Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2011 Commons Chamber

I support new clause 17 and unless I hear a clear message from the Minister on the points that we—and especially my right hon. Friend—have made, I shall support it in the Lobby.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

I declare an interest as—or confess that I am—a lawyer. I was a solicitor for more than 20 years, and I worked for the Treasury Solicitor’s Department and the Ministry of Justice, as well as in private practice and the public sector, on behalf of local authorities.

I am concerned by the removal of welfare benefit, education and debt recovery cases from the scope of legal aid. Those are the kind of bread and butter issues that used to be dealt with under the green form scheme. I wish to reassure hon. Members who are concerned that lawyers are in it for the money that we often used to give advice for nothing to people who came through our doors: we went over the time limit but never claimed for it. So we can knock on the head the idea that lawyers are only in it for the money.

When I acted for local authorities in possession cases, we found that tenants who were going to be evicted were better informed when they had advice from the duty solicitor. I sat as a deputy district judge and it was much better when the people who appeared before me were not litigants in person. If they have a lawyer to give them proper advice, less court time is taken up.

[Keith Vaz]

One of the problems with the reduction in legal aid is that a whole generation of lawyers with expertise in welfare, immigration and education law will disappear. The only type of lawyers churned out of law colleges will be those who can do corporate litigation.

[Valerie Vaz]

I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend, who has taught me more than he will ever realise. He has in common with the Lord Chancellor the fact that they both attended the very eminent lawyers’ college, Gonville and Caius.

I saw cases from both sides—tenants and local authorities—and it was very important for people to be able to access legal advice. More and more parents are now resorting to the use of lawyers to get their children into the school of their choice. If they can afford it, that is fine, but what if they just want basic advice on how to attend an appeal? That is very important for parents who cannot afford lawyers.

By happy coincidence, I acted in Hammersmith and Fulham v. Monk, a case that went straight to the House of Lords—at the time, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) was a very good deputy leader of the council—because it involved an important question of principle. Could one of two joint tenants sever the tenancy by serving a notice to quit on the landlord? The result of that case was that we could rehouse women who were victims of domestic violence and retain the property involved. Mr Monk was legally aided, and it was important that that principle was decided by the House of Lords.

Another local authority wanted to settle the same question, and legal aid was available in that case too, but I took the decision that it would be sufficient for only one case to go forward, so lawyers do put brakes on extensive costs. I have had the privilege of litigating on behalf of the Government and, as the House will know, we have one of the finest judiciaries in the world. Judges can keep account of costs and they do not allow lawyers to go on and on and run up costs, but they also have to take their time when a litigant in person is appearing before them. There are also other ways to reduce costs, such as the Littlewoods clause. If someone has received legal aid and then come into money—by winning the pools, for example—the Government can claw back the money. Judges can also make a wasted costs order against lawyers who waste time in court.

I am a member of the Health Committee and we investigated clinical negligence, which now costs the state £800 million, whereas if it had stayed within the scope of legal aid it would cost only £17 million. That is a huge difference, and I wish the Government would think again. Even the NHS Litigation Authority said:

“The reduction in availability of public funding for clinical negligence claims and the corresponding rise in Conditional Fee Arrangements, backed by After the Event insurance, has also contributed very significantly to the cost of litigation”.

Who can get legal aid? That is a very important question and I have three examples of why that is so. The LSC gave legal aid to the Nepalese Gurkhas, and we know how that turned out. It was a very important principle concerning people who had fought and died for their country. It gave legal aid to Sean Hodgson, who was wrongly convicted and was freed after 27 years. It also gave legal aid to Colin Ross, a cancer patient who won a battle in the High Court for life-saving drug treatment that could give him an extra three years of life. Mr Ross received legal aid to challenge a decision by West Sussex PCT to refuse funding for the drug he wanted.

In the recent case of W v. M, S and an NHS primary care trust, Mr Justice Baker said:

“Given the fundamental issues involved in cases involving the withdrawal of ANH”—

artificial nutrition and hydration—

“it is alarming to the court that public funding has not been available to members of the family to assist them in prosecuting their application. In the event, the applicant’s team has acted pro bono throughout the hearing and during much of the very extensive preparation.”

That goes to the heart of what legal aid is all about. It is important to test legal principles. That is what judges are for, and it forms part of the checks and balances on the Executive. The late Lord Bingham called the rule of law

“an ideal worth striving for”.

The same sentiment applies to access to justice, so that we remain a United Kingdom. I urge the Government to think again about these divisive proposals.

[Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)]

We have heard some naughty stuff from the Opposition. I remember serving on a Public Bill Committee shortly after I arrived in the House. Now, I am a lad from Bradford, and we have this strange practice in Bradford: when we agree with something we vote for it, and when we disagree with something we vote against it. I went into Committee, and of course people soon told me, “That’s not the way you do it. If something comes from the other side, even if it’s a good amendment, you simply don’t accept it.” [Hon. Members: “Name them!”] I understand that that was common practice in the previous Parliament. [Hon. Members: “Name them!”] That is a tad nosey.

I am not a lawyer, but many, many people have come through my constituency door who desperately need, but cannot afford, a lawyer. I have serious concerns about these proposals, and I am very much in favour of new clause 17. Another thing that I quickly learnt when I came here was that there were unintended consequences. I had never heard of those before, to be honest, but I soon realised that when something goes wrong a bit later in the day—six months or a year later, perhaps—we say, “Well, it was unintended consequences.” That is basically a euphemism for, “We got it wrong.” In Bradford, we say, “We made a bad decision.”

Often we make bad decisions—that is the way of it—but, when we analyse why we are making bad decisions, often we find that it is because we failed to gather information or consult. Well, we have consulted on this, and we have a body of evidence. I thank the Liberal Democrat Lawyers Association for the information that it provided for us—no doubt other groups have provided information for other Members—and I am also grateful for the information from Citizens Advice. In particular, there are the case studies. Let us consider the consequences of the proposals. We can all look into the future and guess, but there are examples—case studies—of people receiving legal aid who simply will not receive it if these proposals go through. I am speaking for five or 10 minutes and could give hon. Members a couple of examples, but if I spoke for 20 minutes I could give three or four more; if I spoke for an hour I could give a dozen, and if I stayed here for a week I could give hundreds of case studies, one after another, of people who would be badly affected by the proposals.

We have received valuable information from the Law Society about the fictitious nature of the savings. They just will not be generated. In fact the proposals will probably add to costs in many ways. I am seriously concerned that, given the body of evidence available, including the huge number of case studies and examples from our constituencies, the consequences will not be unintended. These will be intended consequences; what will happen will be what the Government intended to happen. Various suggestions have been made of alternative measures that people could take—for example, they could represent themselves, or seek support from advice services—but the overall intention is that people will just go away. They will not be supported—but they will not go away, will they? Their problems will remain, and will probably get more serious, and indeed more costly.