Examination of Witnesses (Questions 140-145)
MR JOHN
SCAMPION CBE AND
RT HON
LORD NEWTON
OF BRAINTREE
OBE
21 OCTOBER 2003
Q140 Keith Vaz: How does this tribunal
compare to others?
Lord Newton of Braintree: I would
need to look at it. I have not brought the relevant documentation
with me. I have found, I am glad to say, in response to Mr Cranston's
question, the following reference in the note in front of me:
"According to the latest information provided by the Home
Office the rate of `no presenting officer' lists has increased
over the last three months to around 35%." So my memory had
served me reasonably well.
Q141 Mr Clappison: Staying to some
extent on the question of representations, one of the things which
it is designed to help is the accreditation scheme and Mr Scampion
has told us it has to be made to work, but in your submissions
to us you expressed doubts as to whether or not the Law Society
was the appropriate body to administer the scheme. How would you
like to see it operating?
Mr Scampion: I think there are
two principles about the accreditation scheme which are quite
important. I think it needs to be administered by the regulator,
but therein lies the slight complication because the Legal Services
Commission is not the regulator, it is a regulator of its own
supply, of course and in setting standards for its own supply,
but it is not the regulator of legal services, the Law Society
is and therefore I think the Law Society does need to have some
involvement in it. The second principle is that it needs to be
objectively administered. That is an aspect of the scheme that
I myself am going to have some trouble with. I have no doubt that
we are going to be challenged to make sure that the administration
of tests or some seal of examinations are done fairly and objectively.
I think you need a scheme that brings both into play. I would
not want to see the Law Society kept out of it totally. I think
the Legal Services Commission should work with the Law Society
and perhaps with some outside agency like university providers
to make sure that the scheme is properly put together and efficiently
and objectively administered.
Q142 Ross Cranston: But you certainly
do not want to deal with that, that was my first question?
Mr Scampion: I have got enough
to do of my own, Mr Cranston.
Q143 Peter Bottomley: In the Council
of Tribunals' note to the Department of Constitutional Affairs
it says, "We believe that the balance between fairness and
justice on the one hand and efficiency on the other is weighted
too much in favour of efficiency." That is an understandable
point. Would I be right in thinking that both of you think there
are possible dangers in this search for efficiency actually leading
to more inefficiency and greater costs as well as putting at risk
the present standards of fairness and justice?
Lord Newton of Braintree: I think
I have already implied in my answers to Mr Vaz and to Mr Clappison
that if you cut corners at early stages or reduce the flow of
advice at early stages, other things being equal, you may lead
to much more expenditure later in a more expensive part of the
appeal process. It is difficult to know what weight to apply on
that, but there has to be a balance, I think we all accept that.
The question is getting the balance right. That is really what
your deliberations are about, it seems to me. All of us want to
see justice and all of us want to see that provided as cost-effectively
as possible. How do you achieve that, that is the issue.
Peter Bottomley: Many of us who were
involved in the Immigration Asylum Bill Committee after 1997 would
be slightly surprised to discover, first of all, that Legal Aid
had been introduced and, secondly, it was out of control.
Q144 Chairman: Could I take Mr Scampion
back to a point about accreditation. I think you suggested that
there is a loophole in the scheme proposed, a regulatory gap over
solicitors who are refused accreditation and who would be able
to provide immigration advice in firms which are not publicly
funded and you suggested that this might be used by the unscrupulous
to exploit vulnerable clients. Am I right about that?
Mr Scampion: I recognise it, Chairman.
The gap relates to comments that I have made elsewhere about the
nature of Law Society regulation. The accreditation run by the
Legal Services Commission, assuming it is done in the effective
way that has been suggested, will make sure that there is a quality
standard being met by firms who are working under Legal Aid. If
the Law Society do not have a companion approach and at the moment
they do not, that is the gap. It is based upon the principle that
increasingly worried me in the regulation of immigration advice,
which is that some regulation schemes are actually predicated
on the assumption that complaints and the administration and the
resolution of complaints is sufficient to ensure the regulation
of good quality advice and my experience has proved that not to
be the case. Unless the Law Society themselves moved down a route
similar to accreditation for those firms who are not legally aided
then there is, if not a gap, a significant difference between
the way some lawyers are regulated and the way other lawyers are
regulated.
Q145 Chairman: So it is actually
a more general problem, is it?
Mr Scampion: I think it is a general
problem, yes.
Chairman: Thank you very much. I think
we can draw this session to a close with our thanks to Mr Scampion
and Lord Newton for your considerable help to us. The Committee
will be considering their report on this next week.
| 
