| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Madam Speaker: Order. I have been indicating the digital clock for some time.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Nick Ainger, Mr. Michael Clapham, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Tom Cox, Mr. Neil Gerrard, Dr. Norman A. Godman, Helen Jackson, Mr. Gerald Kaufman, Mr. John Smith, Dr. Howard Stoate and Mr. Tony Worthington.
Mr. Harry Cohen accordingly presented a Bill to create new offences relating to negligent or malicious practice involving work with asbestos; to increase the penalties available to the courts for existing offences; to confer new powers on the Health and Safety Executive; to amend the law with regard to the employment rights of health and safety representatives; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 July, and to be printed [Bill 147].
Lords Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Commons amendments considered.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Keith Vaz):
I beg to move, That this House does not insist on Commons amendments Nos. 27 to 30, to which the Lords have disagreed.
Lords Reason:
Mr. Vaz:
The amendments would reinstate powers for employees of the Legal Services Commission to provide advice, assistance and representation as part of the Criminal Defence Service. They would enable the commission to develop a mixed system for the provision of the full range of criminal defence services, through both salaried defenders and contracts with lawyers in private practice.
When the Bill first came before the House, it had been denuded of the power to provide services in this way as a result of action taken in another place in support of--it has to be said--blatant vested interests. The House wisely reinstated provisions that would give the commission the greatest flexibility to provide cost-effective services, and to provide a wider choice for the public.
As the House will know, a public defence solicitors' office has been operating in Scotland on a pilot basis since October last year. That office is already finding that 22 per cent. of its clients are choosing its services in preference to those of people in private practice. The remainder of its clients are allocated randomly between the private and the employed sector.
What the Bill proposes does not involve allocation; it is based on freedom of choice. It seems, however, that some in the private sector fear the competition that freedom of choice will introduce. It is surprising, to say the least, to find the principal opponents of choice in the other place on the Liberal Democrat Benches. The other place has now rejected these proposals twice. On the second occasion, it did so when it enjoyed the explicit backing of this House, which is directly responsible to the electorate who might wish to take advantage of the services involved. That cannot be the role envisaged for a revising Chamber.
I am delighted to see that the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) is present. I am sure that he will advance the arguments of his party, and will explain why its members voted as they did in the other place.
The issue of salaried defenders has been the subject of widespread debate in both this House and another place, and also outside Parliament. I was very pleased to see early-day motion 840 on today's Order Paper. The motion, initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for
Hendon (Mr. Dismore), has already been signed by 59 hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell).
When listening to debates such as this, I have had occasion to wonder whether the opponents of the provisions really understand what they are opposing.
Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough):
No doubt as a result of some oversight, the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), who initiated that early-day motion, does not appear to be here to listen to the Parliamentary Secretary. For the benefit of the many Members who are listening to him, would he be good enough to recite the terms of the early-day motion, so that we could come to grips with it and see precisely what he supports and what the hon. Member for Hendon is so keen on?
Mr. Vaz:
I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman has a special relationship with my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon. I will leave that to one side. He has a pair of legs. I am sure that he can trot off to the Vote Office, get a copy of the Vote--which we are all entitled to do--and read it for himself.
There are those who seem to think that the criminal defence service is synonymous with a United States-style public defender office. In fact, it refers to the flexible system that will replace criminal legal aid, which will provide criminal defence services through a mix of salaried defenders and lawyers in private practice.
It is emphatically not the Government's intention to introduce a comprehensive public defender system. We have made that clear on a number of occasions, yet unfavourable comparisons are drawn with public defender systems in other countries, rather than with mixed systems such as those in Canada.
There has been debate about the independenceand ethical standards of salaried defenders, but little acknowledgement of clause 37, which places the overriding ethical duties of all advocates and litigators on a statutory footing; or of clause 16, which provides for a code of conduct specifically for salaried defenders.
Furthermore, the Legal Services Commission will be an independent non-departmental body. There is simply no danger of collusion between its employees and the prosecution, and perhaps less risk of an appearance, or perception, of collusion than where two barristers from the same chambers appear on opposite sides.
Lawyers in Britain are rightly proud of their integrity and independence, but that independence flows from their membership of a profession and their obedience to the ethical rules that their profession enforces, not from the way in which they are paid. It is fallacious and an insult to thousands of employed lawyers to seek to equate "independent practice" with the independence needed to advise and to act for a client.
Salaried defenders will give the public a wider choice of representative. They will provide the Legal Services Commission with the means to assess value for money provided by criminal defence services generally. They will increase the commission's flexibility in the provision of criminal defence services and provide a competitive stimulus to lawyers in private practice.
The state is under no obligation to guarantee to the private profession that it, and it alone, may provide publicly funded legal defence services. Given that high
standards will be maintained, the public will gain from the introduction of salaried defenders as part of a mixed system of legal service provision.
International research shows that mixed systems, with salaried defenders operating alongside private lawyers, can be the most successful way in which to provide criminal defence services. That is the view of Bar associations, including the Canadian Bar Association and the American Bar Association. It is advocated by official bodies such as the Legal Services Corporation in America and the National Legal Aid Advisory Committee in Australia.
We will learn from the overseas and Scottish experience as we introduce salaried defenders in England and Wales. We also intend to consult widely before taking any steps. After that, the Legal Services Commission will establish pilot projects to test and to evaluate different models for providing services through salaried defenders. We would start with small pilots and monitor them precisely to see how effective the arrangements were. The pilot projects would be extended throughout the country only after we had had experience of salaried defenders in practice. Decisions will therefore be taken on the basis of evidence, not prejudice and assumption.
Alternative amendment (e) broadens the scope of clause 15(9), which currently provides that regulations may not require someone to select an employee of the commission as his or her representative. If amended as I propose, the subsection would also catch employees of separate bodies established and maintained by the commission to provide salaried criminal defence services. We intend to test both models--direct employment and separately maintained bodies akin to law centres--in the pilots.
I should also make it clear that, within the commission, salaried defenders will work within a separate organisational unit or units, reporting to a senior lawyer responsible for managing them in a way that respects and protects their professional integrity. They will not have additional responsibilities for any other of the commission's functions. They will be employed as criminal defenders, and I have no doubt at all that, as such, they will dedicate themselves to defending their clients with the same professional skill, judgment, and fearless independence and integrity as would any lawyer in the private sector.
Alternative amendments (a) and (c) are intended to give a better flavour of that. Rather than saying that the commission may itself provide advice, assistance and representation, the amended Bill will say that the commission may employ persons to provide those services. We have not proposed a similar change to the language of clause 7 on the community legal service, because there is not the same imperative to ensure that salaried providers of civil services are managed, and are seen to be managed, separately from other staff; and because the commission may provide services other than by employing people--for example, by making information available in electronic form on the internet.
The Government are confident that salaried defenders will develop to play a valuable role in the criminal defence service without any element of compulsion. I challenge the private profession to demonstrate the same confidence in the service that they provide. I, for one, have that confidence, and submit that the private
professions have nothing to fear from competing alongside salaried defenders in a system based on an informed choice of representative.
3.56 pm
Because it is not appropriate for the Legal Services Commission itself to provide advice, assistance or representation to individuals involved in criminal investigations or criminal proceedings.
Madam Speaker:
With this we shall take Government amendments (a) to (e) in lieu thereof.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |