Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Lord Thomas of Gresford Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2012 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

99: After Clause 11, insert the following new Clause—
“Funding
(1) The Lord Chancellor may make funding available for the obtaining of civil legal services on matters not included in Schedule 1 where it appears to the Lord Chancellor that the provision of such services would promote efficiency, the saving of costs or the attainment of justice.
(2) The Lord Chancellor may make arrangements for such purposes by—
(a) funding public bodies, law centres, citizens advice bureaux and not-for-profit advice and support agencies to facilitate the provision of such services; and (b) supporting the delivery of such services through the provision of grant in aid to providers of civil legal services, including any consortia or partnership arrangements with public bodies, into which they may choose to enter.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

My Lords, this is an extremely important amendment, which I hope that the Government will accept. The other side of the coin when legal aid is taken away, particularly in the area of social welfare law, is that there must be some provision for advice to people who require it in that field—in others as well, but certainly for those concerned with welfare benefits and the like.

In this country, a huge amount of work is done, a lot on a voluntary basis, by citizens advice bureaux, law centres and other not-for-profit advice and support agencies. I want an assurance from the Minister that those organisations will fill the gap, that they will be properly funded and put on a secure footing for the foreseeable future to provide the advice that is clearly needed in those areas. Consequently, my Amendment 99 is to give the Lord Chancellor power to,

“make funding available for the obtaining of civil legal services on matters not included in Schedule 1 where it appears to the Lord Chancellor that the provision of such services would promote efficiency, the saving of costs or the attainment of justice”.

What I have specifically in mind is the funding of law centres, citizens advice bureaux and not-for-profit advice and support agencies.

I know that the Government have committed some £20 million for the support of Citizens Advice, but I understand that to be on a one-off basis. At the same time, we receive information that the Cabinet Office is working on schemes to provide some permanent support in this area. Citizens Advice has two sides: a side dealing with general matters, normally done by volunteers, and a side dealing with specialist matters. The specialist advice in Citizens Advice comes from generally qualified lawyers who are funded precisely by the legal aid that is about to be withdrawn if Schedule 1 to the Bill finally goes through. That is the focus. What will happen? Will people be left to stumble around in this incredibly complex area of social welfare law? Will they have any guidance and help when it comes to the new provisions that are being introduced under the Welfare Reform Bill, or what? That is what I want to hear from the Minister tonight. I beg to move.

[Baroness Mallalieu]

My Lords, I support this amendment as far as it goes. We are all worried about who will fund organisations such as law centres, which at present are largely reliant on legal aid. Clearly, many of them will go under if there is not some alternative form of funding. What troubles me about the amendment in its present form is that there is absolutely no break on the way in which this Lord Chancellor—or a future Lord Chancellor—may choose to hand out the money. I should like some requirement on him to consult and some way of knowing that a distant Lord Chancellor—of course, not the present one—could not operate for reasons of political expediency, or simply on a whim to withdraw funding from an organisation which, for example, might be involved in action against the Government. Although I welcome the amendment in its present form, I think that it needs more added to it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

Throughout the Bill, we have tried to restructure legal aid so as to deal with the most vulnerable in our society in a way which we think is fair. My noble friend Lord Phillips referred to the squeeze being put on CABs by local authorities. There have been squeezes on local authorities and on the Ministry of Justice. The country is having to readjust to a considerable degree to what is available for many good causes, and that is why this debate is reoccurring in Committee.

As I say, I recognise the general concern about the future of such funding. I hope I can reassure the House by making it clear that the Government value the services provided by the not-for-profit sector and are committed to ensuring that people continue to have access to good-quality free advice in their communities. That is why the Government have launched the advice services fund and a review of free advice services. The Government have set aside £20 million to support the not-for-profit sector. That is about the seventh time of announcement but, to provide clarity for the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, I say that it is still the same £20 million. This fund will provide immediate support for the not-for-profit advice service providers to deliver essential services in debt, welfare benefit, employment and housing advice. An announcement on the fund and review was made on 21 November by my honourable friend Nick Hurd MP, Minister for Civil Society, in the other place.

It is important to recognise that legal aid is only one of several funding streams that not-for-profit organisations receive and that the future sustainability of the sector is a cross-government issue which this Bill cannot be expected to solve on its own. Accordingly, alongside the advice services fund, the Cabinet Office is conducting a review into local advice provision, looking at the funding environment for these services, likely levels of demand and how government can play a positive role. The Cabinet Office will work with other departments that either fund advice services or whose activities have an impact on advice services, such as my department, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Communities and Local Government, and the Treasury.

The House may also be reassured to know that both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister are taking a keen interest in these reviews. Stakeholder events with representatives from the sector, to gain their input into the review, have already been held by the Cabinet Office. I urge the House to await the conclusions of that review, which is expected in the spring. My officials are working closely with colleagues across government to support this important work. I hope this will reassure the Committee that I and my colleagues in government are united in our efforts to support the not-for-profit sector while it adapts to difficult changes in the funding landscape. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate and I accept all the criticisms that have been made as no doubt very well founded. In his reply, my noble and learned friend—

[Lord McNally]

I am not learned.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

No—but you will be by the time I have finished.

In his reply my noble friend said that we must await the conclusions of the group that is looking into this matter, which has already taken advice, as I understand it, and carried out various consultation processes. I want to know when it is going to report. I have discovered that in government departments the spring can turn quickly into the summer. The Bill will be through this House by the middle of March and we would all be much happier if we were assured by that time that the future of the CABs, the law centres and so on is secured to give precisely the advice for which the grant was announced in November—for welfare, for employment and so on—as the noble Lord said.

I am anxious that the group should get a move on and that we should receive these reassurances so that we can be confident that the gap that will arise through the withdrawal of legal aid will, to a degree, be filled. I understand the position of the noble Lord, Lord Bach. He does not want anything to interfere with the general thrust that everything in social welfare law should go back under Part 1. Indeed, voices on my Benches have made exactly the same comments, including me. However, if that is not to happen we must be sure that there is a source of advice in these very important areas which will be available to the citizens of this country. At the moment, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 99 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

109: Clause 20, page 15, line 8, at end insert—
“( ) For the purposes of subsection (1), “financial resources” shall include all the realisable property of the individual subject to a restraint order under section 41 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (restraint orders) and subsections (4) and (5) of that section are hereby repealed.”

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

My Lords, when we were dealing with the previous amendment concerning the voir dire, as it used to be known, my mind went to happier days in Hong Kong, where the voir dire was brought to its artistic zenith. Voir dires could go on for six weeks or months. We have avoided all that in this country ever since. I was also reminded that in those days in Hong Kong to take legal aid was, as far as criminals were concerned, rather infra dig. Normally, they were funded from the resources that were available to them. That is the real purpose of the amendment.

Clause 20 is concerned with determinations about an individual’s financial resources. A determination that a person qualifies for legal services cannot be made unless it is thought that the individual is eligible for the services. All that I am concerned to do is add in to those financial resources all the realisable property of the individual. However, as happens these days in this country, the realisable property of the individual is frequently subject to an order of the court that freezes those assets where they are.

Consequently, we have what I regard to be an absurd situation whereby legal aid is granted to people of huge means because their assets are frozen. They can be unfrozen by an application to the court so that school fees can be paid. They can also be unfrozen for the purposes of civil cases but not of criminal cases. I was discussing this with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, yesterday, and she said, “I made orders all the time on applications in the Family Division for assets to be unfrozen so that legal fees could be repaid”. She was amazed to discover that that was impossible in criminal cases.

About 50 per cent of the criminal legal aid budget goes on 1 per cent of the cases, and it is in those 1 per cent where assets have been frozen. That is a great resource. As I understand it, the policy behind the refusal to permit those assets to be unfrozen is twofold. First, the Treasury thinks that it will get its hands on the assets at the end of the day, and therefore for them to be unfrozen to pay legal fees seems an unnecessary waste of what it will get in the end. Of course, it does not consider that it is funding the Ministry of Justice, which has to pay out the legal aid. My other thought is that that provides a route for the laundering of money by dishonest solicitors.

As to the first, the objection taken is quite unfounded. On the second issue, the question of—I have forgotten my train of thought for the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

Solicitors. It is perfectly possible for a solicitor to apply to the court, as happens in civil cases, with a cost schedule which indicates how much his costs will be and what reasonable rates he will charge, and for the judge to make an order to control the whole process to permit the release of funds to fund the criminal defence. To my mind, this is an area which the Government should seize on as reducing the burden of criminal legal aid. It is unlikely that all the assets of the individual will be recovered in an application under the Proceeds of Crime Act. Accordingly, the sooner that the Ministry of Justice gets its hands on the money—in the sense that it does not have to pay out legal aid—the better.

I hope that my noble friend will take the issue seriously and address my proposals. I beg to move.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

My Lords, I shall start by making a few comments about my professional experience and then look at the broader picture. In recent years, the bulk of the publicly funded work I have done at the Bar has been in very high-cost cases, as they are called—very large fraud cases. I have seen a procession of those cases in which substantial funds have been restrained and not used for the costs of the case. Confiscation proceedings have followed in those cases where there have been convictions. In some cases, they have been long drawn-out. The funds have rarely been confiscated in full.

In one case I can think of, the confiscation proceedings lasted two or three years and, in the end, the defendant was returned £30 million, I believe, because the wrong procedures had been used by the prosecution. In another case from my experience in recent years, a defendant who was later sentenced to nine and a half years’ imprisonment and made the subject of a confiscation order in excess of £130 million remained, throughout the period leading up to and during the trial and for a considerable time after—as far as his family was concerned—living in one of the finest apartments in central London, worth many millions of pounds. Nobody was able to lay a hand on any of it. By the time the confiscation proceedings were over, such a miasma of transactions existed that that substantial property was immune from any confiscation. There are current cases, about which colleagues have told me—and without referring to any of my own current cases—in which a similar picture may emerge. This is an issue on which the Bar Council, of which I am an elected member, as I said in an earlier sitting, has given a great deal of attention. I should say that on this subject at least it might be worth listening to the Bar Council. Senior members of the Bar act for the prosecution and defence in every one of these cases, bar a very few.

The intention of the Bar Council in proposing amendments, believe it or not, was to save legal aid funding and to create a situation in which people’s own money, subject, of course, to proper controls, was used to pay for their own defences. It would create a situation in which a defendant, who at present may be able to relax while public money is expended on abuse of process hearings, dismissal hearings, disclosure hearings, and all kinds of satellite proceedings, costing him nothing, may have to control the spending on his defence. It seems a very sound principle that the defendant who has resources should have some control over the spending on his or her defence.

Furthermore, restraint orders are on the increase, as the General Council of the Bar has pointed out to the Government. In 2009-10 the CPS made 1,549 restraint orders. That had increased to 1,641 by 2010-11. The estimated value of assets under restraint in 2010-11 was as much as £744 million, every penny of it being money available to be spent on criminal defence but not so spent. Any legal advice and representation in those cases is charged to the legal aid fund. These are cases which, on the latest available figures—from 2005—caused the expenditure of more than 50 per cent of Crown Court legal aid, although the cases amounted to only 1 per cent of the cases. The average cost per case for those cases in 2003-04 was £2.6 million, with the average trial lasting 67 working days. These are very big cases, which are being unnecessarily funded from public funds.

A defendant accused of serious fraud may, for example, have £1 million on deposit in a bank account, frozen under a restraint order. An order may be made for the funds to be unfrozen to pay his children’s private school fees. I was involved in a case recently in which exactly that happened. The defendant was unable to fund his own defence but he was able to fund his son’s school fees at one of the best public schools. My noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford has contrasted the criminal situation with the civil courts. He described the reaction of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, to what he had told her and she certainly represented the civil court position correctly.

The Government’s response to the Bar Council’s proposal, and that of some of your Lordships, has been to argue, at least so far, that the sums restrained need to be preserved in the hope that, at some point further down the line, a confiscation order may be obtained on conviction. In November 2011 several national newspapers ran stories on revelations that at the end of March 2011, the sum of money outstanding in purported confiscation orders was £1.26—wait for it—billion. That made the front page of the Sun. I suggest to my noble friend that the hope that some money might be recovered is no substitute for meeting the up-front costs of the defence via the legal aid bill.

When confiscation orders are made, they are not used to fund legal aid but are channelled to other government departments; they go into the general Exchequer pot. This does not reflect the strain placed on the legal aid budget by high-cost fraud cases. Therefore, this seems to be—if I may be forgiven a vernacular phrase—a complete no-brainer. It is a way of saving the legal aid fund—to use another such phrase—shedloads of money. I say to my noble friend: let us wake up and do it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

As I said, we are in confessional mood tonight. The Government are currently considering a related proposition under which the value of restrained assets might be taken into consideration in the Crown Court means test. Until that proposition has been considered fully, we believe it premature to suggest an amendment to the Proceeds of Crime Act.

This has been an interesting debate. We have heard what the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said in apology for previous omissions by his own Government. As I say, we are looking at the value of restrained assets in the Crown Court, but at the moment we believe it premature to suggest an amendment to the Proceeds of Crime Act and I therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

The problem is that my noble friend the Minister has not explained why people are allowed recklessly to dissipate criminal assets in civil cases. Why do you have one rule for civil cases, when you can use what are described as criminal assets although they are not necessarily so, and another rule in criminal cases? What is happening at the moment is that defendants are recklessly dissipating legal aid. That is the point and that is why legal aid is so high in criminal cases—it is being recklessly dissipated. My noble friend Lord Carlile explained how it can be done: you can have application after application; you can have little trials within trials; you can have satellite litigation; and the case can run on and on for months.

In the old Stafford Assize Court, which possibly the noble Lord, Lord Bach, has visited—

[Lord Bach]

More than visited, I have appeared there.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

Good. I have appeared there on a number of occasions too—not against the noble Lord, Lord Bach, I have to say. There is a plaque on the wall that commemorated what was then the longest jury trial in Britain. It was 23 days and they put a plaque up because it had lasted so long. Now 23 days is peanuts as far as any serious case is concerned. They go on for months and months: application after application; disclosure of this, disclosure of that, and so on; recklessly dissipating legal aid funding that could be available for social welfare law or for all the other things that have been excluded—

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

In his closing remarks, perhaps my noble friend would like to reflect upon what the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said. In the last group of amendments there was some discussion of post-legislative scrutiny. It is now something like nine years since the Proceeds of Crime Act was passed and I am not aware of any post-legislative scrutiny on this issue. Might this not be the occasion for some creative post-legislative scrutiny?

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

I should hate to say who should be there in sackcloth and ashes, but clearly things went wrong and the reasons that were given by the Government of the day proved to be without foundation. The situation is simply a disgrace. The quicker the Government move to carry out this review that they are having in the Crown Court, the better.

I shall withdraw this amendment, but I can assure my noble friend the Minister that I shall be pounding on his door about it while this Bill is going through and, if nothing happens, thereafter.

Amendment 109 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, the Bill provides for regulations to enable the Lord Chancellor to require a person who qualifies for legal aid to pay an amount exceeding the costs of the civil legal aid services provided. I confess to bewilderment, frankly, at the notion that, in these circumstances, a legally aided person should be obliged to pay an amount greater than the cost of the services—it is almost turning that aspect of legal aid into a profit-making concern. There is no rationale in the Bill for why that should be the case. Litigants do not ordinarily pay more than the assessed costs of a case unless they have incurred some kind of penalty in so doing. The only analogy, when we come to Part 2 of the Bill, is of a success fee having to be paid, effectively, by a litigant. However, in this clause it is not limited to a successful litigant; it simply allows for a prescribed amount in excess of the assessed costs of the civil legal aid services. I simply do not understand whence this derives.

The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has tabled an amendment which questions the principle and provides for an element of discretion in these matters. However, the Minister has to explain, with respect, why it is that recipients of legal aid should be expected to pay more than the costs that they have incurred. I beg to move.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

I thought there was a printer’s error here: that is why I inserted “not”. It is not a matter of principle; I could not imagine that the Government would require someone’s contribution to exceed the costs and put money into the hands of the Lord Chancellor. I do not see any reason for that and I await the explanation with interest.

[Lord McNally]

This had better be good. Amendments 112 and 113 would prevent anyone in receipt of civil legal aid being required to pay an amount for that legal aid which exceeds the amount of the legal aid itself. We intend to use the powers in subsection (3) to establish a supplementary legal aid scheme which will provide an additional source of funding to supplement the legal aid fund. As indicated in our response to the consultation on legal aid reform, under this scheme 25 per cent of damages obtained by successful legal-aided parties, other than damages for future care and loss, will be recovered by the legal aid fund. The supplementary legal aid scheme will apply to successful damages cases where the successful party is legal aided, including any out-of-scope cases which are funded through the exceptional funding scheme.

The provision at subsection (3) is not new. There is already an equivalent provision in Section 10(2)(c) of the Access to Justice Act 1999, which allows for the establishment of a supplementary legal aid scheme whereby a legal-aided person makes a payment exceeding the cost of the services received. The power has not been exercised to date but, as we have made clear, we intend to do so in the future, so it is important that the Bill retains the provision to enable this.

At a time when the public purse is constrained, the funds recouped by the supplementary legal aid scheme will help to put legal aid on a sustainable footing and therefore help support the funding of civil legal aid cases. Besides creating a valuable additional source of funding for legal aid, in setting up the supplementary legal aid scheme we are addressing the interrelationship between legal aid and the proposal for reform to the cost of civil litigation put forward by Lord Justice Jackson and reflected in Part 2.

We want to ensure that, so far as it is possible to do so, the recovery level of damages by the supplementary legal aid scheme is consistent with the Jackson reforms to ensure that conditional fee agreements are no less attractive than legal aid. We have therefore selected a recovery level of 25 per cent of all damages, other than those for future care and loss. This mirrors the maximum level of damages that a solicitor will be able to claim from a successful client under a conditional fee agreement in a personal injury case. Under the Jackson proposals, there will also be an increase of 10 per cent in non-pecuniary general damages such as damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenity in tort cases for all claimants. This will help claimants to pay their CFA success fee or supplementary legal aid scheme contribution.

With that explanation, I hope the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

I will read what my noble friend said with great care. For 12 years, this power that he said was in the 1999 Act—introduced by a previous Government but never mind—was never used. My mind immediately flicked back to a case that I once had. I use legal language that lawyers will understand: I once had a case in which a young girl lost the skin from her leg in a motorcycle accident. All the skin was stripped off. Now the Government want her to pay for somebody else. She presumably gets general damages of £30,000. The Government would take a fair portion of that because she had the temerity to apply for whatever it is—legal aid. They then want to keep the extra for somebody else. That seems quite wrong in principle. I am not surprised that it is in the 1999 Act, though with the coalition Government in power I would expect an entirely different approach.

[Lord Bach]

It will be a different approach, as I understand it. Under the last Government, it was never put into effect. Under the coalition Government, it will be. That is the difference.