Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Debate between Kate Green and Karl Turner

Monday 24th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[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.

Criminal Legal Aid Reforms

Debate between Kate Green and Karl Turner

Wednesday 4th September 2013 Westminster Hall

[Karl Turner]

My hon. Friend makes my point for me. He is right: Members of Parliament are not competent to give legal advice. One option that had been open to us was to signpost people to citizens advice bureaux and other pro bono clinics, but due to budget cuts—local authorities and charities being slashed—they have closed or are buckling under the pressure of reduced resources and vastly increased referrals. Local authorities are desperately struggling to provide advice services as they try to absorb cuts of more than 30%, while charities and authorities up and down the country are being forced by the Government to withdraw vital funding for local projects simply to ensure that they can sustain basic, statutory obligations.

During the first attack on civil legal aid, my party’s Front Benchers and I were accused of scaremongering. Since implementation, however, 600,000 people have been denied access to advice on many aspects of civil law. There has been a 30% fall in the number of providers of civil legal aid and a 12% fall in providers of criminal legal aid, yet the most recent consultation paper, “Transforming Legal Aid: Delivering a more credible and efficient system”, which was published on 9 April, goes beyond anything that anyone could have imagined. The proposals can only damage the legal aid system yet further.

The proposals aim to save £220 million from legal aid spending by 2018-19, but the Government have not said from which year’s spend that money is meant to be found. Many of my colleagues in the profession believe that the proposals will cost the taxpayer more money in the long run—a valid point to make. A common misconception promoted by the Government is that legal aid is the principal cost, but as the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) rightly pointed out in his contribution to the Backbench Business Committee debate, the cost of our legal aid system is just three quarters that of similar systems in many other European countries. The President of the Supreme Court—no less—supports that notion. He said that the bill for legal aid increased substantially between 1965 and 2000, which I accept, but it has since been cut and projections show that it will continue to decrease over the coming years.

I am persuaded that in some areas there may be further savings to be made, but I do not believe that the proposals are the way to achieve such savings. At the Justice Committee session at which the chairman of the Bar Council, Maura McGowan, QC, Michael Turner, QC, and others gave evidence, Michael Turner suggested savings of a surprising £2 billion. The Government should be prepared to sit down with the professionals, the practitioners and the people who are expert in the area to discuss where those savings might be made.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Is it not the case that some of the motivation for the proposals has nothing to do with savings? The Lord Chancellor himself has acknowledged that, for example, restricting access to legal aid for prisoners is a simple matter of ideology.

[Karl Turner]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point and I will develop it in a moment. She is right to raise the issue, and many people argue that the changes are a false economy because costs will increase. Matrix Chambers and Bindmans LLP have pointed out that the Government’s proposed savings are nonsense. They believe that costs—I suspect that they have done proper research—will increase by £24 million if the proposals go through. I agree with Bill Waddington, chairman of the Criminal Law Solicitors Association—

--- Later in debate ---

[Karl Turner]

Of course. My hon. Friend highlights the point that victims of crime suffer again because funding for charities that represent the interests of victims of crime has been severely slashed under the coalition Government.

[Kate Green]

On victims of crime, does my hon. Friend not also agree that with access to a good, trusted legal adviser, many defendants will plead guilty early, saving pain to the victim as well as cost to the system?

[Karl Turner]

In my experience, for what it is worth, my advice to a client was based on the evidence. If that was overwhelming or strong, and if, in my opinion, the defendant needed to plead guilty, they were advised accordingly. I think solicitors and barristers will always act in the best interests of the client.

May I address the caricature that the Government have peddled, which is that all lawyers earn salaries like that of the Prime Minister’s very wealthy brother? It is not true. The vast majority of legal aid lawyers, up and down the country, earn a modest wage; often, they will take home less than a nurse or a teacher. I wonder what information the Government have on that issue, because I think that the Bar Council could provide them with information about average salaries at the Bar, and that the Law Society could assist as well.

A very important point, and perhaps an unintended consequence, is that the proposals will prevent many young people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds, less advantaged backgrounds, and poorer backgrounds from coming into the professions. This is not a plea for the so-called fat cat lawyers, but, as John Cooper, QC, put it:

“This is recognition, before it’s too late, that if the proposals go through we will be complicit in excluding many young people from less advantaged backgrounds from becoming part of what can only be described as the National Health Service of the Law”.

I also want to deal with the misconception that all people seeking legal aid are old lags. I have dealt with that briefly, but the Government seem to suggest that such people do not deserve representation. Of course, there are repeat offenders who are found guilty, or who plead guilty to a further offence, but just because someone has previously been convicted of burglary does not mean—cannot mean, surely—that they are automatically guilty of the further alleged offence. They might not be.

Fundamental to our legal system must be the presumption of innocence. Denying people’s liberty is one of the strongest powers of the state. It is vital, therefore, that that can be done only when a court of law is presented with evidence, for and against, by highly skilled and trained lawyers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karl Turner]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an extremely valid point, which I, again, want to address briefly in my remarks. I disagree with many aspects of the proposals—the right hon. Gentleman is correct—but as my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) said, denying prisoners access to legal representation simply goes against everything that a civil society should represent.

Defending prisoners is not a vote winner, but we live in a civilised society, and I believe that prisoners must have the right to legal representation. The reforms will essentially mean that justice stops at the prison gates and that prisoners are denied legal representation, if the Government plans go ahead. As colleagues have said, denying prisoners access to justice in the way that the consultation proposes seeks to save £4 million. In times of austerity, it would be flippant to say that that is peanuts, but actually, when I think about it, those efficiency savings come at what cost? For goodness’ sake—it seems incredible to me.

[Kate Green]

It is likely that the proposals will save nothing in the round, because they will lead to more inefficiencies inside prisons, as people will be kept in higher-security conditions, when they need not be, for longer, and as there will be greater difficulty in managing discipline and behaviour in prison as a result.

[Karl Turner]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes a valid point.

I think that this next point was the one made by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr David Davis). I am also concerned that the proposals to introduce a residency test will see victims of human trafficking denied access to legal representation and will prevent many cases from being brought against the Government when they are accused of wrongdoing abroad. The new proposals will mean that families such as that of Jean Charles de Menezes would not have been able to fight the case for their dead son, who was wrongly shot by armed police.

I also disagree with the proposals to reform judicial review. They will mean that an individual will no longer be able to hold public bodies to account. Shelter, for example, provides specialist social welfare law advice—on housing issues, in particular—to about 15,000 people each year, under various legal aid contracts. However, it is clear that the proposals will prevent it from doing that.

The Government proposals limit funding for judicial review to only those cases where permission to proceed is granted by a judge. That must severely limit Shelter’s ability to help people. None of us in this place can imagine the prospect of losing our homes. It seems incredible that the Government, in their plans, seek to attack the most vulnerable people at the time when they need assistance the most.

Clearly, the Lord Chancellor has thought about the proposals since the Backbench business debate. Following absolutely overwhelming criticism from many Opposition Members and Government Members, I was very pleased to see the Secretary of State U-turn on the accused having the right to choose their lawyer. However, we do not know what the impact of that will be, because as far as I understand it, the Lord Chancellor is still keen to press ahead with what he thinks is a workable system of PCT. I suspect that it is not workable; I do not think it ever has been.

The client choice issue was designed to assist with PCT, in the sense that it would be attractive for large corporations to bid for contracts on the basis that they are getting a vast client base, but I am not sure what the impact of that will be and how the proposals will change things as a result. I hope, however, that the Lord Chancellor continues to listen, and that he will concede that PCT, in any form, is not suitable for allocating legal aid contracts. Legal aid contracts should not simply go to bidders who are willing to do the work for the lowest price.

As I have said, I am concerned about many aspects of the proposals, but I want to focus, in the time remaining to me, on chapter 4 of the consultation document, which is about PCT in relation to criminal legal aid.