed forms of evidence. That leads us to conclude that the prescribed forms of evidence are too rigid and that there ought to be greater nuance and discretion around that.

Also, as anyone who has dealt with such matters would know, many people struggle with the two-year time limit, because family law cases have often dragged on for years. Relationships that can be abusive, often with as much emotional and psychological pressure as physical pressure, are all part of a picture that builds up over time. In such a relationship, where there may be children and it is difficult for the person to walk away, the strict adherence to a two-year limit can be artificial, and perhaps the guidelines do not coincide with the reality of life as many of us know it from our surgeries, and certainly as many experienced practitioners know it. I hope we can look at that issue again.

The Committee recommended that the Legal Aid Agency be allowed discretion to grant funding where, although the facts might not immediately fit the criteria, the victim of abuse would be materially disadvantaged by having to face the alleged perpetrator of the violence in court. We would not allow that in criminal proceedings, and we should not get into such situations in family proceedings, either. I hope the Minister will give us more details on that. I doubt it would increase the spend. The numbers are not great, but the potential injustice is very great, so I hope we can revisit that issue.

I am sorry that the Government rejected our recommendation. I ask the Minister, on behalf of the Committee, to think again. It is not good enough to say it is a catch-all clause and will lead to large amounts of litigation. I am sure it is possible to draft a sensible form of discretion that is not a blank cheque, but goes further to reflect reality than the current arrangements. We are a year on now. On the basis of the open-minded approach that the Secretary of State and his team are taking, now is a good time to revisit it in the light of experience and perhaps seek evidence from the practitioners and judges who hear such cases as to what might sensibly be put into the form. I hope the Government will think again about that.

The third issue that we raised, which again coincides with my own experience independently of the report, is sometimes called “sustainability and advice deserts”. There are parts of this country where it is very difficult now to find a lawyer to take on a civil legal aid case. Again, if in comparatively prosperous Bromley it is hard to find a solicitor to take on legally aided family work, it is a lot worse in many other parts of the country, never mind in rural areas where the question of simple physical access to a suitable solicitor can be significant. This is classically the area where pieces of research were to be published in 2015, but we have not yet seen the fruits of that research. Perhaps the Minister can tell us when it will be made public, because I have no doubt that the Committee will wish to revisit some of the considerations in the light of that.

The fourth area of concern stems from the increase in litigants in person. The contention at the time—I was prepared to give it a fair wind—was that there would be behavioural change through the removal of legal aid so that fewer people would choose to go to court to resolve their problems. I am not sure the evidence bears that out. I do not want to be an amateur psychologist, but perhaps the motives that lead people to go to court are not of a purely transactional nature. Sometimes, particularly in the most difficult cases, there are pressures that go beyond the ordinary straightforward business decision that we might make as to whether we litigated over a contractual matter, for example. This is not that sort of case. Very often there are other deep pressures that play upon people, which we may not have taken fully on board.

Also, I do not think we have done enough to promote the alternative of mediation, which I shall come to in a moment. On re-reading, I felt there was a finger in the wind approach to the assessment about behavioural change. The wind does not seem to be demonstrating that that is happening in the way that we would wish. Certainly the anecdotal evidence that we heard from people before the Committee, and others, was that there had been a significant increase in litigants in person. There is not a systematic means of collating that information; perhaps there should be. Even in the family courts where some figures are available, the accuracy and their significance was debatable. If we are to have such policy change we ought to know, and it should not be too difficult to work out. If litigants in person and those who are represented are logged, it should not be too difficult to pull the figures together so that we know better where we stand.

The National Audit Office was concerned that the increase in litigants in person in the family courts had cost the family court system an additional £3.4 million. I was disturbed at our evidence hearing on Tuesday to hear a senior official of the Department suggesting that there was no impact. Anyone who talks to anyone who sits in the county courts would say otherwise. There is an impact. We all know that litigants in person often take longer to present their case, which consumes court time and also affects soliciting as the costs run up on the other side, so it is in nobody’s interest in the long term to save money under one head of the justice system, but increase it on the courts budget, which is itself hard-pressed, on the other. Perhaps we need more evidence and a willingness to revisit that, too.

Moreover, often the increase in litigants in person is of people with real difficulties in coping with the system. We have moved on from a situation where the litigant in person was a fairly articulate person who chose not to employ a solicitor or a barrister—not something I would ever encourage, of course—because that was a sensible decision and they were able to deal with a straightforward case on its own merits. We now often deal with people coming before the courts with significant educational and communication difficulties and dealing with complex cases.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

I want to make a serious point about what the hon. Gentleman has just said. The advice to litigants who propose to represent themselves is based on the fact that it is difficult for them to be objective. They are not in a position to sit back and look at the entire thing, and that often causes great delays going down the wrong road.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), the Chair of the Select Committee, remarked in the last debate that his pupil master advised him that the most effective form of cross-examination is polite cross-examination. Well, his examination of the report was polite and fair, but it was also honest—it was a proper critique of the issues the Committee covered. I am afraid, however, that I will be rather more impolite than the hon. Gentleman.

The report is a damning indictment of the Government’s haphazard, ham-fisted approach to reforming legal aid. The Committee has set out in clear terms what an unmitigated disaster the reform of civil legal aid has become under this Government. Their ill-advised attack on legal aid, in the guise of reform, has undermined a long tradition of access to justice. The legal system in England and Wales was once the envy of the world, but I hope hon. Members do not think I am being over-dramatic when I say that other countries are now starting to rather disregard it, and it is being quite heavily criticised. We should be proud of a history in which the poorest and most vulnerable have had access to the law.

The Government had four objectives in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act. Those were to discourage unnecessary and adversarial litigation at public expense; to target legal aid at those who need it most; to make significant savings in the cost of the scheme; and to deliver better overall value for money for the taxpayer. Of those four objectives, they have achieved only one. Significant cuts have been made to the cost of the scheme, but at what cost to justice? Indeed, one wonders whether there is any saving in reality.

Criticism of LASPO is wide-ranging, coming from the Bar Council, the Legal Aid Practitioners Group, Citizens Advice and many others. The Law Society has argued that many people are being denied access to justice as a result of the huge changes to civil legal aid.

It is obvious from the report that the knock-on effects of such large cuts were not thought through. The driving force behind them was purely ideological. There was no evidence-based approach to legal aid—there was just a “slash now and see what happens next” approach. As a Back-Bench Member, I served on the Committee that considered the LASPO Bill. We heard evidence from various groups and speeches by Members from both sides of the House warning the Government of the risks. However, all of that was categorically ignored by a Government whose aim was to make the cuts and to ask questions later.

The report is clear that

“the urgency attached by the Government to the programme of savings militated against having a research-based and well-structured programme of change to the provision of civil legal aid.”

The evidence given by Dame Ursula Brennan gave the game away. Her concession that the primary motivation for the decisions was the size of the spend shows the intellectual deficit behind the changes. Access to justice should have been at the top of the Government’s list when it came to reforming legal aid, but, as we have seen in the last few years, it appears to have been an afterthought.

The Government claim to have targeted legal aid at those who need it the most, but I am afraid that is laughable. The Select Committee Chair gave anecdotal evidence from practitioners in the relevant area, and it is true that members of the Bar and solicitors who practise on a daily basis in civil legal aid areas encounter major difficulties as a result of the changes to the law. I could continue, but the critique by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst included all that I wanted to say. He was fair and is clearly objective about what he has read. I know that he was not involved in the work on the report, which was done by members of the Committee under its former Chairman in the previous Parliament.

Attacks on access to justice have led to massive shortfalls in advice. We should all be concerned about it. The impact of the cuts is devastating in both civil and, indeed, criminal legal aid. I do not want to digress too much, but today criminal solicitors throughout the land are being told whether they have managed to get a contract for criminal legal aid in duty cases. I very much fear that the Government are going to make the same mistakes that they made with criminal legal aid under LASPO. Will the Government make a commitment to bring forward their review, so that the changes to civil legal aid can be rigorously and thoroughly examined? The Labour party recently announced a full review of legal aid, to include criminal as well as civil legal aid, led by Lord Willy Bach. I wonder whether that may prompt the Government to bring forward their own review of the Act.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Dominic Raab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Brady, for what I believe is the first time—certainly as a Minister. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the debate. I am sure many colleagues will have noticed that I am not the Minister responsible for legal aid, and I want to convey apologies on behalf of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), who is caught in the joys of the Committee on the Welfare Reform and Work Bill. I shall address issues of substance—technical and detailed as they are—and principle as best I can. If I cannot deal with them I shall follow them up; or I am sure my hon. Friend will be able to.

I welcome the report and scrutiny, and particularly the tenor of the approach to the issue taken by the Chairman of the Select Committee on Justice. He began by pointing out that all the reforms are happening in the context of trying to deal with the deficit, and noted that the Ministry of Justice is not a protected area. There are no easy choices in this area and I welcome his emphasis on that. At the same time, I think it is agreed across the House that legal aid is a vital element in any fair justice system and I am proud to say that our system remains very generous. Last year we spent £1.6 billion on legal aid. That is about a quarter of the Department’s expenditure. All sorts of issues arise in connection with methods and modalities of legal aid reform—I thought that the Select Committee Chairman handled this aspect of the matter well—but it is incumbent on those whose bottom-line position is that we need to spend more to explain responsibly where the money will come from. They should explain whether it would be from prisons, within the Ministry of Justice budget. We have just had a debate on prison reform and we all understand how difficult the pressures are there. If more spending on legal aid is not to come from the Ministry of Justice budget will it be from the schools or health budgets?

[Karl Turner]

The point, which the Committee made very well, is that there is not necessarily a real saving. There may be a top line saving. Legal aid spending may be reduced, but that is going down the road to another Department. Some other area has to pick up the bill in the end.

[Mr Raab]

That is not correct or accurate and I will address the point in detail shortly. The hon. Gentleman must face up to the fact that the shadow Justice Secretary in 2011, the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), made it clear that the Labour party’s position then was that cuts would have to be made. I have heard little of substance from the hon. Gentleman other than that the Labour party, even under its current leader, is punting the whole issue into review. It sounds a little to me as if there is a lot of critique but not many positive ideas about what to do.

[Mr Raab]

My hon. Friend is right and that is a more legitimate question to raise.

For all the bean-counting, and the importance of the deficit, the Government have a responsibility to ensure that those in the greatest hardship, at times of real need, are provided with the resources to secure access to justice. As well as being grateful to the Select Committee Chair, I am grateful to all hon. Members in this and the previous Parliament for their diligent and careful scrutiny of our legal aid reforms. Some fair points have been made in the reports, and by the Chairman today.

When the programme to reform legal aid commenced in 2010, the scale of the financial challenge faced by the Government was unprecedented, so we had to confront those difficult decisions. It was our clear intention to remove legal aid for some types of cases while protecting access to justice in key areas. That is why we have sought to make sure that legal aid remains available for critically important cases: where someone’s life or liberty is at stake; where they may, for example, lose their home; in cases of domestic violence; or where children may be taken into care. We were clear about wanting more cases to be diverted from court where suitable alternatives are available. Let us face it; the justice system is there not for lawyers but for society, citizens and victims. There is no doubt that in many cases the court should be the last, not the first, resort.

The changes we had to make to legal aid have been contentious. They were debated extensively, with amendments made throughout their passage, before they were approved by Parliament. Those changes need to be judged fairly, given the passage of time. Yes, the reforms in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 have made a considerable contribution to my Department’s programme to reduce its spending, and we are on course to achieve our planned savings; but legal aid continues to remain available where it is most needed. For example, last year we began funding legal representation on more than 46,000 new proceedings under the Children Act 1989 and almost 14,000 proceedings related to domestic violence protective injunctions. Those are the kinds of cases where it is really important that there is still a safety net.

We have also made sure that funding will be provided, where it is needed, through the exceptional funding scheme. That scheme has been criticised and it remains the subject of continuing litigation. I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate that I cannot comment on that litigation. The exceptional funding scheme has never been intended to provide a general power to fund cases that fall outside the wider generic scope of legal aid. That is not its purpose. The scheme is expressly aimed at making sure legal aid is provided when it is required strictly under the European convention on human rights or otherwise under EU law. In the two years following the implementation of LASPO we have granted exceptional funding in almost 300 cases, and the number of grants is rising with each quarter. In the most recent quarter, April to June 2015—I think that the same figures were cited by the Select Committee Chairman—there were 121 grants, the highest number since the scheme began and a three-fold increase on the same quarter of the previous year.

That the scheme has been subject to litigation is not surprising: it is a new regime, so litigants will seek to test its limits, particularly given the professional sector we are talking about. Having said that, we will listen to the concerns of the courts and address them where necessary—for example, by updating guidance or amending regulations to reflect the detail of the latest case law. My hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee made a point about the complexity of the forms; we are looking at that and will see whether we can simplify how they are presented.

Litigants in person are not a new feature of our justice system. People involved in litigation are engaged in a range of disputes and have a range of different needs and capabilities. For many people, representing themselves might be the right choice, whether because they literally want their day in court, physically; because of financial considerations; or because of the nature of the case. Litigants in person have always been a feature of the family justice system. Family court judges are well practised and rather good at stretching and striving to find the right kind of support and to allow flexibility so that litigants in person can give the best evidence possible.

I am not saying that we should disregard the impact of the reforms on litigants in person. In anticipation of an increase in numbers, right at the outset we put in place £370,000 of extra support for organisations, including new guidance. We have kept that under review and, where there have been concerns, we have taken further action, which is why we announced £2 million of further support for litigants in person in October last year.

[Karl Turner]

Is the Minister suggesting that the significant increase in litigants in person is based purely on the choice of the litigant, rather than the fact that they are just not in the position to access a lawyer, whether because of an advice desert in the area where they need advice or for other reasons?

[Mr Raab]

No. As the Chair of the Select Committee pointed out, we are talking about behavioural conduct—human beings in very difficult situations. Sometimes their lives might be chaotic or difficult, or they might be under pressing conditions. I am not sure that we can say precisely why it has happened, because there could be a variety of reasons. The fact is that there is now a new litigants in person support strategy in place, led by the advice, voluntary and pro bono sector, which builds on domestic and international advice and evidence. Progress has been made, with increased provision of face-to-face, phone and online support.

It is not right to claim that increasing numbers of litigants in person have created knock-on costs that undermine savings from legal aid reform. The National Audit Office looked at the matter very closely and reported that the additional costs of the changes are relatively small compared with the gross figures—we are looking at around £3.4 million a year, compared with the scale of the civil and family legal aid savings achieved, which the NAO estimated at around £300 million a year. The suggestion about knock-on costs is therefore just not right.

Encouraging greater use of mediation has been a key plank of our wider reforms to the justice system, and it is germane here. Mediation can a be quicker, cheaper and less stressful means of dispute settlement than protracted litigation. It is right that we try to keep a whole range of disputes outside of the courts. As I said earlier, the justice system is there for citizens, not just lawyers. Mediation also plays a role in reducing conflict and helping the parties to communicate better with each other.

Admittedly, the volume of individuals diverted from court into family mediation was not as expected following the reforms, but family relations are difficult to predict, particularly on a societal scale. Nevertheless, we acted quickly to address matters when it became clear that the behavioural shift was not being achieved to the degree that had been hoped for and estimated, although it was only an estimate. The Family Mediation Task Force was established in January 2014 to respond to the situation, and we accepted many of its recommendations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karl Turner]

Listen, the point is this. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) made those comments in 2011. The reality is that the Opposition criticised the changes in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 throughout all stages of its passage through the Commons. Indeed, many changes were made in the Lords. The point is that the Select Committee is criticising the Act now. It is an objective criticism, and in truth the Chair criticised it more than I did.

[Mr Raab]

The reality is that before the previous election the Labour party’s clear position was that cuts need to be made. Unlike the Chair of the Select Committee, who made a number of detailed points about the substance—

[Karl Turner]

It was not.

[Mr Raab]

Exactly. It said very little on the substance; the hon. Gentleman is quite right. We have not had, amid the carping and criticism, any serious alternative approach on the “how”, rather than the “whether”.

[Karl Turner]

It is coming.

[Mr Raab]

Well, we will wait for that, just as we are waiting for proposals on a range of social policy areas. In fact, there seems to be very little policy that is not up for grabs and up for review.

We have made significant reforms to the legal aid scheme, and we believe they are sustainable. We do not say that they have been easy choices. The Legal Aid Agency undertakes regular capacity reviews of supply, which continue to show sufficient capacity in all categories of civil law in the majority of procurement areas. Where that is not the case—for example, where a provider has withdrawn from a contract—the agency has taken action to find alternative provision.

I recognise the strength of feeling on this subject and the importance that hon. Members from both sides of the House attach to it. The Ministry of Justice and the Legal Aid Agency routinely and closely monitor the operation of the legal aid scheme, taking action when issues or problems are identified. I have tried to set out as best I can the areas where we have already responded. We do not say that we got it right first time without glitches or problems in the implementation.

We have also committed to conduct a post-implementation review of our legal aid reforms within three to five years of implementation—in other words, by 2016 to 2018 at the latest. The precise timing and the form of the review will be guided by our assessment of the extent to which the reforms have reached a steady state, as I have already indicated, and by Government and wider stakeholder research and evidence on the impact of the reform. I appreciate that there is a perfectly proper debate to be had on the timing, but we want to wait for that evidence and research to come through.

I am grateful for the Select Committee’s report and its approach. I am grateful to hon. Members who have spoken in this debate. I appreciate the points made by the shadow Justice Minister, and I hope I have been able to address as many of the questions as possible. I am happy to follow up further afterwards if that is not the case.

Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) (Amendment) Regulations 2015

Karl Turner Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2015 General Committees

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hamilton. It is great to speak in my first Delegated Legislation Committee as the shadow Minister responsible for legal aid. I hope that the Opposition and the Government will continue to agree with one another. Where the Government are widening the scope for legal aid, they can be assured that the Opposition will support them, and this is one of those instances.

It is right to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) for the work she did on FGM. She did a fantastic job in raising the issue as the chair of the all-party group on FGM. Other Members, among whom I include myself to an extent, have campaigned against FGM and raised the issue. FGM is completely and utterly abhorrent. It is good that the scope for legal aid for FGM protection orders has been widened, and we of course support that.

It is also good that the scope has been widened for victims of modern slavery. We absolutely support that; modern slavery should not ever happen, but where people need access to the courts, they should be supported with legal aid. I do not wish to waste any more time, but simply say that we support the regulations very much.

Question put and agreed to.

Dangerous Driving Penalties

Karl Turner Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2015 Westminster Hall

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

It is always an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) on securing the debate and on the work that he has done for at least the past 12 months to raise this issue.

In my experience, the Prime Minister is always very receptive to Members on this subject. I saw him a few years ago on behalf of a constituent, and he was helpful in ensuring that the law was changed. I represented constituents, whom I will not name in the debate because I have not had the opportunity to check whether that is permissible, who were involved in a very serious road traffic incident. On that occasion, unfortunately, the Crown Prosecution Service decided, for whatever reason, not to continue the prosecution that it had begun. Had it continued with the prosecution, however, the court, on conviction, would have been able to sentence the offender to only two years.

In that scenario, the dangerous driver had caused very serious injury but had not, fortunately, brought about the death of the people in the vehicle. The maximum sentence at that point was two years. Fortunately, after I lobbied the Prime Minister, he allowed provisions from my private Member’s Bill to be introduced into the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 as a new offence of causing serious injury by dangerous driving. The maximum sentence for that offence is five years.

This is not a party political issue. Members on both sides of the House raise serious concerns about driving offences on behalf of their constituents. In my experience, the civil service sometimes tend to be a little reluctant to listen carefully to what is raised by Members of Parliament, but Ministers—including the Prime Minister—have been very receptive.

I have professional experience of dealing with road traffic offences from my time as a criminal lawyer. I recall, on occasion, standing up in the Crown court representing a defendant and listening to the prosecution outline the facts of the case, which were sometimes horrendous and for which one would expect heavy penalties. If I was defending—often, I would be prosecuting the cases—I would begin my mitigation on behalf of the defendant; I remember the expressions on the judges’ faces when I started to say, “This is not the worst case you have ever seen, your honour. It is mitigated by various factors.” The judge would say, “Thank you very much indeed, Mr Turner. The maximum sentence, as you know, is two years. It is worth an awful lot more than that, but my hands are tied.” He or she would often sentence the defendant to 12 months or less, even though the victims of those horrendous crimes and their family members had to deal with serious injuries.

I am pleased to say that the law has now changed, but it is not good enough yet. In this country, 23,000 people suffer serious injury or are killed in road traffic incidents each year. The previous Government did a great deal of work to reduce that figure and improve road safety, but this Government have taken their eye off the ball in certain regards. It is startling that the average sentence for road traffic offences is four years. In my respectful submission, it is of great concern—I suspect that this is, in part, the result of cuts to the CPS and the police—that defendants charged with dangerous driving when they attend court will often, after counsel and solicitors for both sides have had the opportunity to discuss the case, have that charge reduced to careless driving.

There is a huge difference between the two offences. Dangerous driving is where the offender’s standard of driving falls far below the standard of a reasonable, competent driver. Careless driving is where the offender’s standard of driving falls below that standard. Dangerous driving is not a momentary lapse of concentration; it is going out with a dangerous weapon, driving it completely recklessly—in some cases, quite deliberately, in my experience—and causing that offence to occur.

I do not want to take up too much more time, because I want the Minister to answer the points that each and every Member has made. The Opposition support the Transport Committee’s inquiry into road traffic enforcement, because that is an issue. I have made the point—I do not mean it to sound party political—that the CPS is struggling. I think it is fair to say that CPS lawyers are accepting pleas to lesser offences when they should probably be pursuing dangerous driving cases to trial and allowing the jury to decide whether the offender was driving dangerously.

There is a question about funding to local authorities. I think I am right to say that most local authorities are reporting that their attention to, and efforts on, road safety have been reduced by as much as 90% since 2010. That is of serious concern to all of us in the House.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister. Will he confirm whether the Department is considering a review into the effect of policing and cuts on driving offences? That would definitely assist the Government. As I have said from the outset, the Prime Minister, in my experience, is keen to do everything that he can to assist in such cases. Secondly, I believe that the hon. Member for Reading West requested a timeline for the Government’s review of sentencing for driving offences. Will the Minister confirm when he plans to publish that review and what mechanism his Department will use to initiate the legislation?

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. The subject is, as I have said, absolutely not party political. We all do our best to represent our constituents as well as we can.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Were the Minister kind enough to finish his remarks no later than 4.26 pm, that would allow Mr Sharma three minutes to sum up and one minute for me to put the motion to the Chamber.

Oral Answers to Questions

Karl Turner Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vara]

I commend my hon. Friend for his diligence in pursuing this matter. He has met me, and I have corresponded with him, and he will be aware that my officials and the council’s officials are in conversation. Like him, I look forward to seeing the way forward.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

The Justice Secretary has confirmed that he will plough on with his barmy idea for two-tier contracts for criminal solicitors, so it will fall to either the Court of Appeal or my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) to kick this barmy idea into touch forever after we win the election. How does the Justice Secretary expect criminal firms and solicitors to give up 50% of their client work voluntarily? We have asked that lots of times, but we have never had an answer.

[Chris Grayling]

The important thing for any Lord Chancellor is to ensure that if somebody is arrested and taken to a police station, there will be a lawyer to represent them. These reforms will ensure that that happens, even in difficult times financially, when fee levels have to be cut. My disappointment is that although these reforms were agreed by the previous leadership of the Law Society, the current leadership has taken a rather different view.

[Karl Turner]

No answer, again.

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Karl Turner Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

That is absolutely the case, but on more than one occasion in my ministerial time, and the same applies to Ministers in other Departments, I have faced cases that were brought on matters of public policy but were based on relatively minor procedural defects in a process of consultation, for example. Minor breaches should not automatically lead to a case being brought, with the taxpayer facing a bill of tens of thousands of pounds, when it was highly likely that the decision taken would have been completely unaffected by that procedural defect. That is what these proposals are all about.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

Will the Lord Chancellor give us an example of one of those minor cases to which he refers?

[Chris Grayling]

I have experienced at least two examples of third-party groups seeking to argue that a form of consultation was not absolutely accurate and that it should have been done slightly differently, when it made no difference to the eventual decision. In one case, it was clearly a delaying tactic to avoid a necessary change. A judicial review should be brought when it is a matter of genuine material error or failure by the Department concerned, not a minor technicality. That is what this measure is all about. I believe that it is necessary. Ministers in the last Government regularly argued for change because judicial review was being used inappropriately. This reform will bring a degree of common sense to the system without undermining the core purpose of allowing people who are wronged by public bodies to challenge the decisions taken about them in the courts. That is why I commend our amendments to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Karl Turner Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

In his drive to make savings in his Department, does the Secretary of State think it is time to start listening to legal advice that would save his Department an awful lot of money in lost cases in judicial review proceedings?

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Gentleman talks about saving money, but I have waited in vain to hear how Labour would address the spending challenge. Last week, Labour Members said that they would deliver a spending reduction in this and other Departments year on year, but as of today we have no idea how they would do it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Karl Turner Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Selous]

May I first commend my hon. Friend for persistently and regularly raising this issue? He is right to do so and I have no doubt that he will go on doing so. I can tell him that this Government, unlike the last, have removed more than 22,000 foreign national offenders. Their numbers doubled under the previous Government, but we are bringing their numbers down. Specifically, I can tell my hon. Friend that at the end of September there were 10,319 foreign national offenders in prison, fewer than the 11,153 in May 2010. The figure is down 515 from that in the answer I gave him in September’s oral questions.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

On 19 September, Mr Justice Burnett ruled in the High Court that the consultation on criminal legal aid was so unfair as to amount to illegality. The entire criminal justice system is in chaos. What is the Lord Chancellor doing about it?

[Chris Grayling]

If the hon. Gentleman reads the details of that judgment carefully, he will see that it required us to carry out a short further consultation, which we have done. We will introduce our updated proposals very shortly.

Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill

Karl Turner Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I wonder whether he could define “heroism”, which is in the title of the Bill. What does it mean? What is the definition?

[Mr Vara]

May I respectfully say to the hon. Gentleman that we are dealing with amendment 1, not heroism, which will be dealt with subsequently—I will be happy to come that—in the second group of amendments?

[Mr Vara]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we are good friends—I hope his Whips will not hold that against him. He made his contribution on Second Reading and he has certainly made his presence felt in this debate, if not in Committee. The Bill outlines a general responsibility, which must be taken into account by the courts. It sends a powerful message to the courts: when somebody is doing the right thing, the courts must take that into account. As for the decision itself, that will be made by the court, given all the circumstances of the case. That will be fact-specific, but the Bill will tell the court that it must take into account those factors.

[Karl Turner]

rose—

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

I urge the Minister, between now and the arrival of this Bill—

[Karl Turner]

Bin it!

[Sir Edward Garnier]

Not quite that.

Between now and the Bill’s arrival in the other place, I urge Ministers and the very bright lawyers and policy assistants at the Ministry of Justice to have another think about it. At the moment, it is a silly Bill, and I do not like being party to the passing of silly legislation, no matter how well motivated it is. Having said all that, I apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister because he is a decent, honest and great Justice Minister; it is just his bad luck that he was holding the parcel when the music stopped.

[Mr Slaughter]

I will take one of the hints from Government Members—I am not going to encourage more than one vote in relation to these matters. I do not think I can improve on what the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) has said, very gently, but very persuasively and firmly, about this Bill. I can see from the Minister’s demeanour that he is as embarrassed by the Bill as, is almost everybody else in the House.

I do not know whether the Minister has had an opportunity to look at the Law Society’s briefing, and neither do I know whether that briefing is a retaliation for his slightly ill-tempered treatment of the Law Society witnesses in Committee, but it puts the icing on the cake of what we have heard from the hon. and learned Gentleman. It points out that the Bill will impact not only on the matters that we have been discussing but

“on the selling of financial products, on the rights of children in care, on property transactions, on insurance transactions; indeed, an endless list that will include every sector of industry, every area of public activity and every kind of personal interaction outside marriage and criminality.”

It raises the issue of

“how evidence of heroic state of mind will be demonstrated.”

It says that the Bill

“seeks to influence judicial decision-making which the Society believes is inherently wrong.”

Those are very trenchant and well-made criticisms of the Bill.

I am afraid that the more one examines the Bill, the more it seems, notwithstanding the amendments we have tabled, that it is almost irreparable—that it is, as the hon. and learned Member for Harborough said, a silly Bill that it would be better to strangle before it gets on to the statute book.

[Karl Turner]

Is not this shambles of a silly Bill a good example of why the person holding the office of Lord Chancellor should be legally trained?

[Mr Slaughter]

I am not going to go down that route today. The Lord Chancellor does not often grace the House with his presence on Justice Bills any more, or take part in these debates, so it is almost as though he has absented himself from the legal world entirely. We wish him good luck with his future career, whatever discipline he chooses next to address.

I take comfort from the Law Society’s belief that

“the Bill has been poorly drafted and will not prevent meritorious claims being made and won where, in any scenario, negligence and/or breach of statutory duty has been proved.”

The Opposition and, I think, the hon. and learned Member for Harborough are of the view that the Bill will be treated with disdain and polite ignorance by the courts and therefore we do not need to fret too much about it.

I do not intend to press amendments 2, 3, 4 or 6 to a vote. However, because we believe that clause 3—in its intent, if not in its execution—is a harmful, misleading and rather spiteful little clause designed to further attack provisions for health and safety at work, we will press amendment 5 to a vote. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 2.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 5, page 1, line 9, leave out Clause 3.—(Mr Slaughter.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.