Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill

Debate between Sadiq Khan and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 21st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sadiq Khan]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Particularly bearing in mind where I think the former Solicitor-General is going in his speech, is it not the practice for someone who has made a speech to stay for at least the next two speeches to hear other people’s contributions?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Actually, it is in order normally to hear one. I do not know the circumstances, but I am sure the right hon. Gentleman has made his point. The Secretary of State waited fully until the end of the right hon. Gentleman’s speech. I am not sure whether he wanted to hear Sir Edward Garnier’s speech—that is not for me to decide—but the point has been made.

Cervical Cancer Screening

Debate between Sadiq Khan and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 1st May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that we on the Labour Benches have on a number of occasions expressed concern about the Government’s policy on legal aid and its consequences. This morning His Honour Judge Leonard QC sitting at Southwark Crown Court stayed proceedings in the Crown v. Crawley and others, a £4.5 million fraud trial, after he heard representations from one of the country’s leading and most respected QCs that the case should not proceed, as a fair trial was not possible because of the consequences of the legal aid changes introduced by the Lord Chancellor.

This case alone has cost the taxpayer tens of thousand of pounds and justice has not been done, but it is extremely serious for the criminal justice system in this country, which has not just been brought into disrepute, but is now rendered ineffective by a Lord Chancellor who is out of his depth. [Interruption.] I understand that there are at least eight other complex criminal cases, including—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Mr Swire, I will make the decision. We do not need any help from the Front Bench.

[Sadiq Khan]

That demonstrates the respect that the Government have for the justice system.

I understand that there are at least eight other complex cases, including those relating to the LIBOR fixing scandal, where barristers of sufficient expertise have not been found. Mr Deputy Speaker, have you received any indication from the Lord Chancellor that he intends to make a statement today to the House about the consequences of the judgment for the criminal courts, and his proposals to remedy the crisis he has caused in the court system?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have had no indication that anybody from the Ministry of Justice team is coming to make a statement. It is not a matter for the Chair, but it is certainly on the record and people are now aware of it.

Legal Aid Reform

Debate between Sadiq Khan and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 27th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on holding this debate.

The Justice Secretary may be a rising star in the Conservative party, but this policy and his non-appearance this afternoon are misjudgments. More than 30 Members of Parliament have applied to speak on a Thursday when there is a one-line Whip and more than 98,000 people have signed a petition expressing concern about the proposals.

I have only 10 minutes to address the various points that have been made, so I will rush through the most pressing of them. First, I will make the position of the Opposition clear. We support efforts to find savings across the justice system. We support making those who can afford to pay their legal fees do so and restricting legal aid to those who are most in need. We support using the frozen assets of criminals to fund their legal costs. We would support moves to address the problem of very high-cost cases. We would support a root-and-branch review of our criminal justice system to cut out the waste and inefficiency that anyone who works in the sector or has used it knows is rampant.

We do not support the Government’s proposals to place the quantity of cases processed ahead of the quality of legal provision and to remove choice from defendants. We believe that those proposals could lead to more miscarriages of justice. We do not support legal aid being run by the same global corporations that run prisons, probation services, courts and tagging. I should say that those are the proposals not just of the Justice Secretary or the Conservative party, but of the Government, including the Liberal Democrats and Lord McNally.

I pay tribute to all 32 Members who have contributed to today’s debate. I agree with much that has been said and look forward to the Minister’s response. Will he clarify whether the changes will require primary legislation and when parliamentarians will have a chance to vote on the proposals? My right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) spoke about dividing the House this afternoon. I tell him that although we have a limited number of Opposition days, in the light of the Government’s failure to move on this issue, it will be a priority for us. We will have a debate on a motion that divides the House because of the issues that have been raised this afternoon.

The Government’s latest proposals on legal aid are this Parliament’s second attack on access to justice. Social welfare legal aid has been decimated. We were accused of scaremongering during the passage of those proposals. However, law centres have closed—we hear today that the law centre in Birmingham will be closed—leaving the most vulnerable without recourse when they suffer wrong decisions by the Government and other organs of the state. In the recent past, more than 600,000 people have been denied access to advice in areas such as social welfare, debt, employment and housing law. There has been a 30% fall in the providers of civil legal aid and a 12% fall in the providers of criminal legal aid. None of those providers was a fat cat or ambulance chaser.

It is disappointing that the Justice Secretary is not here. If he was, he would have heard 30 mini tutorials on our legal system. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) would know all about that. Fundamental to our legal system is a presumption of innocence. A decision on guilt is taken by a court of law only after the evidence for and against a prosecution is presented and cross-examined in an open and transparent manner. Due process needs to happen. After all, removing an individual’s liberty is one of the most important powers in the gift of the state. Properly administered legal aid means that all individuals charged with a criminal offence have legal representation, not just those who can afford it, and ensures that our country’s precious rule of law applies to everybody. Legal aid helps those who are wrongly accused to maintain their innocence, and ensures that the state proves, beyond reasonable doubt, the case against a defendant. Please note that I use the word defendant, not criminal. I do not, unlike others, make sweeping generalisations that all those who receive legal aid are guilty criminals. The last time I checked, we still had a presumption of innocence in this country.

Many miscarriages of justice have happened because of an absence of proper representation for defendants: the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four, the Maguire Seven and others. Because of legal aid, victims have confidence that genuine perpetrators of crime are prosecuted and punished. Victims of crime want certainty that the true perpetrator has been found guilty. They do not want the wrong person pleading guilty or being found guilty, and they certainly do not want the guilty walking the streets. Legal representation for defendants is crucial in minimising miscarriages of justice. These proposals introduce perverse incentives that could unbalance the criminal justice system, with representatives being paid the same whether someone pleads guilty or stands trial.

The Justice Secretary may not have turned up this afternoon, but he has sought to portray legal aid solicitors and junior barristers as fat cats. He knows that the profession has a public relations problem, and he has sought to exploit that in the media to further his own political aims. That is all a tough veneer that masks the real impact of his proposals. Local providers, often high street firms that know their local authorities, courts, police and probation, will be replaced by big corporations, maybe even the same ones that run prisons, probation and tagging—conflicts of interest at every turn. Strangely for a party that claims to be pro-enterprise and pro the high street, this will sweep away hundreds of small and medium-sized enterprises. High street firms will go under, an unintended consequence that will have an impact on the diversity of the judiciary.

The driver of the new contracts is how many cases can be done at the lowest cost per unit, not the quality of the legal representation provided. Why else propose to pay the same fee regardless of whether there is a guilty or not guilty plea? It is as if Ministers do not know the substantial difference in work load between the two pleas. In an era when so much in the public sector is about choice, the opposite will happen in legal aid. People will get what they are given, whether it is rubbish or good. The state will prosecute people and decide who defends them. The Justice Secretary would not accept a special adviser—also paid for by the taxpayer —or the external legal advice relied on by his Department, to be imposed on him. Nor would he accept where his children go to school being decided by someone else. Why then should someone who is facing serious allegations, but is presumed innocent, have no choice in their solicitor?

Lawyers who have the confidence of defendants are more able to give robust advice, for example for a defendant to plead guilty when the evidence determines that that is the best course of action. A lawyer who has acted in previous cases will know about a client’s learning difficulties, language and other problems that may be relevant to their current case, leading to a more efficient legal system that saves money.

Let me be clear and save the Minister’s time. He talked about Labour wanting to spend more, but we would make savings to the legal aid budget. We did so in government, as many legal aid lawyers keep reminding me. Despite what the Government claim, our legal aid budget was not increasing:

“The Government’s legal aid bill increased very substantially in real terms between around 1965 and 2000, but it has been cut since then”.

Those are not my words, but those of the President of the Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger, last week. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) also talked about cost pressures on solicitors as a result of Labour proposals. However, they did not lead to defendants being denied choice. In government, we did look at a version of price competitive tendering. We looked and we considered, but we recognised that it was fraught with danger and thought better of it. Back in 2009, the current Attorney-General, the then shadow Justice Secretary, supported that decision. He actually committed the Conservatives to suspending the scheme, claiming:

“We really should be concerned about the lasting damage that could be done if we’ve got this wrong”.

He said:

“It could permanently damage the provision of criminal legal aid.”

He knew that the proposals could mean a generation of lawyers leaving the profession and that once they are gone, they are gone. I see from recent press reports that he is unhappy at current plans, which are even worse than the ones he opposed when in opposition.

I note from the look on your face, Mr Deputy Speaker, that—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

It is 4 o’clock and we need to hear from the Minister.

[Sadiq Khan]

Notwithstanding your generosity in allowing the debate to carry on, Mr Deputy Speaker, time means that you have cut my comments short. I understand that, but may I say that it is unacceptable for the Government to be railroading these plans through, with no pilots, no proper consultation and no working with key stakeholders to see whether savings could be made in a less oppressive way? We oppose the current plans, but we are happy to work with the Government, with or without the Justice Secretary, to see whether we can make savings that are less unjust.

Justice and Security Bill [Lords]

Debate between Sadiq Khan and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 4th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

My question is also to do with the right hon. Gentleman’s concept of the last resort. I think he would accept that one of the reasons why we are enacting this Bill is to avoid an unpalatable situation. People who we might know from secret sources, which we cannot expose in public, to be closely involved in terrorism have been able to sue and walk away with £500,000, £1 million or more. That is what is behind the provision.

It will always be open to the Government to pay the money and thus avoid the action. Will the right hon. Gentleman’s criterion of the last resort mean that we can go for a closed material procedure to avoid having to pay out the money unjustifiably or that we will have to carry on doing what we are doing at the moment—rather than exposing secret sources or techniques, paying out a lot of money to potentially very dangerous people?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I ask hon. Members to make shorter interventions, although I know it is important to get things on the record.

[Sadiq Khan]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Six interventions ago, I said that I would take my last one; I keep being too generous.

The hon. Gentleman’s point would be good if I was suggesting that we remove CMPs altogether. I am saying that a judge should consider—a word that I shall explain in a moment—all other options, including public interest immunity, before going to a CMP. The Government amendment requires the Minister to consider PII; if it is good enough for the Minister, why is it not good enough for the judge?

We are not saying that there should not be CMPs, but that it is exceptional, for the reasons the Government have given. It should happen very infrequently; people have mentioned figures of seven or 15. The Under-Secretary has said from the Front Bench that he is not sure how many, which is why he will be supporting our sunset clause. What I am saying is that asking the judge to consider all the other options would make explicit the intention of Parliament and the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sadiq Khan]

With the leave of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, may I repeat what I said almost four hours ago by citing the words of the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation? As I said, the Opposition accept that there is

“a small but indeterminate category of national security-related claims, both for judicial review of executive decisions and for civil damages, in respect of which it is preferable that the option of a CMP—for all its inadequacies—should exist.”

That is our position and we are not seeking to exclude part 2 from the Bill—to be fair to the Minister, he did not suggest that we were.

I just remind the Minister that when the Green Paper was published, many on both sides of the House thought that it was perfectly adequate. When the draft Bill was first published, some on both sides of the House thought that it was adequate. We did not think that, and we pushed for improvements. When the Bill was published, before it went to the House of Lords last June, many on both sides of the House, including the Minister, thought that it was perfect and in need of no amendment. The Bill has been changed on three or four occasions in a number of areas, not least by the changes made in the House of Lords. The other place sought to put into the Bill some of the recommendations made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Not all of its recommendations were put into amendments standing in the names of Cross Benchers, including Lord Pannick, but some were—the ones thought to be important in order to secure the checks and balances required in this Bill.

I remind the Minister that Labour Front Benchers have on no occasion sought to remove part 2 from the Bill. He will know, as he has been in this game far, far longer than I have, that we could well have won votes in the House of Lords to remove part 2, but we appreciate the important challenge the Government face. As the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee and colleagues on both sides of the House have put it, “How do we get the balance with our wish to make sure that our citizens are as safe as possible, bearing in mind the huge heroic work that our security services do, relying on intelligence from other countries?” The Opposition accept the control principle and always have done, and we will debate that after the votes at 8 pm. Nobody who has spoken today in favour of our amendments has tried to caricature the people against them as not being concerned about civil liberties and human rights. To be fair, those against our amendments have not tried to caricature our position as being against, or not understanding the importance of, national security.

The hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), who represented the Liberal Democrats in Committee, made a speech today, and I think he indicated that he will be supporting our amendments at 8 pm. I pray in aid the fact that it is not just Opposition Members wishing to press these amendments, as I will shortly. The Joint Committee on Human Rights, in its most recent report last week, confirmed that it was unhappy with the shredding of the Lords amendments in Committee. The special advocates also agree with our amendments, as does the House of Lords. The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation and the former Director of Public Prosecutions also believe that our amendments strike the right balance between national security and ensuring that individuals are able to hold the Executive to account.

During the debate, my view—the Opposition’s view—has been characterised as considering PII perfect and a utopian panacea for some of the challenges we face, but I have not said that. I deliberately took some time to pray in aid the Supreme Court decision in al-Rawi, when the court said, to paraphrase, that it would like the additional tool of CMPs and suggested that it would like Parliament to give it that ability. That is what I am seeking to do.

I say to the Minister without Portfolio that the danger lies is some of the comments made by others, who gave the impression that CMPs are often preferable to PIIs and that rather than being the exception—a point made by a number of colleagues on the Government Benches—they would become the default position. That is where he must be careful. A number of Members on both sides of the House have said that PII is rubbish, that it is not the answer and that CMPs are far preferable, and they have asked why a judge would not opt for a CMP. We are simply seeking to put in the Bill the amendments passed by huge majorities in the House of Lords on the recommendation of the JCHR to ensure that a judge understands that he must consider the other options before he decides to go for a CMP.

I know that the Minister without Portfolio did not mean it when he said that every time he makes a concession, ingenious lawyers move fresh amendments; our fresh amendment would have become stale by now, as it is four months old. I would like to press to a vote amendment 26, which is a paving amendment for amendment 31 to make CMPs a last resort, and amendment 30, which is the gateway for the Wiley balancing test for maximum judicial discretion.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.