Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Lord McNally

Tuesday 23rd April 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

I am reliably informed, post haste, that such aggregates in clouds are not covered. If by any chance that is not true I will write to the noble Lord and make sure the letter is circulated to the House. I cannot see over my shoulder but I sincerely hope that the Box is currently nodding firmly.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I can inform the Minister that the Box looked absolutely transfixed by that recent exchange. I do not know who is more surprised, them or us, by the ability of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, to come to the white heat of the technological revolution and ask a question that has stumped us all. On this side of the House, we would venture to say that we think they are covered, but that just adds a little piquancy to the debate which will, I am sure, be resolved before we get too far down the line.

Following the Leveson trail is a bit like appearing in “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead”. We pop up at odd times as other events seem to be filling the spaces. We pay a small contribution to it and then we discover that the whole event has moved on, another Bill has appeared, and yet another set of amendments appears which look awfully like the ones we have just been discussing. Only earlier today, we knocked out one set of amendments, yesterday we could have done the same, today we hope they will stick. I want to reassure the Minister that we will be supporting him in this event and he will not need to use the wiles he displayed when he almost reached across the Dispatch Box to my noble friend Lady Hayter to try to persuade her not to push her vote. The vote was unsuccessful so he won out in the end anyway: he has all the luck.

As the Minister has explained, these amendments, inserted into the Bill late in the process, provide for new rules on exemplary damages and costs. They are an essential part of the cross-party agreement on a royal charter which is part of the new framework of independent self-regulation, guaranteed by law, as recommended by Lord Justice Leveson. This part of the Bill aims to provide publishers with incentives to sign up to the new system of self-regulation that should meet the criteria set out in the royal charter. Publishers that join a recognised regulator will receive protection from the award of exemplary damages in media disputes, the opportunity to use an arbitration service and cost benefits from having access to this service. That is one reason why it would benefit local as well as national newspapers. If a complainant chooses not to use the arbitration service, they can still be liable for costs even if they win.

Lord Justice Leveson’s report was mainly about the press but the original drafting of this Bill had the unintended effect of catching blogs. That said, Lord Justice Leveson did express the hope, in Recommendation 73 of his report, that online publishers would also join a regulator. The Bill therefore needs to be amended to ensure that exemplary damages did not apply to blogs and they could receive the benefits of joining a recognised regulator. In recognition of the fact that this is a complex area, your Lordships’ House agreed a placeholder amendment on 25 March. The Government’s decision to hold a mini consultation and pause for reflection to consider how the Bill should deal with the blogosphere was sensible and we agree with the policy objectives that the Government are seeking to address to exempt micro businesses from the definition of relevant publisher where they are a blog or where their publications are merely incidental to their other businesses and to enable such micro businesses to receive the benefits and cost incentives of joining a recognised regulator. The Minister has been helpful in setting out a number of accompanying thoughts around these points and the issues relating to what would and would not qualify, and I think they will bear further consideration once we see them written up in Hansard.

However, the main point is that the amendments we are now looking at and which we support define a small blog as one whose turnover is below £2 million and has up to 10 employees. It exempts such businesses from exemplary damages and enables them to benefit from the cost advantages of an arbitration service if they join a regulator, and that last point will be particularly welcome to the community. As I say, we support the proposals, and I am grateful for the manner in which they have been pursued within the all-party agreement which has underpinned the whole process, so we will not be dividing the House.

In the time available, I would like to make a couple of ruminations about some of the issues that we are talking about today, and within that are two questions to which I hope the Minister will be able to respond. The first is that the digital world as we know it is changing rapidly and the complexity and parliamentary arithmetic of changing the royal charter means that it will be hard to alter the legislation after this Session, so it needs to be right. What consideration have the Government given to the health and future of the blogging industry, and can the noble Lord share with us the Government’s thinking on this point? I understand that the indicators for a micro-business have come from a definition used by BIS, and in that sense they are not specific to the blogosphere. I have had representations already, and I am sure that other noble Lords will also have received them, from those who argue that the figures being used are on the high side, as rarely do we find 10 employees or even an annual turnover of £2 million in a blog company. That would make for a very healthy company, but it is not how the sector operates. Can the Minister estimate roughly how many blogs this definition would capture at present?

I turn to a related but more general point. We are talking about an industry that is in the process of change. For example, the print circulation of newspapers is estimated to shrink by at least a quarter in the next five years and yet we are facing a rather bizarre situation where newspapers are exempted the full 20% rate of VAT on print sales despite the fact that in many cases online traffic now represents the majority of their audiences. This is something which is bound to grow as we go forward. In fact, we are fast approaching a situation where what we previously believed, which is that we in this country do not tax reading, is becoming the reverse of what will happen. Those who read using electronic means, which will include those who are caught by this amendment, will be paying 20% VAT. Is this something that the Minister can say is under consideration, because it seems to me that we will need to face up to it before too long?

I am very grateful to the Minister for mentioning Mumsnet because it was the subject of discussions in another place, and others have raised it. The break point that he expressed is one to which we may need to return. Perhaps when he concludes he will reflect on this. At what point do those who blog and use it as a campaigning tool get caught? There is some doubt in what he has said about whether Mumsnet, which is not a charity but exists largely to circulate material that is in favour of a particular point of view, could possibly be caught by this exception. It is one of a number of areas in which, as the Minister has said, time will show us what emerges. However, a little more clarity at this stage would be helpful.

Finally, the Minister was keen to assert that it would not be sensible at this stage to define a blog. He was then caught quite quickly by a question related to blogging which illustrates that sometimes it might be sensible to have in primary legislation clear definitions which we can all use. I understand and support the idea that it is probably wrong to try to be definitive at this stage and that we should see how things go, but if that is the case, are there are any thoughts about how the Government might consider revisiting the issue within a reasonable time if it turns out that we need to move? After all, as I have said, this is the digital age and things are moving fast. What is a blog today may change into something else, and we want to be sure that we have the flexibility which I do not currently see in the Bill.

[Lord McNally]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, not only for that reply but for the constructive role he has played in getting us as far as we are today. It is important to retain an all-party approach as we take this through. The noble Lord asked how many blogs this amendment will cover. We cannot provide an accurate estimate because blogs are constantly started up and then stopped. However, we feel that this is the right figure in order to exclude all those who we hope and intend to exclude. On the definition of a blog, I was tempted to call in aid that used by Clement Attlee when he wanted to exclude Trotskyists from the Labour Party. They said, “How do we know who are Trotskyists?”, and he said, “It’s a bit like an elephant—when you see one, you know one”. In a way, we are groping with blogs in an age of technology that is constantly and frighteningly rapidly changing.

We have tried to get some key features which distinguish blogs from online newspaper reporting. A blog is used primarily for an expression of opinion. Multi-authored blogs usually cover a single subject of interest. In all cases, blogs do not report in a factual and neutral way on news or current affairs but are led by the personal views of the individuals. While an online news site may contain comment, opinion or bias, comment pieces are not its principal focus. What constitutes a blog may change over time as convergence increases.

It is a difficult area. When we debate these areas, we often point out that future-proofing is virtually impossible. We hope that the definition I have given today has been sufficiently carefully drafted to provide the maximum possible clarity to organisations seeking to know whether they are caught. We have produced a handy set of questions on our website to help organisations to work this out. This is intended as guidance only. Ultimately, as in the case of all legislation, the decision on whether an organisation comes within or outside the scope of any particular piece of legislation will fall to the courts. The intention of the definition is to capture news publishers who were the focus of Lord Justice Leveson’s inquiry and his subsequent recommendations. They are intended to act as the key incentive for those publishers to join the new press regulator, while also protecting those not intending to join.

On Mumsnet, protection is the interlocking test, but such an organisation may branch out or develop a kind of activity which takes it into the realms of news and newspapers—a news media. Again, we would have to be flexible. If an organisation develops in a way that makes it a news organisation, it would have to consider its position. Lord Justice Leveson, in making his recommendation and recognising the changing architecture of our media, specifically said that he hoped news organisations that were primarily online would consider themselves willing to join any new regulator.

Parliament at both ends of the Corridor has done a good bit of business in dealing with a specific concern that was raised. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for his very constructive and helpful approach, not only at the Dispatch Box, but in bilateral discussions.

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Lord McNally

Monday 25th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for participating in this debate, which has echoed a number of occasions on which we have been able to touch on these topics in the context of several Bills over recent months. We have not always stood opposite the noble Lord, Lord McNally, although he has been quite strong, particularly as we saw his cherished Defamation Bill begin to slip away from him. However, I think I see it looming in the background, and the noble Lord has cheered up again, which is nice. We also touched on them in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, where we did a great deal of work with the excellent amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. They were not moved, but they certainly raised the issues that we are considering today. Of course, we now have the Crime and Courts Bill before us, so there is endless flexibility, and long may that last. I should like particularly to thank the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, who has been tireless in tabling amendments that give effect to the detail of the Leveson recommendations and reinforce the fact that the royal charter and its statutory underpinning have been agreed by all three parties in an historic agreement.

We need to recognise that the debate on Leveson has moved on. The most important thing now is to be clear on what the government amendments intend to do and avoid any unnecessary scaremongering. I shall focus on a number of the amendments before us and, like the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, I should like the Minister to comment on how he intends to respond to them.

My first strand is on exemplary damages, but I have been sufficiently warned off by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, even to go down this route. However, there are a couple of points that I would like the Minister to respond to. I understand that a considerable amount of time was spent in the all-party talks on the question of what happens to damages when it transpires that the facts of a case have changed in that the court has facts which were not available to the regulator. Can the Minister help us on this issue as it has happened in recent months? Can he confirm that this is a matter which will be returned to?

Amendment 11C clarifies that the common law gateway for exemplary damages will not apply. Can the Minister confirm that the “for profit” test is not required if the “outrageous” test is met? Amendment 11D makes it clear that a relevant publisher will be vicariously liable for wrongdoing by an employee or a person contracted to work for a publisher which results in liability for exemplary damages in accordance with the ordinary common law tests. Can the Minister confirm that further work will be done on this question? It is a key issue that is dealt with succinctly in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. Vicarious liability bears on the morality and culture of the press. It is important that the Government should put on the record today that they agree with the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, and that they intend to return to this issue in the Commons to the extent that this may be required. The recent history, after all, shows that it matters. We do not want a situation where publishers literally have a get-out-of-jail-free card, and it would be strange if the media were to be in a privileged position in relation to vicarious liability compared with all other interests in this country. Lastly in this group, Amendment 13A is intended to reassure small publishers that, in deciding the amount of exemplary damages, the court will have regard to the means of the defendant. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will return to this issue when it is considered again in the Commons?

The second group of amendments that I would like to look at contains those amendments that are intended to make it clear that to benefit from cost protection the publisher would have to participate in the self-regulator’s arbitral scheme. With regard to Amendment 17E, the Government’s intention is that in order to benefit from cost protection the publisher would not only have to be a member of an approved regulator but would also have to participate in the scheme. There are those who have argued differently. Surely it makes no sense to provide benefits to publishers simply on the basis that they recognise that an arbitration scheme exists. The point here should be that it is the active participation by publishers in the scheme that entitles them to get cost benefits. In any case, as Lord Justice Leveson pointed out, an incentive to join an arbitration scheme is good for all publishers and will help them and the claimants. Can the Minister confirm that this is his understanding of the situation and that the Government stand ready to confirm this position in the other place?

Amendment 17J asks for clarification, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, about the commencement of Sections 44 and 46 of the LASPO Act 2012, which was taken through the House by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, so he should know his stuff on this. I should be grateful for some confirmation about the issues that arise from that question. Amendment 19B would require that the recognition panel, which approves the self-regulator, is subject to freedom of information. This is an important matter which surely should be brought forward at this stage. After all, it is something that can be dealt with by secondary legislation. No one would surely expect that the recognition body wishes the power to act in secret. This really is important, so will the Minister give us an assurance that the relevant statutory instrument will be brought forward in good time before the regulator starts its work? Amendment 131A concerns relevant publishers which hold broadcasting licences. The drafting here is a little opaque. We seek an assurance from the Minister that a person who holds a broadcasting licence is excluded only in so far as they publish news-related material in the course of their broadcasting activities. Can the Minister confirm that this is not intended to cover the whole publishing activity of such licence-holders but only their broadcasting activity?

My Amendment 131F, which was put down earlier and is part of this group, has, I think, been overtaken by events. I refer to the extensive introduction which the Minister gave to Amendment 131BA, which provides for:

“A person who publishes a small-scale blog”.

I think it is meant to be a peg to allow for further discussion and debate for this event to happen in the House of Commons. On the basis of that understanding, for which I am grateful to the Minister, I will not press that amendment when the time comes.

Finally, there has been some talk about dates and the time that all this comes into effect. I should be grateful if the Minister could be very clear about what he understands the implementation date to be.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to what has been a very thoughtful debate. I should perhaps start with the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Black, because I am not sure whether it was the case for the defence or a warning of battles to come. He said that Lord Justice Leveson was as immune from being criticised as Florence Nightingale. I would have thought that the lady would have got a fair old battering from the noble Lord, Lord Black, if his speech was anything to go by.

Looking round the Chamber and listening to the contributions, and following this debate right through, I have never been in any doubt that many of the politicians in this Parliament would literally lay down their lives for the freedom of the press. It is not the case, as has been suggested in some of the very newspapers over which the noble Lord, Lord Black, has influence, that this is some Orwellian plot against the freedom of the press. As my noble friend Lord Phillips said, if by chance we saw what follows as an attack on the freedom of the press, I believe that the people who would be most likely to leap to the defence of the press would be not some of the media barons but noble Lords in this Chamber tonight and Members in the other place.

Although it was a well thought out and well delivered critique, I regret a little bit that nowhere in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Black, was there any apology. There was no recognition of the law-breaking on an industrial scale, no understanding of how deeply wounded the victims of press intrusion have been and no recognition of the deep disgust of the general public, which is reflected in the opinion polls that we have seen. I understand the message that was delivered. He asked me to pause. I genuinely ask the noble Lord, Lord Black, to pause and think whether he could not go back to those with whom he has immense influence and say, “Rather than trying to wreck this, couldn’t we see if we could make it work?”. To my mind, the prize is a great one—a free press, but a free press operating to the highest standards of ethics and one that is law-abiding. I believe that that is within our grasp if we can work together on this.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Lord McNally

Tuesday 27th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, has introduced this group of amendments with her customary fluency and passion, and she has been joined by other speakers who have made the case well. As has been pointed out, this measure risks damage to the UK’s reputation for justice to those people who have suffered damage to their human rights caused by companies based in the United Kingdom. I am sure that none of us wishes to see that happen.

We have support from all around the House, and we are grateful to those who have joined in on these amendments. The settled view of your Lordships’ House is clearly that there is a real danger that, if this Bill goes through in its present form, the changes that it makes to the way in which international human rights cases are to operate, combined with the restricted damages that the Rome II regulations impose on the level of damages that can be awarded to claimants, will make it impossible for such cases to be mounted in the UK in future.

As the House has heard, several very important independent charities have been lobbying hard on this issue. Several meetings have been held with the Minister and correspondence has been exchanged. We hoped that an accommodation could be reached, and we went to see him yesterday in the hope that that might be possible. He e-mailed us today to say that he could not accept our amendments.

It is clear to me that while on the one hand the Government do not want to be responsible for preventing these cases continuing in future, they have not so far been convinced that it is highly probable that they will occur in future. Why is that? The arithmetic, as has been said, is very clear. We seem to be in a situation where the department’s overriding concern that the architecture of the Bill should be retained is working here against good legislation. What other arguments can there possibly be? We have heard from those directly involved in these cases and we know what the figures are. It is clear that the facts outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and my noble friend Lord Brennan that the Government are wrong. I hope that when the time comes the noble Baroness will test the opinion of the House, and we will be supporting her in the Lobby.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I confirm that we have been in regular discussions about these amendments, and I regret that I am not able to accept them today.

There have been a number of comments about costs and indeed about the Trafigura case. What strikes me most about that case is that the £30 million that was won in damages worked out at about £1,000 per victim—against, as has already been accepted, legal costs that at one time, until they were beaten down, were running at £100 million. To me, that is an obscene system.

With regard to the reforms that we brought forward, we have said that we believe CFAs will continue. We are also introducing damages-based agreements. Far from welcoming them, though, the CBI and others worry that those may well provide funding in this area. So, it is not that the Government are opposed to bringing companies to account for their behaviour. I just do not believe in the rather broad claims by the noble Lords, Lord Brennan and Lord Judd, that this issue will dramatically affect the lives of people in developing countries. There are other areas of policy that are going to do much more than that.

I make clear that the Government strongly support claims arising from allegations of corporate harm in developing countries being brought, and we support the protection of damages for personal injury. Where we disagree with the supporters of the amendment is that we do not believe that our plans would prevent such cases being brought or ultimately damage the ability of NGOs and others to hold big business to account.

An exception along the lines proposed is in our view neither necessary nor justified. It is not necessary because reformed “no win no fee” arrangements will still allow cases to be brought. It is not justified because it would undermine the wider rationale for the Jackson reforms in Part 2 of the Bill, which should apply across civil litigation without any exceptions. In doing so, it would introduce unfairness between different types of claimant.

We recognise, however, that, following the Rome II regulations, damages in these cases can be relatively low, and they will not be subject to the 10 per cent increase available for other claims. The costs awarded can nevertheless be extremely high, as was demonstrated by the Trafigura case. The question is whether any exception should be made for these cases either on a wider basis, as proposed in Amendments 21, 22, 23 and 26, or on a narrower basis, as proposed in Amendment 27. I concede that in putting forward Amendment 27, the movers tried to put forward a narrow-based solution.

The Government have listened to this debate and those that went before, and we have reflected carefully on the points raised. We have held many meetings with interested stakeholders and NGOs over the past months, and the Government are fully aware of the strength of feeling on this issue. I have looked again at the evidence that has been presented, including reports by Professor Rachael Mulheron of the University of London and Mr Smith of First Assist. Both reports make the general case for recoverable success fees and insurance premiums to continue in these cases, but they do not present any figures showing why these cases could not be brought in future. During our discussions with the NGOs we have asked for such evidence but it has not been forthcoming, even though we have asked them for more detailed figures.

The truth is that the available evidence shows that these cases, though few in number—about 10 in a decade—have historically been highly profitable for the legal firms involved. Although under our plans the margins available would be reduced, they are still likely to remain attractive. I remind noble Lords of the sums involved. Since the previous Government introduced the recoverability of success fees and insurance premiums in 2000, we know that there have been only around 10 of these cases, mainly undertaken by a single firm of solicitors. Most of these cases have succeeded or settled, but some claims have been pursued in which costs have not ultimately been recovered. The figures suggest that in those cases that were not pursued to trial, there were disbursements of some £131,000 and legal costs in the region of £1.4 million. I appreciate that those figures will not cover all costs in all cases but they should be a fair ball-park indication. £1.4 million sounds like a lot of money for a firm to bear in what are effectively losses on a case not pursued and won until the substantial sums that have been received in success fees are considered. We know that in the case of Trafigura alone, success fees—intended to cover the costs in lost cases—of around £29 million were allowed by the Court of Appeal. Those figures amount to a net gain for claimant lawyers from these cases over the past decade of more than £27 million from the success fees for Trafigura alone. That does not include all the success fees in the other successful cases.

These figures speak for themselves. They cast all emotion aside and demonstrate the substantial gains in legal costs from these cases and the proportionately much lower costs expended. When the ratio of earnings to losses is more than 10:1, the current system can, to put it mildly, bear some reform. Therefore, while I recognise that claims against multinationals can be complex, the changes that we are making to the CFA regime will not prevent these cases being brought in the future. They can still be brought but the costs will be more proportionate. As Lord Justice Jackson recognised, a greater incentive for claimants’ lawyers to work more smartly is needed so that they incur only costs that are justified when bringing a claim, rather than allowing costs to escalate.

It is worth pointing out, as I have previously in the House, the criticism by the Court of Appeal of the costs claimed by the claimants in the Trafigura case. In that case, the court itself questioned whether some of the work undertaken by the claimants’ lawyers was necessary. It criticised them for seeking costs of £100 million in a case that resulted in payment of £30 million in damages. It is not for me to question the conduct of those involved, but it needs to be borne in mind when looking at the extraordinary costs claimed in that case alone. I should add—again, as I have pointed out to the House previously—that in that case the defendant’s costs were approximately £14 million, which is around one-seventh of the costs claimed by the claimants.

I turn now to Amendment 27, which seeks to allow for the recoverability of “after the event” insurance premiums to pay adverse legal costs, including expert fees and other disbursements. In doing so, the amendment goes much wider than just the cost of funding the expert reports for which we have provided in the special situation of clinical negligence cases. The amendment would potentially cover paying the other side’s costs, too, but this is not necessary because we are introducing a system of qualified one-way cost shifting in personal injury cases, which will protect losing claimants from having to pay the other side’s costs. We have discussed making exceptions in relation to expert reports in other contexts, but we do not believe that an exception is more needed here than in other cases. As I have said, the costs recovered in successful multinational cases have been substantial and could provide funds towards paying up front for reports where needed.

As I indicated on Report, on several occasions my officials and I have met representatives of the NGOs that support these cases. However, we have not been persuaded that such cases cannot continue to be brought when our changes are implemented. Nor are we persuaded that they justify an exception in the Bill that would be unfair to other, no less deserving claimants.

The House will be aware of all the arguments that I have rehearsed today, in Committee and on Report. We have treated subsequent discussions with the seriousness they deserve, and we have listened carefully. However, the Government continue to believe that reform is unavoidable, necessary and overdue. In this case in particular, we should not mix up a challenge to overgenerous costs with a denial of access to justice. Access to justice is precisely what the reformed CFA regime will protect, but as part of a more proportionate and balanced system. Therefore, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Lord McNally

Monday 12th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)]

The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, was always known for his impetuosity.

I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and his ongoing interest in debt matters. However, this amendment would have the effect of broadening the availability of legal aid for debt cases, contrary to our current proposals, which are to retain legal aid for priority debt cases only, where the individual’s home is at immediate risk of possession because of rent or mortgage arrears or involuntary bankruptcy.

It is never an easy decision to restrict the availability of funding but economic reality dictates that we focus scarce resources on the cases that are the highest priority. The Government have taken a principled approach to making spending reductions, prioritising funding for those categories of case that are most serious, such as where life, liberty or immediate loss of home are at stake. The necessary corollary of protecting funding in the most important areas is that we have to make tougher choices in the lower-priority areas.

When making these decisions, we have taken into account the presence of alternative appropriate forms of advice. It is simply not the case that legal advice is the only—or even the best—response to debt problems. Figures show that liability for the debt itself was reported as successfully contested in fewer than 2 per cent of cases in 2009-10, and also reveal that 62 per cent of legal help funding for debt matters was spent not on complex matters of law but on negotiating payment arrangements and advising clients on managing their affairs better.

We recognise that debt problems can be difficult and stressful for the individuals concerned, but we believe that what people often need is practical advice and support, rather than specialist legal advice. This help is quite widely and effectively available from organisations such as Credit Action, the National Debtline, the Consumer Credit Counselling Service and the Insolvency Service inquiry line and website. Local authorities also signpost people to local sources of advice and assistance on debt matters. In addition, the Money Advice Trust, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, referred, has recently launched “My Money Steps”, an online tool for providing advice for people with debt problems. The Consumer Credit Counselling Service also offers a free online “Debt Remedy” service.

Such sources of help are best placed to deal with issues like debt relief orders, which this amendment suggests should be brought back into the scope of legal aid. These orders are relatively informal procedures, used by people who owe limited amounts of money and do not have assets. Indeed, the current legal aid scheme does not pay for their completion.

Given the availability of alternatives, and the pressing choices forced upon us by the economic situation, it does not seem a wise use of scarce resources to continue funding widely available legal advice, much of which replicates advice available elsewhere. We must move away from the assumption that for many problems that are fundamentally non-legal, the only answer is for the state to pay for legal advice.

I understand that this amendment is motivated in part by the noble Lord’s concerns about funding for citizens advice bureaux to provide debt advice. As I have said in earlier debates, we share that desire to see what can be done to help to ensure sustainability for the non-profit sector. However, let us not overstate the impact of our changes in legal aid on CABs. Legal aid funding is intended for specialist advice, not for cross-subsidy of other activities. As a matter of practice, in 2010, 85 per cent of all bureaux funding came from sources other than legal aid and half of all bureaux do not hold a legal aid contract at all. Moreover, it should be borne in mind—I am sure that the Opposition will be glad to know this—that we have already provided £20 million, which has come ahead of reductions in legal aid spend.

It is worth remembering that CABs have not had any cut in legal aid spend and will not until 2013. Of that £20 million, £16.8 million assigned to England is being used for the Advice Services Fund to support not-for-profit providers in delivering essential advice on debt, welfare benefits, employment and housing. Despite the concerns of the sector, the Money Advice Service will continue resourcing the existing free face-to-face debt advice services after 31 March, so that people in need have access to good, free advice. The Financial Services Authority has agreed to fund this provision from April.

I also understand that the Cabinet Office’s review is expected to conclude shortly and will provide recommendations on proposals to secure long-term sustainability of the sector. As my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace pointed out, it is only nine days to my right honourable friend the Chancellor’s Budget. Therefore, I would ask the House to be patient and to allow us to bring this important work to its conclusion.

It is always easy to make the case for spending but tough times require tough decisions. I hope that even our critics accept that we are making genuine attempts to protect the not-for-profit advice sector, not least by the pressures brought to bear by my noble friend Lord Shipley at earlier stages of this Bill and by other Members of this House who have raised the specific issue of the CABs and the not-for-profit sector. I have given assurances about this and, against that backdrop, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for her contribution to this debate and for sharing her experience of working directly in this field, which I echo. I recognise many of the points that she made around that. It was also nice to have the unprompted support of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I seem to be having a little run of these things because the previous time I tried to speak about this subject, the noble Lord, Lord Best, came in on housing, which, although again relevant, was not exactly helpful to my support. Never mind, we will battle on.

At last weekend’s Lib Dem conference, a Motion was passed calling for:

“The protection of fair and equal access to justice, through … A properly funded system whereby access to legal advice and representation before the courts is not denied to those otherwise unable to bear the costs”.

It was unanimously passed but I notice that the Minister did not mention it when he made his remarks a few minutes ago.

A lot of the points that I made, which were picked up by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, were about the difference that had to be made between legal advice and generic advice. It is certainly true that a lot of work is going on in the generic debt advice field but we have been facing problems in terms of legal advice. I notice that in his comments the Minister made more of a case for support of the voluntary sector in this area, which of course we are grateful to have, than about the individuals who we think will be affected by this. For example, if the bailiffs are at the doorstep seeking to seize someone’s goods and chattels, I think that everyone in this House would agree that they are reasonably said to be facing serious direct consequences. Yet, under the present proposals, they would neither be eligible for legal aid to contest the original order nor would they be able to access legal aid to challenge the manner in which the order had been carried out. Indeed, we know a lot about that. There are quite serious difficulties within the legal advice sector of debt which have not really been picked up in this debate so far.

It was interesting that the Minister made the point that currently debt relief orders were not being funded to any great extent by legal aid and that, to some extent, legal aid should perhaps not be used at all for this. The key reason why the DRO scheme is successful is its lower cost, which was much trumpeted by the Insolvency Service. That is because the administration fee is £90, of which £80 goes to the Insolvency Service, leaving £10 for those who have to administer it. I have looked carefully at the way in which these forms are created. It would take me a great deal of time to work through these things and I am an accountant. However, specialist support and advice is needed. I think that it is ingenuous of the Minister to say that somehow this will survive. My charity estimates that it costs us about £350 per case to deliver a completed DRO. Where will that money come from? I do not think that we have had any answer to that.

Finally, the way in which the noble Lord went on seems to suggest that he has not read the BIS Select Committee report on debt management, which was published last week. The report states:

“Citizens Advice informed us that the legal aid budget for debt advice in England and Wales is due to fall by 75 per cent from 2013”.

The noble Lord admitted that there would be some changes after 2013. The report continues that the,

“figures, from the Justice Department, suggest that the number of people currently helped with debt problems will fall by 105,000”,

which is a significant number.

Later in the report, a BIS Minister is reported as recognising that,

“the cuts to legal aid could be a problem. Clearly for particularly some Citizens Advice Bureaux and other advice agencies, it may well have quite a big impact … I am afraid these are not easy times. There are cuts being made”.

The situation facing those in debt in this country—very often not of their own accord and they certainly are not the feckless poor—is really difficult. I do not think that these proposals will help. I should like to seek the opinion of the House.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Lord McNally

Thursday 9th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I support the amendment so eloquently introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. From what he said, I got the sense that it is really a probing amendment and that he did not expect to receive much support for it. However, he made such a powerful case that I hope the Minister might be swayed to think again about some of these points. As we have already heard in this Committee, it is obvious that many people enter prison without the capacity to read and write, let alone to hold down a job when they come out on release. Therefore, examples such as the Toe by Toe programme should be mandatory. Indeed, it is a pity that the amendment has not specified that it should be a requirement on the Secretary of State.

We have no objection at all to what is being proposed. Indeed, we would regard its prescriptive nature as being of benefit in the sense of tying down, as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said, what is required of prisoners—that they should have a full, purposeful and active day, and that every prisoner should undertake something instead of staying in their cells so as to at least become engaged and appreciate what is necessary in order to succeed outside prison. It would therefore also reduce the level of reoffending.

There are some good examples of work with prisoners having been done by private employers. National Grid had a project at Reading in which I was involved in an earlier life, and I thought it was absolutely exemplary. It provided what seemed to be the critical path forward for those due to leave custodial sentences in the sense that it provided them with housing, jobs and training. It started before the prisoners left in order to bring their reading and writing up to speed, and it allowed them to learn a skill—in this case, fitting—which meant that they were able to operate as soon as they left. As I understand it, that programme is still going. The recidivism rate was very small indeed, so the programme was certainly worthy in that regard. It also had the advantage of satisfying a need on the part of employers—they had realised that they were not getting an adequate supply of people to do the necessary jobs, and they found that this programme provided a ready supply.

Therefore, there can be a win-win in what the Government and private enterprise are looking for. Indeed, one might say that it could apply to charities and public bodies and not just to private companies. However, the essential point of the amendment is that, if it is decided that there will be employment from such activities in prisons, it should be done properly so that those who benefit from it have skills and qualifications that are nationally recognised, and it should be done in all cases so that we have a better outcome from the prison element.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, I have had the opportunity to look at some organisations that have become involved in providing work for prisoners and, like him, I am impressed. It is encouraging that those who have taken the risk, as some may see it, of employing ex-prisoners, helping to train them, and doing work in prisons, find it a very fruitful experience.

Sometimes I think that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, is a little hard on NOMS. I fully accept that it is obvious that the vast majority of the prison estate was not designed for operating work regimes. Many very competent prison governors and prison officers are not equipped to run businesses. That is a given, which makes the idea of work in prisons difficult but not impossible. One of the things that we have tried to do in the past 18 months is to tackle in a practical way the realities to which the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, referred. Several hundred organisations already provide work and training opportunities inside prisons, but many are small and want to do more to attract business.

We aim to provide a competitive package for business. We will make involvement as straightforward as possible and get the commercial model right for both prisons and the private sector, subject to our paramount interest in ensuring security, in line with our legal obligations. NOMS is developing new structures and putting in place the right people to operate in a businesslike way. That includes the recruitment of a new chief executive for the prison industries team within NOMS and a business development manager who will have responsibility for finding new businesses and managing relations with customers.

We are trying to address some of the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and as of now around 9,000 prisoners are employed in prison industries, which my rough arithmetic makes it to be around 10 per cent, or perhaps just a little over of the prison population. It is clear that there is much to do, but there are great prizes if we can get this right. Clause 118 is central to our plan to achieve our aim to make prisons places of meaningful and productive work where prisoners make reparation. Ensuring that prisoners and those detained in young offender institutions or secure training centres have access to training and can obtain qualifications is important. The Government certainly recognise the importance of this area and agree with the intent behind the amendment.

Let me assure noble Lords that we are already doing much of what we aim to do. Through our desire to increase the amount of meaningful and productive work done in prisons, the Government will give many more offenders the chance to learn the discipline and skills of working. As study after study has shown, offending patterns diminish once employment has been found. However, it is not just through prison working that we aim to reduce reoffending. Experience of a proper working week will be augmented by ensuring that their work links them to the right opportunities to develop the skills necessary to their finding employment when they are released.

We plan to deliver learning bases on clusters of institutions that regularly transfer offenders between them. The learning and skills offer will focus on the needs of employers in the areas into which prisoners will be released, as well as on key issues, such as numerous, literacy and communication skills. Here again, I pay tribute to Toe by Toe, which is a marvellous way of tackling illiteracy—one of the problems that comes through time and again in offending. Decisions on the most appropriate learning and skills offer will be taken locally with the key aim of giving offenders the skills that they need to find and keep jobs and apprenticeships on release. There will be no one size fits all approach, nor should there be. Within this new framework we are retendering the offender learning and skills services—a process that gives the chance to look afresh at how to work with the best range of providers. As well as learning the necessary skills and having the right qualifications, many offenders have barriers to entering the labour market that must first be tackled.

As the Deputy Prime Minister announced in August 2011, from the summer of this year offenders leaving custody and claiming jobseeker’s allowance will have to engage with a work programme provider on release, who will be paid for getting them into work. As well as creating this “day one” service, we are bringing together the claiming of jobseeker’s allowance and the processing of benefits before release rather than after it, so prisoners should have a shorter wait for their first benefit payment, which will help their resettlement. In addition, any prison leaver who claims jobseeker’s allowance within 13 weeks of release will be mandated to the work programme from the point of claim. We will also test, in two work programme areas, the addition of a reducing reoffending payment as part of our payment by results approach, in which we will use a variety of methods in the pilot phase.

We recognise that equipping children under the school leaving age with the skills they will need to succeed in life is vital. There is already an expectation that they will be in education rather than paid work. The raising of the participation age will mean that from 2013 all young people, including those in custody, must continue in education or training until the age of 17, and until 18 from 2015. Young people in secure training centres and under-18 young offender institutions will have access to a full day of education and constructive activity. In secure training centres, young people participate in education or training for at least 25 hours per week. In the under-18 young offender institutions, each young person will receive at least 25 hours per week of education and other constructive activity.

We believe that the amendment is constructive but unnecessary. Section 47(1) of the Prison Act 1952 allows the Secretary of State to make rules concerning the regulation and management of prisons, young offender institutions and secure treatment centres, and the treatment of those required to be detained therein. Subsection (3) states:

“Rules … may provide for the training of particular classes of persons”.

Clause 118 will not change those aspects of the 1952 Act, which cover the same ground as Amendment 181A.

For adults detained in custody, the rule-making powers contained in the Prison Act are augmented by provisions in the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, including a duty on the chief executive of Skills Funding to,

“secure the provision of reasonable facilities for education suitable to the requirements of persons who are subject to adult detention”,

and, in doing so, to take account of a range of factors such as facilities and equipment. In carrying out this duty, the chief executive must have regard to various matters, including the desirability of prisoners continuing the education or training that they have begun, and making the best use of resources.

I have listened often to—and have always welcomed—the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, championing the concept of making work, training and education a priority. They are the key to rehabilitation. I hope that what I have said has convinced him that, although we may not have achieved all that he desired, we are listening and trying as best we can to move in the direction that he advocates. For that reason, I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I cannot resist commenting on the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. He is such an old Whitehall warrior that he is always between one department and another, asking, “What are the difficult questions that I can ask them?”.

Clause 120 provides that prisoners who are being transferred under escort from one state to another for the purpose of serving a sentence of imprisonment may transit through the territory of Great Britain. Transit will normally involve a prisoner and escort changing aircraft at an appropriate UK international airport. The clause is required to enable the UK to fulfil its international obligations under existing and future prisoner transfer arrangements. Following discussions with the authorities of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, it has become clear that further powers are necessary to enable escorts from these territories to transit through Great Britain when transferring a prisoner to another state. This group of amendments address that particular issue with the Crown dependencies. They have no other, wider or ulterior motives, despite talking about transiting through territories et cetera. They are to enable the Crown dependencies—the Channel Islands and the Island of Man—to participate in what are already international obligations. I beg to move.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I am deeply sad that my appearance before the witching hour did not receive the approbation of the Minister, who did not welcome me to the Front Bench with my comments. I make no further comment on that. I also make it absolutely clear that the comments which follow have not been solicited by me creeping around Whitehall. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has gone, but I will obviously take lessons from him about how to do that in future. He concealed his briefing very well to the end. Perhaps he should have done so until after the Minister responded.

The Minister is right. The wording of these amendments looks pretty innocuous on the surface but we wonder why they are there. I have five questions to leave with the Minister. He said that these were necessary to fulfil international obligations. That of course raises in one’s mind the words “extraordinary rendition”. Could he reassure the Committee that, as he said at the end, there is nothing that one should be worried about in that? Clearly, we are worried about extraordinary rendition. Is this a part of that overall process and, if not, could he explain precisely why the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man need to have this legislation at this time? I am sure that there is an innocuous explanation, but we would be grateful to have that. Perhaps in answering that he could also say what he estimates the effect will be of the provision. I cannot imagine that many international flights carrying prisoners and escorts, or without escorts, land in the Channel Islands and require this sort of arrangement; so it would be interesting to have the figures and, if he does not have them to hand, perhaps he could write to me.

Since we are on extraordinary rendition, which has been a sensitive issue for some time, perhaps the Minister could use the opportunity to refresh our memories about where we are on this. Is it still the case that the UK will not undertake extraordinary rendition of detainees in a manner that may be illegal? Confirmation of that would be gratefully received.

[Lord McNally]

On the last point, of course I can give that guarantee. I very much welcome the noble Lord as part of the nightshift. I apologise for the omission during his earlier contributions.

The Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey are not part of the United Kingdom; they are Crown dependencies. Whether it was an oversight or not, I do not know, but this just clears things up so that they can operate through UK airports if that was needed. I understand that there have been two or three cases in the past three or four years, so this is not some mass movement of people. They are applications on a voluntary basis, with people wanting to be repatriated back to their own country, and for prisoner exchange purposes.

It may help if I speak to Clause 120. The clause would enable prisoners who are being transferred from one state to another for the purpose of serving a sentence of imprisonment to transit through the territory of Great Britain. Transit will normally involve a prisoner and escort changing aircraft at an appropriate UK international airport. It is required to enable the UK to fulfil its international obligations under existing and future prisoner transfer arrangements. The United Kingdom is party to a number of international prisoner transfer arrangements which require the United Kingdom to facilitate transit wherever possible. In the absence of a specific power to authorise transit, and where necessary to detain a prisoner during transit, applications have been routinely refused.

Clause 120 will enable the relevant Minister to authorise transit through the territory of Great Britain where a request is made in accordance with a relevant international prisoner transfer agreement to which the UK is party—in particular the Council of Europe’s framework decision which requires a member state to facilitate transit between member states when requested. It also provides a power for the police to detain a prisoner in transit only for a period necessary to complete the transit.

The Government fully support the principle that foreign national prisoners should be able to serve their sentences in their own country and we need to support partner jurisdictions in achieving this end. For this system to work effectively, Governments must to co-operate with each other in facilitating transfer. Indeed, the UK regularly seeks and obtains permission to transit through other countries when returning British nationals here.

I recognise that concerns have been raised about the rights and protection of individuals subject to transit, but I remind the House that only when a person has been convicted and sentenced by a court of law and when that person is being transferred for the sole purpose of the enforcement of that sentence in another country would transit through the UK take place. The prisoner concerned is unlikely to have any connection with the United Kingdom and any challenge to the prisoner’s transfer and detention should be made either to the sentencing or receiving state, not the United Kingdom.

This is a technical amendment and has none of the sinister implications that might have arisen at first blush. I hope that the assurances that I gave at the beginning to the noble Lord’s questions will satisfy him.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Lord McNally

Monday 30th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate that has been well supported all round the House. I hope the fact that so many noble Lords have spoken in support of these amendments will weigh on the Minister when he responds.

I would like to spend a few minutes talking about the dichotomy between the rhetoric that we have heard from the Government about the importance of human rights, which we support, and the impact of the measures before us. Under the existing regime, it is already extremely difficult for the cases that we have talked about to be brought in the UK. In the past 15 years, only nine or 10 such cases have been brought. However, these cases have had a significant impact not only on the lives of thousands of people directly affected but—this is important—on corporate practices and international norms in business and human rights.

When the Prime Minister met the Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos in London on 21 November, we were delighted to hear him say:

“Governments of the United Kingdom and Colombia reaffirm their shared commitment to respect, protect, and promote human rights. We reaffirm our commitment to uphold the human rights treaties and agreements we are signatories to, in particular the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights”.

I am sure the Minister and his Government want to match reality to that rhetoric. The problem is that, possibly as a result of an unintended consequence or possibly of trying to get one cap to fit all cases, the considered view from all those involved in this area is that the practical result of the proposed changes will be that it will be almost impossible for poor individuals and communities from the developing world to pursue justice in UK courts. We think that this is wrong in principle but also because of the message that it sends to multinational companies based in the UK. Our amendments would create an exemption so that vulnerable victims of human rights abuses in the developing world would still be able to bring cases to the UK. There is no evidence of any need to address the possibility of a spate of spurious claims here; the truth is that it is already very difficult to bring these kinds of cases against UK-based companies in our courts.

Amending the Bill will be essential if the UK is to meet its commitments on business and human rights and to avoid giving the impression that somehow the Government have gone soft on the way they wish to treat business that causes abuse overseas. The rhetoric is good. We know that the Government have consistently supported the UN “protect, respect and remedy” framework for business and human rights and the guiding principles developed by Professor John Ruggie and adopted by the UN in June 2011. In those framework and guiding principles, Principle 26 explicitly states:

“States should take appropriate steps to ensure the effectiveness of domestic judicial mechanisms when addressing human rights-related claims against business, including considering ways to reduce legal, practical and other relevant barriers that could lead to a denial of access to remedy”.

As recently as December 2011, the UK submission to the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights stated:

“The United Kingdom has placed human rights as central to and indivisible from the core values of British foreign policy. We believe the potential of business to impact on the human rights of individuals worldwide has only been fully recognised in recent years. The endorsement by the Human Rights Council of the UN Guiding Principles on business and human rights in June 2011 marks a high point of international consensus on the issue”.

In light of the praise for Professor John Ruggie’s achievements, it is vital that we keep open the chance of mounting human rights actions in the United Kingdom. The reality of today’s world is that global companies play an increasingly important role and can impact on almost all aspects of our lives. While many UK transnational companies act responsibly, it is important that in situations where human rights abuses occur abroad, poor and vulnerable victims can still seek justice in our courts.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, said, the Government have already made an exception in the Bill for ATE in clinical negligence cases. Is it not possible to do the same for this limited set of cases? As has been mentioned, the mover and supporters of the amendment met last week the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who I thank for their time and courtesy in listening to us. I came away from the meeting feeling that there was a willingness to find an accommodation on this issue. If the Minister is happy to signal his willingness to continue those discussions, I am sure that there will be a way of resolving the differences, and I look forward to having a chance to do that.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and her record in this area. Looking down the list of noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, I see the names of many with whom I have been shoulder to shoulder in many debates. I do not think that there is any division between us on that.

To address the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, about the Government’s rhetoric on human rights, I shall, to quote Tony Blair, “leave it to history” to make judgments about the coalition Government. However, one thing that I am absolutely proud of is that in a time of great austerity the sustaining of our aid programme and the follow-on impact on human rights around the world will always be to our Government’s credit—as, too, will their decision to implement the Bribery Act, to take the lead in international anti-corruption campaigns and to be strong advocates for human rights around the world. There is more than rhetoric in this Government’s record on this issue.

I talked with the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, on these issues and, as they know, I am not convinced that the amendments are necessary or appropriate. Let me try to explain why. The Government believe that it is still possible to bring claims against multinational companies once our changes to CFAs are implemented, but the costs involved will be more proportionate to the sums at issue. The proposers seek to address not the validity of the claims but the iniquity of a system that can allow legal costs to escalate to significantly more than the damages at issue.

It is worth emphasising at this stage that the current system of recoverable success fees and recoverable ATE insurance premiums, with the consequence of high civil costs, is not seen in any other jurisdiction in the world. However, I should emphasise that while we should do all we can to ensure that UK business continues to flourish abroad, this will never be done at the expense of violating any of the rights and laws of the host country. The Government are committed to ensuring that UK companies continue to conduct themselves to the highest standards, especially when carrying out trade and transactions in other countries.

CFAs will continue to be available, but the Bill also extends another funding option, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, referred: the Government are making available alternative methods of funding—such as the use under Clause 44 of damage-based agreements, DBAs, which could be used to fund group actions against multinational companies. Some say that our proposals will decrease the number of these claims, while others, including the Confederation of British Industry and some American companies, are concerned that DBAs will in fact increase the number of such claims. The Government believe that they have the balance right between protecting access to justice and making costs more proportionate. Our aim has been to ensure that litigation is available to stop corporate harm.

It has been mentioned that we were among the champions of the Ruggie guidelines, and it is true that the Government strongly support the UN guiding principles on business and human rights that were developed by Professor Ruggie. We co-operated closely with him on his mandate and fully support the international working group that has been established to take his work forward. I was pleased that I was able to announce that support immediately after that report was published.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Lord McNally

Wednesday 18th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

No, of course I cannot give that assurance, but neither do I assume the absolute worst case in everything that we discuss, as the noble Lord seems to do in each of his interventions.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for trying to come to my aid. I am sorry that he was not able to continue with that. I am sure that he would have been able to include debt into the case that he was making, skilled orator that he is. However, this is a dialogue and I would like to respond to a few of the points that the Minister made.

We have heard the rhetoric about tough choices a number of times in these debates and no doubt we will hear it again. I wonder whether we might get a second script. Perhaps we could work together on that and enjoy a variation on the theme. We on this side of the House accept that legal aid costs have to go down, and have said so. We understand what the Minister is saying but we think that we have other ways of doing that. However, the same question emerges whichever way you approach this: namely, in saving a cost on an annual basis are the Government providing value for money in the long run? We have severe doubts that that is happening.

As my noble friend Lord Howarth mentioned, debts are increasing although perhaps not quite in the way that he indicated. CCCS, the charity which I chair, receives approximately 500,000 inquiries a year. Our average client owes more than £25,000 to more than eight different lenders. These people have a debt problem. The debts are not necessarily related to housing, to which a different contractual basis often applies, but arise because people overstretch themselves. As I tried to say in my opening address, they also arise because other things happen to these people; for example, they lose their jobs, suffer bereavement or become ill. This is not an easy area to talk about. It is not helpful to be overly simplistic and talk about owner-occupiers whose mortgages are at risk when many of these people will be in rented accommodation. However, the problems arising from losing their homes will be just as bad. I do not see any solution coming forward for those people.

The main point that I was trying to get across in my address concerned the DRO effect. I am afraid that the Minister did not answer the question that I posed: namely, what fee will be necessary to enable this service to be continued? It is presently £90. It seems to me that it will go up to nearer the fee that is charged for a full bankruptcy of £900. What will happen to debt advisers? Will funds be available to keep that generic debt advice going, particularly in the citizens advice area? As we explained, the only reason that the DRO system has continued is that the debt advisers are largely paid for by legal aid funds. If that goes, are we saying that those people who are in severe difficulty with their debts will have to rely on a website, which they probably cannot access because they do not have the necessary equipment, or guidance in leaflets? I do not think that that is a satisfactory solution to what is clearly a very serious problem.

These are very difficult issues that are part of a broader context of social welfare law. We shall probably have to come back to them but in the interim I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.