| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Malins: My hon. Friend mentioned solicitors doing pro bono work. For many years, practitioners in criminal law found themselves in a difficult position. When clients presented with difficulties relating to the Environmental Protection Act, solicitors were not sure how far beyond the green form they could go and often had to act pro bono in order to assist their clients.
Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend has the benefit of extensive knowledge and practice in this area. He is right to draw attention to the social service provided by solicitors who took up such cases on a pro bono basis.
When Shelter originally made representations to Committee members about the Bill, it pointed out that, if the Government did not accept the amendment and neither made legal aid available nor allowed conditional fees to
fund the cases, many of the clients whom Shelter was established to represent would be denied access to justice--which is the very title of the Bill--and therefore essential work to improve their living conditions would not be carried out. We welcome the fact that, at this late stage, the Government have accepted the force of our arguments both in Committee and on Report. I hope that many tenants of limited means will receive protection in future under the 1990 Act as a result of the Government's wise decision.
Mr. Burnett:
I shall not detain the House for long.I welcome the Minister's speech and I welcome wholeheartedly this concession. I pay tribute to my noble and learned Friend Lord Goodhart, who has done so much work on this Bill--particularly this aspect of it. We are grateful to the Government and are entirely happy to support the amendment.
Mr. Malins:
I declare an interest as a solicitor who has practised in the criminal field over many years. I qualified in 1971, just after a housing boom, and I spent many years helping people with difficult housing cases. I shall turn to that matter in a moment. I declare an interest also as a recorder of the Crown court and an acting metropolitan stipendiary magistrate, in which capacity I try matters judicially. That is relevant because the debate relates to the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and summonses thereunder, and, for many years, I have viewed the problem from both ends, as a practitioner and a sitting member of the judiciary.
With that background, I can say that most of us who practised criminal law--I mostly did so outside London--found conditional fee arrangements wholly irrelevant to our way of life as criminal practitioners. We practised under a legal aid system or a private system. Under the latter, we could charge a fair rate for the job, but if the client was entitled to legal aid, we applied for that aid and got it. Conditional fee arrangements were nothing to do with us. Whenever it is said, as it has been said by the Government, that conditional fee arrangements are not appropriate in criminal proceedings, that strikes a chord with me.
I was, however, struck by what my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) said a few moments ago about Shelter and its support for the proposal to allow proceedings under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act to be funded by conditional fee agreements. Why was I struck by that? During my days in practice, when clients came to see me about an issue relating to their housing, it was difficult for me to know what to do.
As my hon. Friend, who practised the law for many years, would agree, a solicitor could help someone to a limited extent only on what was called the green form system, but, as far as I recall--I will be corrected if I am wrong--no legal aid was available to take a landlord to court under the Environmental Protection Act. That was regarded as a great gap in the system. What happened? Many of us decided to act on a pro bono basis, in the days when that was common practice--more of that in a moment.
Let me now refer to Shelter. When I was considering what I had to contribute to the debate, I was struck by the good work done by the Minister for London and
Construction over many years before he came into the House. As I recall, in his former capacity, the hon. Gentleman was heavily involved in Shelter. I believe that it was there that I first met him because he had a deep interest, as I did, in remedies for tenants in very poor housing.
The first seat that I fought was Liverpool, Toxteth, in both general elections in 1974. I subsequently fought the Lewisham, East seat in 1979 and then Croydon, North-West, which I was privileged to represent for many years. One of the common features of those constituencies was that they had poor housing and tenants who suffered as a result. They would often come to see me about housing at my surgeries--an experience that I am sure is shared by many hon. Members. My constituents came to me, described the problems of condensation or unsafe electricity in their home and invited me to come and see their home.
When I first met the Minister for London and Construction, as he now is, he was heavily involved in Shelter, and I return to Shelter for my next few comments because it has been hugely influential in housing and has constantly offered its support for the proposition that proceedings under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act should be funded by conditional fee agreements. Pressure from my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath, who sits on the Front Bench, and a satisfactory approach by the Government have enabled us to reach a happy conclusion.
Mr. Hawkins:
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's concession demonstrates, among other things, the value of Shelter's work with hon. Members on both sides of the House? My hon. Friend may be slightly shocked to hear that, on a previous occasion, the Minister expressed surprise that any Conservative Member should quote Shelter in support of his or her arguments. However, one of Shelter's big advantages, as I am sure my hon. Friend will agree, is that it has always been prepared to work with all parties in making its case. In its current campaign, which involves football, it is working with the all-party House of Commons football team.
Mr. Malins:
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out what is self-evident: Shelter is, and has been for many years, interested in housing problems and, in my experience, it is without political affiliations. Hon. Members on both sides of the House support--
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin):
Order. The hon. Gentleman is going wide of the amendment before us. He should address his remarks to the amendment.
Mr. Malins:
I am most grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was tempted by my hon. Friend.
The concept of the tenant being unable to receive legal help with complaints against a bad landlord is one with which no Member of the House should be happy. The ability for us to say that conditional fee agreementsshould apply to proceedings under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act is a major step forward. It is more significant than many hon. Members appreciate, because it takes a huge step towards enabling tenants to obtain justice. As my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath said, Shelter has supported that proposition throughout.
Mr. Tim Collins (Westmorland and Lonsdale):
My hon. Friend is developing a powerful rationale for welcoming the Minister's concession on this point, but does he believe that the concession would have been necessary if the Government had, at an earlier stage, listened to Shelter's powerful advocacy? Does not the fact that the concession was made at such a late stage cause concern about the extent to which the Government listen to Shelter on matters across the board?
Mr. Malins:
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. There seems now to be consensus on this matter. I have attended many debates in this House in which I have witnessed sharp disagreements between Front-Bench Members, but I have been pleasantly surprised this afternoon to see this measure of agreement and the welcome that we are offering the Government on this point. My hon. Friend may well be right. It has taken concerted pressure not only from my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath and other colleagues but from Shelter and other organisations to persuade the Government to permit the use of conditional fee agreements.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |