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.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Karl Turner Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

You would not be the first person to make that genuine mistake, Madam Deputy Speaker. I entirely forgive you for it, and thank you ever so much for calling me.

I rise to speak in support of new clause 14, and I thank the Minister and the Department for including it in the Bill. It seems like only yesterday when, on 27 January 2013, I received a telephone call and discovered that two of my constituents, Ross and Clare Simons, had been killed that evening while riding a tandem bike down Lower Hanham road in Kingswood. They had been struck by a driver who had been driving, in a police chase, at 70 mph in a 30 mph zone. Obviously, this was devastating for all the families, and when I went to the vigil a week later, I said to Ross’s father, Edwin Simons, that I would do everything in my power as the local Member of Parliament to stand up for the families and for victims. That is what this clause is about: making sure we send out a message that it is unacceptable to cause death by driving while disqualified. For people watching this debate it is simply common sense to say that people who kill through driving while disqualified should never have been in the car in the first place. People wondering why the law has never been toughened up will see that it makes perfect sense to introduce this new clause.

After that fateful day on 27 January 2013, I set up, with the families, the petition “Justice for Ross and Clare”, which called for far tougher penalties for disqualified drivers, especially those who kill by dangerous driving. The perpetrator, Nicholas Lovell, who went to jail, had 69 previous convictions, 11 of which were for driving offences, and he had been disqualified four times. We can only imagine the families’ grief when they found out in court that this person had not only taken away these innocent young lives but done so while he was disqualified. For more than a decade and a half, he had shown a complete disregard for the law.

Our petition gathered 15,000 signatures, and we took it to No.10 Downing street. As part of the campaign, I led the Backbench Business debate on 27 January 2014, which the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) mentioned, and 30 Members took part. It was clear then, and a testament to the power of Backbench Business debates, that we had cross-party consensus for changing the law. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) for introducing a ten-minute rule Bill on the matter. I am glad that this discussion is taking place today.

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

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the work that he has done in relation to this matter. Does he agree that what we should be doing is punishing people who drive while disqualified per se? The higher-end penalty should be for driving while disqualified. The maximum two years, as I think it is now, should be increased, so that we might avoid at a later stage the terrible incident of death while driving disqualified.

[Chris Skidmore]

The important thing to recognise in new clause 14 is that it sends out a message and hope for future legislation. When I first began the campaign, many families were fairly sceptical that there would be any change, particularly this side of the general election. There was a concern that politicians would sit on their hands and not do anything. By passing this new clause we would be opening up future debate. I have great sympathy with new clause 22, but I have not had the time to study the implications of it in detail. If that could be part of the overall review that is taking place, I would absolutely welcome that.

When considering this review, I want to make a pitch for the families of Ross and Clare Simons that we look again at causing death by dangerous driving while disqualified. At the moment, the crime is just death by driving. Nicholas Lovell, who killed Ross and Clare Simons, was given the maximum sentence of 14 years—it is one of the only times that such a sentence has been delivered by the judge. As Lovell pleaded guilty, he was given 10 years and six months. The judge at the time said that had he the legal power, he would have given out a far tougher sentence. He gave the maximum, but he recognised that, because Lovell had been disqualified, there should have been an additional aggravating factor, or that an additional maximum tariff should have been added to the sentence. I would therefore welcome the review looking at death by dangerous driving while disqualified and upping that sentence.

[Karl Turner]

What the hon. Gentleman is saying, in my respectful submission, is that the judiciary and the courts should have more discretion over sentencing. New clause 22 does just that, does it not?

[Chris Skidmore]

We need to look again at the maximum tariff for causing death by dangerous driving while disqualified. The judge at the time wished for that power. I do not know the precise implications, which is why we need a review in the round. We need uniformity across the piece. One thing I realised from the Backbench Business debate was that I was not alone; the families were not alone. We heard about some of the awfully brief sentences that had been handed out, and the unequal nature of those sentences. It is very hard for a grieving family to find out that, in what seems to be an almost identical case, the sentence handed out in one area is entirely different from that handed out in another area. I would like to ensure that we put in place a rigid framework. Obviously, judges should have discretion as well, but victims need to understand—I am not a lawyer and I struggle at times to follow the complicated processes of the law—that if someone is disqualified, they should not be in a car in the first place; that is common sense. Nicholas Lovell should never have been in that car when he ploughed into Ross and Clare Simons’s tandem. It is for those families that new clause 14 has been introduced. For me and for the local families, it is Ross and Clare’s law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) who spoke so clearly on this issue. I agreed with much of what she said about this huge problem. It is astonishing how many people get off time after time. Some law firms even advertise their incredible success rates in achieving that, which we do not want to see.

There may be extenuating circumstances or special cases occasionally, but once someone has said they know they should be banned, and then makes a desperate plea, they should be more careful afterwards. It is not impossible to drive for quite a long time without breaking any rules or getting any points on your licence—some people have clean driving licences. Certainly if I had nine points, or even 12 points, I would try very hard indeed not to speed or drive dangerously. I hope that the Minister will listen carefully to the review.

I have a couple of pedantic points about the hon. Lady’s amendment, as I do not think it covers everything that it needs to. However, that is not the point for today. I hope that we can get the right changes that most of the House would want to see. I welcome the Government’s announcement of a review, and I hope that it will be a substantial review. I also hope that the Minister is successful in obtaining parliamentary time to ensure that the results of the review become law. A review will not solve the problem on its own.

I pay tribute to the work done by the CTC’s road justice campaign, which produced an excellent report called “Road Justice: the role of the police”—I know that the Minister has had some discussions with that organisation—which looked not only at the legal aspects, but at the role of the police and the prosecution. The law is not the only issue. Too often, especially when pedestrians or cyclists are the victims of collisions, the police do not investigate sufficiently to allow charges to be brought. In several cases, people have come to my surgery having been involved in a collision in which someone else behaved very dangerously and the police simply were not interested in doing the basic groundwork, such as taking photographs of the scene at the time. There is very little point us getting the law right if the police do not investigate and prosecutors do not take action. I know that the Minister is not responsible for the police, but I hope the review will look more broadly at the issue to ensure that its proposals will make a difference.

The campaign has had some 12,000 signatures, so we need some action in response. Some of the cases are astonishing. In one case, a gentleman had been drinking and smoking cannabis and then was speeding, with his girlfriend riding pillion, and crashed and killed a pedestrian. He had 45 previous traffic offences but apparently there was not enough evidence to charge him with causing death by dangerous driving, even though there was a clear cause of death—dangerous driving—and he had a long track record. He did get 18 months in jail, but the fact that prosecutors did not even feel able to bring a charge of death by dangerous driving is a problem.

[Karl Turner]

Prosecutions are made on whether there is enough evidence to bring the charge and, secondly, whether it is in the public interest. I do not mean to criticise the hon. Gentleman, but it may be a little unfair to say that a prosecution for dangerous driving should have been brought in that particular case. Perhaps there was good reason why it was not.

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Gentleman is right: I have not been through all the court transcripts in that case. But it is not an isolated case. It is a similar story in literally hundreds of cases—we have heard some today and many others have been collected in various places. I am sure he is not trying to suggest that he would agree with the action taken in every one of those cases.

One problem—and having spoken with many people about this, I cannot see an easy resolution to it—is that juries are often not prepared to convict on offences that perhaps they should be. Prosecutors can have a tendency to low-ball the charge to ensure a conviction. I hope that the review will address that issue, because none of us want to see charges being brought that juries feel are simply too serious to convict.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Karl Turner Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

The cost will build up over the next five or 10 years because, as my hon. and learned Friend knows, one cannot apply sentencing rules retrospectively. The proposals on automatic release for the most serious offences are containable comfortably within the existing prison budget and within the expected resources of the Department. Only a relatively small number of people commit the most serious and brutal offences, and those are precisely the people whom we do not want to release automatically halfway through their sentences because of the risk that they pose to the public. I am therefore confident not only that this is containable comfortably within the departmental budget, but that it is the right thing to do.

On part 2, I believe that it is right that young people who commit crimes should face appropriate punishments. That is and always should be a matter for the courts. When young people commit serious or persistent offences and there is a need to protect the public, custody is a necessary option. However, we have taken positive steps over the past three years to ensure that we deal better with young offenders who do not pose an immediate risk to society.

On becoming Justice Secretary, I was appalled to discover that so many young offenders who are released from custody go on to reoffend within a year. Currently, the rate stands at 69%. That is an astounding percentage that far exceeds the reoffending rate for adults on leaving custody. It is simply too high. We spend as much as £200,000 a year per place in some institutions, but the reoffending rate is consistently around 70%. That cannot be right, it cannot be sensible and we have to do something about it.

We must do more to help young offenders back on to the straight and narrow and ready for adult life, and high-quality education is a key part of that. Most young people who end up in our youth offender institutions or secure training centres have dropped out of school, have few or no qualifications, and do not have the skill foundations they need to leave and get into work. We must address that and do more to help them back into having real prospects of an apprenticeship or work. Otherwise, the danger of reoffending will be ever great.

At present, young people in young offenders institutions spend on average just 12 hours a week in the classroom, and latest figures suggest that more than half of 15 to 17-year-olds in YOIs have literacy and numeracy levels expected of seven to 11-year-olds. The Bill contains provisions to create what we are dubbing “secure colleges” so that we can trial a new approach to youth custody, with a stronger focus on the education and rehabilitation of young offenders, equipping them with the skills they need to stop reoffending and become law-abiding members of our society.

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

I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor for giving way and I am interested in where the £85 million for his secure college is coming from, and from which year’s budget?

[Chris Grayling]

It comes from my Department’s capital budget and it will lead to a reduction in the annual running costs of institutions. We are creating an institution that provides both high-quality education and better value than we get from the current system, which underperforms and is excessively expensive because of the nature of the provision out there. I believe this institution will be a major step forward and deliver high-quality education in a modern environment and campus setting, with the focus on education rather than simply detention. That is a key difference.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a privilege to follow the Chairman of the Justice Committee, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith). As a former member of his Committee, I know that he always speaks with great knowledge and is very considered in his views. I agree with much of what he has said today.

The Bill is a wasted opportunity. It makes no mention of victims, of probation, of legal aid, of women in the justice system or of ethnic minorities. The Government have missed an opportunity, especially in relation to important issues like the huge changes to criminal legal aid that the Lord Chancellor is about to announce. We await that announcement with bated breath; he has been promising the legal profession that he would make it, but we are still waiting. The Bill could have considered those huge changes to legal aid. The entire legal profession is completely against the Lord Chancellor’s views and the Government’s proposals. On 7 March, criminal solicitors and barristers will be taking a day of industrial action. I think that the solicitors are describing it as a training day, in order to get round certain issues. The Government could have used the Bill to debate those important changes properly.

I do not disagree with everything in the Bill. In fact, I agree with a lot of it—including, for example, the restrictions on the use of cautions. I have expressed my concerns and complained about the use of cautions, along with other Members on both sides of the House.

[Keith Vaz]

I should like to praise my hon. Friend. He served briefly on the Home Affairs Committee after he served on the Justice Committee—has he served on every Committee in the House?—and he asked for an inquiry into this matter and we were going to have one. I congratulate him on his long campaign to make this a subject worthy of discussion.

[Karl Turner]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making those remarks. He rightly said that I raised the issue when I was briefly a member of his Committee, and I wrote to him formally after I had left the Committee to ask for an inquiry, which he kindly agreed to have. This issue has been a problem for a relatively long time. Government Members said that it has become a particular problem since 2007, and that is probably right, but in my experience, from my constituency, it has increased dramatically since 2010. That is a point of debate and hon. Members may wish to disagree with me on it, but I am glad that the Government have finally accepted that this is a definite issue and that they are going to deal with cautions for indictable-only offences and for repeat offenders.

I have some concerns about single magistrates sitting for summary only, non-imprisonable offences. If someone pleads guilty by post for a road traffic offence, I have no problem with their being dealt with by a single magistrate. However, the Bill does not state that this approach will be confined just to road traffic offences, and I have concerns about that. Justice must be done and be seen to be done, and this approach also completely undermines the notion of collective decision making.

Let me now deal with the sentencing provisions. I was a criminal law practitioner before I was elected to this House, and I am on record as saying that I was never a fan of indeterminate sentences for public protection. However, the provisions in the Bill are undoubtedly a knee-jerk reaction by this Lord Chancellor to the fact that his extended sentences in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 simply have not worked—the Government are reacting to that.

I do not wish to speak for too long on my next issue, as other Members have made the point well, but part 4 of the Bill is of particular concern to me because it seems to undermine the possibility of challenging Executive decisions in a judicial review. The Lord Chancellor is on the record, commenting to his favourite newspaper, the Daily Mail, describing judicial review as

“a promotional tool for countless Left-wing campaigners”.

With respect, that type of comment could be made only by this Lord Chancellor, who simply does not appreciate the importance of the rule of law.

[Kate Green]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Lord Chancellor is completely missing the point, as the majority of judicial review cases involve individuals—disabled people, people with learning difficulties, children and other vulnerable people—who are having to challenge inappropriate state decisions, in a situation where there is huge inequality of bargaining power? Portraying judicial review as being about campaign groups prosecuting an agenda is simply a misrepresentation of what it is predominantly about.

[Karl Turner]

My hon. Friend made the point better than I was about to and has hit the nail entirely on the head. This measure is populist stuff; it is the Lord Chancellor trying to be popular. Judicial review is not the only thing he attacks—he attacks human rights. As a lawyer, I find it frustrating to listen to him when he debates in this House because he seems not to understand the relationship between the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act 1998: he confuses the two. He is attacking the system. He has attacked human rights, judicial review, legal aid and no win, no fee arrangements. He has attacked any opportunity for people to challenge the Government or organisations the Lord Chancellor seems not to be terribly impressed by.

My main concern is clause 50, which seeks to change the threshold for bringing judicial review. People who bring reviews often have legitimate claims; these reviews are not some spurious attempt to challenge the Government, and these people often have lawyers advising them. Solicitors and members of the Bar will discuss the possibility of success in these cases and will give advice. I respectfully submit that judges do not just let spurious cases go through, so I think the Lord Chancellor could do with a lesson in the entire system.

I know that other Members wish to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will leave it there.

[Simon Reevell (Dewsbury) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner). I declare an interest, in that I still practise at the Bar, so to a certain extent I comment on this Bill as someone who may have to make its provisions actually work. In that context, I think the Bill contains some very positive measures, especially on sentencing and cautions.

I had not appreciated that the entire Labour party was against the policy of cautioning that it introduced or that one consequence of the general election of 2010 was that the use of cautioning suddenly escalated. I had understood that this policy was introduced and promoted by the previous Government, and that it has been absolutely corrosive to the criminal justice system. It has undermined the public’s confidence in the police, who are perceived to use cautioning as an easy solution; and it has caused problems in the criminal justice system, where co-accused are separated, with one being cautioned and the other being prosecuted. I am glad that this Government are doing what they can to start to turn around that ship, but let us not forget who launched it and pushed it on its course.

[Karl Turner]

The hon. Gentleman speaks on these issues with real knowledge as a member of the Bar—he is a member of my old circuit, so I know him well. Does he not accept that when budgets are constrained and the police have had something like a 30% cut to their budget, there is a temptation for them just to go for a caution without a referral to the Crown Prosecution Service for advice on charging? Is that not possible?

[Simon Reevell]

My recollection is that the hon. Gentleman was a member of my circuit, but I will have a think about that. Cautioning has been utterly corrosive, and even when people have been prosecuted the sentencing procedures that have been put in place have been difficult for lawyers, and impossible for non-lawyers, to understand. The point has been well made that the idea of someone serving no more than half a sentence is difficult for people to take on board, but when somebody reappears after a few days or a few weeks the public simply cannot comprehend it. A good start is linking the release of serious offenders to the scrutiny of the Parole Board. It is an important link and I am glad that it is being reintroduced. I say “reintroduced” because it worked very well in the 1990s, but since then we have had indeterminate sentences for public protection, and judging by some of the comments today it is clear that the party that introduced them still does not understand the problems they caused.

The Bill has the advantage of introducing a system that imposes a period of imprisonment that will be served unless, after a substantial time, the Parole Board approves early release. The Bill retains the incentive for the prisoner and provides a valuable safeguard for the rest of us—that is a good piece of legislation. What a pity that we had to have those years of messing around with alternatives before going back to something that worked well in the 1990s.

When someone is released, is it wrong to use technology to monitor them? I understand that some people will be uncomfortable with the idea of tracking humans with a global positioning system, but is it any different from putting a tag on someone and using different technology to monitor whether or not they enter or leave a building? Surely when people are precluded by court order from going to certain locations, there is nothing wrong in monitoring that with technology. There is always a line with technology that we should not cross, but this Bill falls far short of it.

If someone on licence breaches the terms of that licence and will do so again, why should they not have to serve the remainder of their sentence? Most people probably assume that that is what happens anyway, and would be surprised to learn that the system provided for anything else. People have the licence terms explained to them: if they breach the licence and it looks as though they will do it again, they should serve their sentence, and there cannot be anything wrong with that.

One aspect of the Bill that has received media attention relates to proceedings for judicial review. Is it really controversial that those who wish to be involved in someone else’s case may have to pay towards the cost of those proceedings? Those who appear as interveners are free to provide their assistance, knowledge and experience to any party in any case, but if they want to appear themselves, why should it be assumed that one of the parties will automatically pick up their costs or that they will have no responsibility for the costs that they incur on behalf of others? They are free to pass on their expertise and knowledge, but if they want to take part in the litigation, some responsibility may come with that.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

May I start by thanking all Members, on both sides of the House, who have spoken today? The debate has been both considered and thorough, and the number of points that have been raised confirms the importance of the issues before us.

As my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor set out at the start of this debate, the Bill represents the next stage of our reforms to deliver a cost-effective justice system in which the public can have real confidence. The key elements of the Bill will deliver a firm but fair package of sentencing and criminal law reforms, which will properly punish serious and repeat offenders and better protect victims and the public. We are clear that people who break the law will not escape the law.

The Bill provides for the creation of secure colleges, putting education at the very heart of youth custody, giving young offenders the tools they need to lead a life away from crime. We are modernising the law to tackle the influence of the internet on trials by jury to ensure that defendants receive a fair trial, reflecting how technology and the wealth of information available at the touch of a button has changed the way in which we live. We will reduce the burden of the cost of courts on hard-working taxpayers by making sure that criminals pay towards the cost of their court cases. The Bill will make critical reforms to judicial review, to tackle unmeritorious claims and unnecessary delays in the system.

Members have raised a number of issues, many of which will, of course, be debated further in Committee. However, I should like to touch on some of the points made by colleagues. They will forgive me for not being able to mention every point made in every speech, but I shall try to cover as many of them as I possibly can.

My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) started by commenting on the proposals for single magistrates to deal with low-level, uncontested cases. This issue was touched on by a number of other colleagues. Let me be clear that we are talking about low-level, uncontested cases. Let me also be clear that where someone wishes to contest a case, they can have it heard before two or three magistrates and it can be dealt with in the usual way. This proposal is for cases—the vast majority of them—where people simply do not bother to turn up or reply, or if they do, they plead guilty.

[Karl Turner]

If that is the Government’s intention, why does the Bill not say that?

[Mr Vara]

It does.

My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon spoke about the age limit for jurors being raised from 70 to 75. The reason is that we must recognise that people are now living longer and healthier lives. It is important that jurors reflect society at large. If society is growing older, we need to ensure that jurors, who decide cases, reflect that. I accept that we have a problem in attracting young people to become magistrates, and we must continue to try to address that issue, but that is not to say that we should not increase the age.

On court costs, several colleagues were concerned about the rate of recovery. Let me clarify the point. At present, the recovery rates for compensation, fines and the victim surcharge stands at 80%, and there is no reason to believe that court charges will not be recovered at similar rate.