Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Tom Brake Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

In Committee, our debates on domestic violence were among the most heated, because of the seriousness of that offence. In my own borough, 40% of violent offences relate to domestic violence. I know that the Minister is aware of the difficulties that arise for women who are experiencing domestic violence—admitting that it is taking place in the first place, giving evidence, and so on—and I am sure that he appreciates the challenges that they face. I know that he will have looked carefully at amendment 74, tabled by the Opposition, which seeks to widen the definition of domestic violence.

I should like briefly to speak to amendment 23, to which I have added my name. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), highlighted her concerns about the discrepancies, or perhaps lack of consistency, in the definitions of “domestic violence” that are being used. Despite the Minister’s response, further clarification is needed on why different definitions are appropriate in different places. He will have heard Members on both sides of the House express concerns about undertakings, in particular. That point has come across very strongly today, as it did in Committee.

I do not want to detain the House further, because other Members want to speak and there are a large number of amendments relating to domestic violence. I hope that some progress will still be made on this issue, if not through an immediate response from the Minister, then perhaps when the Bill reaches the Lords.

[Helen Goodman]

As the Minister said, we debated this issue in general at some length in Committee. I shall speak in support of amendments 23, 74 and 96 to 98.

A central concern is the narrow and restrictive definition of “domestic violence” that the Minister is putting into the Bill. Once again, we have heard remarks from him that demonstrate his lack of understanding and his lack of sympathy for people in this situation. He said in Committee, and he said again today, that his criteria

“all avoid self-reporting and involve a significant level of state intervention.”

That is indeed the case. The problem is that in taking that approach, he is treating women as if they are not adults capable of self-reporting. That is why many Labour Members feel that he is taking us back 30 years. He said:

“We are concerned that to include admission to a refuge in the criteria would be to rely on self-reporting”.

He said that he is

“not persuaded that the medical professionals would be best placed to assess whether domestic violence has occurred”

even though

“they may witness injuries”.

He said that he does not believe that, in themselves, allegations of domestic violence are objective. He said, as he said again today, that the tests he wishes to use

“are designed…to minimise the risk of false allegations.”––[Official Report, Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Public Bill Committee, 6 September 2011; c. 359-64.]

That is a problem. If his objective is to minimise the risk of false allegations, then his objective is not to maximise the support that women need.

Following the extremely concerning debate that we had in Committee, on 8 September I wrote to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), who is responsible for issues relating to women and equalities. On 25 October, I finally received a reply, in which she says:

“You make the point that the definition of domestic violence used in the Bill is much narrower than the ACPO definition. My understanding is that the definition of “abuse” in the Bill is a broad one…We have been assured by the Ministry of Justice that the definition used would not exclude, for the purposes of legal aid and private family law cases, any of the types of abuse covered by the definition used by ACPO.”

This letter is quite extraordinary. She goes on to say:

“The Government is clear that objective evidence will be needed to ensure that legal aid in private family cases is focused on those who may be intimidated and unable to assert their rights as a result of domestic violence or the risk of harm by the other party to the proceedings”.

Her reliance on the assurances from the Ministry of Justice that its definition is the same as that used by ACPO leads me to ask two questions. First, what is the point of a Minister for Equalities who does not check with the rest of the world what is going on? Secondly, did the Minister tell her that his definition was the same as the ACPO one, when everybody knows that that is not the case?

The Minister for Equalities could easily have listened to the Bar Council—not, one would think, a wild group of left-wingers who are determined to promote a feminist picture of the world. One would think that she might have listened to it. It wrote to many Members this week.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Llwyd]

The number of cases each year because of accidents or negligence has not really increased. It has been around the 10,000 mark for many years. There has not been a sudden rise in specious claims in this area. This is not a growing market. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and I agree that we should ensure that there is far better practice.

Such cases are capable of being resolved far earlier and without recourse to litigation. Medium-sized cases are often resolved by the hospital or health authority without resorting to litigation, and that is fine. However, in large cases, such as where a child is brain-damaged at birth, there is no appetite from either side to settle it in the hospital. Such cases are often extremely expensive because the child’s life has been ruined for their entire existence. That is why I raise these matters.

I hope that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) will make a contribution because I know that he, too, has been campaigning on this issue. I will confine my remarks to those few points.

[Tom Brake]

I rise to make a few brief comments, particularly in relation to amendment 132, which appears in my name.

I have been ably supported by Action against Medical Accidents, which campaigns on the issue of clinical negligence and for a statutory duty of candour in relation to accidents in the NHS. If there was a statutory duty to confirm, at the outset, that an accident had taken place, it might ensure that many cases involving the NHS, which can drag on for many years, were brought to a much earlier conclusion. If, as was suggested earlier, it is management who get in the way of resolving such cases, they would not be able interfere to the same extent to delay proceedings—if, indeed, that is what they do—if confirmation that an accident had taken place was given at the outset.

I will focus on legal aid representation in relation to medical negligence. I welcome the confirmation we have been given that £6 million or £7 million of the £16 million that is currently spent on legal aid for medical negligence will be retained under the “Exceptional Funding” heading. The sum that is being discussed is therefore in the order of £10 million. Although we have received assurances that exceptional funding will be able to deal with many of the intense cases with which Members are familiar, such as cases of babies who have been seriously injured at birth, the question remains: which cases will not be funded once that £10 million is withdrawn from legal aid for medical negligence cases?

Given that the Government have a significant budget deficit to address and that this measure is part of that programme, I do not want to come empty-handed when it comes to saying where additional funding could come from if the Government were to restore that money. Later on, we will debate amendment 144, which is in my name. It would introduce a presumption against sending people to prison for a prison sentence of six months or less. The organisation that has done the calculations suggests that that could save the Government up to £400 million a year. That might be a slight or even a gross exaggeration of how much money could be saved, but it would be not unrealistic to expect that savings of the order of £10 million would be achievable if the Government were to look kindly on that amendment.

Medical negligence is high-profile. It might affect a relatively small number of families, but when it does, it does so dramatically.

[Karl Turner]

Does the right hon. Gentleman want his amendment to be pressed to a Division?

[Tom Brake]

My colleagues and I will get used to interventions of that nature, but the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I am expecting some reassurance from the Minister that the Government do not have a closed mind. Even if we cannot make progress in the House, there could be opportunities in another place to do so. I am just putting down a marker for the Government that they should entertain that idea.

[Stephen Phillips]

As I understand it, amendment 132 relates to medical negligence within the scope of the European convention on human rights, which is excluded from legal aid in the Bill. If it is a probing amendment, will the right hon. Gentleman indicate the sort of cases he has in mind? I cannot envisage a case involving convention rights that would involve medical negligence.

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his intervention, even if he has identified a flaw in my proposal. The funding available for legal aid in cases of medical negligence deals with the serious cases with which Members will be very familiar, such as obstetric accidents. However, I am seeking clarification from the Minister, because although some of the funding for dealing with such cases will still be available through exceptional funding, some of it will no longer be available. I am seeking confirmation from the Government that all very serious cases will be addressed through the exceptional funding route. I hope it will be possible for the Government to identify additional funding to address the funding gap for any remaining cases, as I have done in amendment 144.

[Karl Turner]

I rise to speak to amendment 142, which is in my name and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) and the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd)—I think that that is the correct pronunciation of his constituency, but I apologise to him if it is not.

The amendment would put clinical negligence back into the scope of legal aid. The Bill will exclude many important areas of law from the scope of legal aid entirely, all of which deeply concern me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Phillips]

The amendment proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) addresses schedule 1 and the non-exclusion of clinical negligence cases in the context of convention rights. As I have informed the House more often than, perhaps, I ought, I have never conducted a clinical negligence case. [Interruption.] Mr Deputy Speaker tells me that the House has taken that point on board, and I am pleased it has taken at least one of my points on board.

Notwithstanding the Government’s insistence on the exclusion of clinical negligence in this context, I find it difficult to envisage any circumstances in which a case could be brought under the convention that engages this part of the law. I am not sure that my right hon. Friend addressed that point adequately—or, indeed, at all—when I intervened on him earlier, but he has said that this is a probing amendment that may have to be debated further in another place. At present however, I remain perplexed by the amendment.

[Tom Brake]

My hon. and learned Friend highlighted a flaw in the drafting of the amendment, but in his contribution this evening he has identified the group of cases that gives me some concern: the group of middle cases, as he described them. He has, I think, suggested both that he also has concerns in this regard and that the Government may need to address the matter in future.

[Stephen Phillips]

It may be an area the Government have to come back to. The amendment would change schedule 1 and, specifically, the cases for which civil aid is, and is not, available in the context of breaches of convention rights by a public authority. It addresses the convention rights contained in the Human Rights Act 1998, a piece of legislation of which the House will know I am not greatly enamoured. Clinical negligence is itself defined in paragraph 20(6) of the schedule, and the amendment suggests that civil legal aid should continue to be available in cases where a breach of convention rights is asserted in the context of clinical negligence. Although I think the Human Rights Act is bad law, I find it difficult to envisage circumstances in which the convention might be used and legal aid ought, in any event, to be available.

I therefore do not support the amendments, as they are unnecessary and misconceived, and the Government will have my support tonight.