Legal Aid

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Excerpts

Thursday 11th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, I add my congratulations to those of noble Lords who have already spoken to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, on securing the debate and the way in which she opened it. I also declare an interest as a practising barrister. My noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury, who is unfortunately unable to be here, asked me to say that, as one who has fought for legal aid all his professional life, he wishes that he had been able to contribute to this debate.

In the debate on the gracious Speech, I suggested that there was a need for a fresh settlement between the Government and the professions over legal aid. I am bound to say that the past few weeks have more than ever convinced me of that. The Government and the professions appear at times to be in a hostile stand-off. It is bad for both the Government and the professions, but it is also bad for justice and bad for the public’s confidence in our system of justice.

The starting points are that we recognise the need to save money in this area and that the professions must recognise that the Government do not owe them a living. However, the Government must accept that the professions are not simply special pleading but have genuine and justified concerns about access to justice for the many who need, but who cannot afford to pay, lawyers. Of course, they include the most vulnerable in our society, but we should not forget that they also include millions of ordinary people who can meet their day-to-day expenses but cannot afford the sudden demands of expensive legal costs for them or their families.

A new settlement can be achieved only by dialogue, and it is therefore welcome that the Government have already been responsive to the consultation, particularly over the issue of choice of lawyer. For myself, I regard the right of a defendant to choose his lawyer as fundamental for three reasons. First, it is wrong for the state which prosecutes a case to choose the lawyer on the other side. Secondly, it is essential for a defendant to have confidence in his lawyer. That brings practical benefits in sensible and early guilty pleas where appropriate. Thirdly, choice in this area is a simple matter of liberty.

I confine myself in this short speech to making a handful of points about the Government’s proposals. Much of the controversy has of course centred on PCT. I suggest that there is much force in the argument that competition based on price rather than quality risks lowering standards. If we set only a minimum standard, we will get advocacy of a minimum standard—the so-called race to the bottom. Tendering should be based on quality as much as on price, and that should be made explicit in the application process. A precedent for that is to be found in the Health and Social Care Act, where, on persuasion, substituting competition on quality against a tariff for the original proposal for competition on price significantly improved the Government’s proposals.

The Government have invited the Bar Council to help to design a system of tendering based on quality. It is a matter of regret that the Bar Council has not accepted that invitation. Exactly that kind of dialogue is what I consider to be important. When the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, next sees the Bar Council she might consider taking that back to suggest a change of view in that area.

A further area of concern is the number of providers and their distribution. I believe that a reduction from 1,600 to only 400 providers is far too great. It will badly affect smaller firms and reduce the possibility of both choice and competition.

Attention has been drawn to the problems in multi-handed cases, where a number of defendants may need separate representation. However, I suggest that those problems could be addressed in part if we reconsidered how far the existing professional rules on conflicts of interest are working in accordance with the public interest. Should it not be possible for solicitors in the same firm to act for defendants in legally aided criminal cases where there are conflicts between the defendants’ accounts but no financial conflicts of interest for the firms concerned? Of course, there would have to be safeguards in such a system to ensure that confidentiality was maintained, but barristers in the same chambers have always appeared against each other and the distinction between self-employed barristers and partners in the firm is not, in my view, an overwhelming obstacle.

However, the present proposals risk creating advice and representation deserts where no appropriate legal advice or representation is available. This the Government have recognised, but the proposals also risk creating specialism deserts. The danger of advice deserts could be addressed by increasing the number of providers in more sparsely populated areas. The specialism issue is more difficult. I fear it may become impossible to find solicitors specialising in particular areas of crime—for example, fraud or sex offences—throughout large areas of the country. Correspondingly, specialist lawyers may find that work in their fields is not financially supportable, so specific measures are needed to allow specialists to practise.

I turn briefly to civil legal aid. The proposals on judicial review are claimed by the Government to assist in ensuring that applicants’ lawyers will be paid only for cases in which they get permission, which will filter out weak cases. However, in practice many of the strongest cases are settled at the pre-permission stage where the body, often a local authority, admits fault and settles. Why should we not fund cases such as those, especially since the Government are rightly committed to encouraging early and economical settlement of litigation? The proposal to deny an oral permission hearing in all cases deemed to be totally without merit, while it may be acceptable in cases where there is legal representation, is entirely unacceptable in cases where a judge is needed to tease out the applicant’s case on an oral hearing.

Finally, in the time available, I shall say a word or two about the residency test. I suppose it is possible to conceive of arguments about why the residency test may be at least a relevant consideration in some cases, but given the examples set out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, it is very difficult to see that it can be imposed justly in a blanket way. If the Government are not prepared to reverse this proposal, I urge them at least to preserve a discretion. There are other areas for consideration, but I look forward to hearing the Government’s response.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, before the next speaker, I remind noble Lords that this is a time-limited debate, and the limit for speeches from the Back Benches is six minutes.