Simon Hughes:
For example, there is an organisation based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East called Christians Against Poverty, and it has people working in my constituency who are really good at dealing with debt. They have been tried and tested by me and others, so if one such element is debt I will often refer my constituent to them. They will
2 Nov 2011 : Column 987
unravel those issues and try to get them sorted even when in the county court there might be a legal issue, such as a possession action by the council or a housing association for the person’s flat, which one might need to manage as well.
Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab): In our constituencies we all have equivalents of the organisation Christians Against Poverty, to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, and there is no question but that they do marvellous work, but the kind of cuts that the Government are talking about will impact either directly or indirectly and, most certainly, on the citizens advice bureaux in my constituency. The real concern—certainly felt by me and, I think, by every Opposition Member—is that a terrible rock is being thrown into the social system, and the ripples are going to take out more and more people and, therefore, reduce more and more the advice that is out there at the moment.
Simon Hughes: The hon. Lady and I have inner-city constituencies, and we have exactly the same—not exactly the same, because Highgate and Hampstead must have a slightly different profile from Bermondsey and Old Southwark—
Glenda Jackson: Hampstead and Kilburn.
Simon Hughes: Hampstead and Kilburn, as it now is, sounds more balanced and mixed, but of course the hon. Lady knows about and has experience of the issues.
I think that the Government, given the constraints of the general economic position, are trying as hard as they can to find the support that the hon. Lady and I wish for. Her party, had there been a Labour Government in this Parliament, would have made cuts in legal aid and to public spending across the board, and she would not have liked it, as she did not when they were in power. Indeed, I remember her speaking against her Government pretty well every week in the previous Parliament, owing to what they were doing, and I was with her and made just those comments.
However, this Government have already put some money into Citizens Advice, for example. Transitional funding is being discussed. My hon. Friends have discussed with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who made a very welcome statement earlier today, putting more money on the table for public servants and the ways in which that might be extended. I understand the hon. Lady's point and we will try, from the Liberal Democrat Benches, to win that argument, but we have to win it within the confines of what is a very difficult position for everyone, including the Government.
On amendment 116, my right hon. and hon. Friends have made the point about clause 12. May I say to Ministers that if clause 12 is not going to be used, it ought to go? I understand why the Government might want a fall-back or safety-net position, but if it is not to be used they should let it go and say so. That is important because, as colleagues have identified, providing someone at a police station with legal advice and assistance will often save huge grief for them and their families
2 Nov 2011 : Column 988
and a huge amount of time for the police and other agencies that come to deal with them. Often, it will also save a huge amount of time for the criminal justice process afterwards. I am clear that, in time-efficient and cost-efficient spend, we ought to retain that and not lose it.
Let me make a substantive point about amendment 148, which is in my name, about telephone advice and the telephone helpline. The Government propose that the community legal advice helpline that is currently in use and does a perfectly good job should, once the changes have come into operation, be the sole method of access to the service for certain issues at the beginning. It is proposed that there should be a mandatory single telephone gateway for four areas at the beginning: debt, inasmuch as it is covered by legal aid; community care; discrimination; and special educational needs, subject to exceptions. The plan is that there should then be a phased expansion of the provision of specialist telephone advice into the other areas of law for which legal aid is available, except for asylum matters, and that there should be a pilot scheme.
The Justice Committee chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) has looked into this matter and said that it was not against a telephone advice line in principle, but it advised caution and the Government have responded cautiously. May I make two points about why the Government have to be really careful? First, there is real concern out there, as I know from my meetings with Cambridge House and other organisations that do legal aid work and advice in my constituency and borough, that if people have to go through a central call centre, which is the only way into the system, they will not get the same service as with NHS Direct, for example. With that service, if someone does not like what they get they can go to their chemist, GP or hospital, but this call centre will be the only way in.
However good any advice line might be, some people are not going to be very able to deal with that service. I know that the Government are not being absolutist about this issue and that the theory is that the person at the other end will spot the person who might have learning difficulties, poor English or whatever and make sure that there is a face-to-face service. However, I am nervous that if someone from Bermondsey, to choose a place at random, phones up the national headquarters, which may be in Bradford, there will not be a full understanding of their circumstances as a recently arrived Eritrean with children, for example, who is barely able to speak English and is trying to sort out their housing when there are legal issues. I therefore ask the Government to think again about how we might make sure that there are ways for people to see someone face to face in their community or part of the world that do not require their having that kind of advice only in the first instance.
Yvonne Fovargue: The telephone helpline will also direct people who are not legally aidable towards paid-for services. Does the right hon. Gentleman share my concern that if helpline staff do not know of any face-to-face advice agencies or telephone helplines for debt, for example, they might direct people to one of the fee-charging debt-management agencies, which would be totally inappropriate?
2 Nov 2011 : Column 989
Simon Hughes: That would be inappropriate, and I hope that it would not happen. There should be safeguards.
I want to be constructive about how we might deal with the matter. First, when there is a helpline, as there is already, there should be monitoring not just in theory by the Government. Just as we have lay visitors at police stations and so on, there should be a facility for Members of Parliament and others—perhaps a representative group, such as the Select Committee that my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed chairs—to be able to take part in seeing how the telephone helpline works. There will always be a telephone line, and I am not against that as an option, but it should be monitored by Parliament and Members of Parliament, as well as by the Government.
Secondly, I would be much more comfortable if somewhere was available in each region, rather than having to go through a national central location. If there was someone with the capability of knowing local circumstances, that would be hugely preferable. I hope that the Minister will be positive in his response to our concerns, and I hope that we will be given some encouragement that they will be not just listened to, but responded to at the first opportunity.
Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab): I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the fact that I will have to leave the Chamber soon after I have spoken. I am taking part in the Royal Society’s parliamentary pairing scheme.
I want to support some of the amendments tabled by Labour Front Benchers, and by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) and my hon. Friend the. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue). I am here solely because of constituents who have written to me, and it is their words and their concerns that I wish to bring to the Chamber today. My hon. Friend made an important and informative speech, but I will make a much simpler speech, about my constituents and my relationship with them.
I have been contacted not by the 20,000 names on my database of people for whom we have been providing help, but by the people who help them—those who look to family proceedings and the care of children, and who care for those with mental health problems, and the whole range of welfare associations and advice centres. Those workers know from their experience the limits of their own abilities to assist my constituents and, like me, know the limits of my abilities to assist my constituents. It is they who are aware of how much difficulty people will face if the Bill is enacted.
The right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) spoke about the telephone gateway. Recently I tried to use uSwitch. I rang it because I accepted the Government’s message to switch my energy company. I had all the papers in line as I sat at a desk with a landline. I called up and had a discussion, but when I was asked for my S number, I asked where I was likely to find that in the papers that I had already described. The person at the other end was unable to tell me. That should have been a simple process for a middle-class educated person.
We make e-mail addresses and phone numbers available to constituents, so why, in my constituency and those of the right hon. Gentleman and so many other right hon. and hon. Members, do constituents come to see us in
2 Nov 2011 : Column 990
person? The majority of my constituents do not come in person, but the 20, 30 or 40 people at every constituency surgery do not feel able to deal with their problems over the telephone. Although I have extremely experienced and competent caseworkers, with the best will in the world they often have to say to those who call up, “I’m sorry, but I can’t get to the bottom of your problem unless you bring me the paperwork, and I see you face to face.”
Simon Hughes: I want to endorse one point, and to amplify it. I gave an example of someone from abroad, but in my experience, even people who were born and brought up here and have spent all their life here often need two, three or four visits before we can sort out what the issues are and get them on their way. It is not one-off bits of advice that they need.
Joan Ruddock: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. This is key to the service that we provide as Members of Parliament. I know that Government Members have argued that we should not provide these services for our constituents, but I believe that we should, and I want to continue to do so.
Sometimes a vulnerable, sick and disabled person who has been wrongly deprived of sickness or disability benefits comes to me. I can say, “This should happen,” “That should happen,” “Yes, there ought to be a review,” or, “There ought to be an appeal.” However, I cannot assemble the evidence with that person. I do not have people with many hours to spend on each individual case who can put together the paperwork and the arguments and do the research. At the end of the day, that expert job is done by an advice person in an agency, who will refer the person to a solicitor, who will provide them with legal aid—or we might refer them directly. That service is absolutely vital, and if the person does not have it, they are totally denied justice.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP): Is the right hon. Lady aware of any incidents of people coming in with multiple issues, some of which will qualify for legal aid and some of which will not, but they are intertwined because of the person’s situation? Does she think that clarification is needed within the legal aid system in order to have all those issues dealt with rather than excluding some of them?
Joan Ruddock: I certainly do, but of course the challenge for us now is not to be able to make things better but to try to save things from getting so much worse. That is the difficult situation that we are in.
There are tenants who are undoubtedly unfairly deprived of housing benefit, and home owners who are unfairly deprived of help with mortgage interest payments. They can get no assistance in the Government’s new system. In cases of housing disrepair I can write to the council or to the housing association, and very often I can get a remedy with my own resources and caseworkers. Every so often, though, there is a blank refusal by the council to deal with situations involving property that I deem unfit for human habitation, and I cannot persuade it otherwise because of the vast amounts of money involved or the difficulties of transferring people when it has tens of thousands on its waiting list. At that point a legal challenge is necessary—and that is what will be denied people in future.
2 Nov 2011 : Column 991
Glenda Jackson: I am sure that in my right hon. Friend’s constituency, as in mine, there is also the increasing problem of absentee landlords in the private sector who hand over the management of their properties to a managing agent, when often there is no management at all. It is virtually impossible for the individual who is suffering to try to pin down those people’s legal responsibilities without some kind of knowledge and support.
Joan Ruddock: I could not agree more. That is so often the case, and often only the threat of legal action can even get us to the point of knowing who we are trying to deal with. That is an essential point.
Then there are those who are unlawfully evicted, and also those who may even be lawfully evicted, but could not or should not be evicted if they had an opportunity to contest the eviction. This morning we had a call from a family of five with the bailiffs at the door. If it had been a couple of days earlier, they could have been sent to a solicitor. We know about the case now, and the eviction could have been challenged. The family could have been kept in that home, although they would have had to be put under a stringent regime of dealing with their financial difficulties, which came about because things had gone wrong with their housing benefit. In future, they would not be able to get the assistance that they so badly needed, and they would therefore, as now, present themselves and cost the state a lot more money, if they could get the help at all.
Then there are the workers who are dismissed and found possibly to have a case for unfair dismissal. Under the Government’s proposals, they could get assistance only if they were able to claim discrimination. My constituency is hugely multicultural. Will people have to be told, “Can you possibly dress this up as discrimination, so that you can get the legal assistance that you will otherwise be denied”? We do not want to have to go down that path.
4.15 pm
This will be a terrible disaster for my constituents. The constituents of the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) may be more privileged than mine are. They may not need this kind of assistance, and he may not have surgeries bursting with constituents with problems. He may not receive the same number of e-mails, telephone calls and letters—[ Interruption. ] He smiles. Perhaps he would like to say—
Karl Turner: He thinks it’s funny. It’s disgusting. It’s a disgrace.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans): Order.
Joan Ruddock: There are real differences, I should tell the Minister. If he does not understand indices of deprivation, or the differences between constituencies in this country, I really do not think that he is fit for ministerial office.
Let me end by citing two other types of case, to which I hope that the Minister will listen carefully. I have a constituent whose sister died in Africa. Her young child was brought to Britain with a visitor, and he stayed here because his aunt is the only person who is prepared to
2 Nov 2011 : Column 992
take care of him. Lewisham social services want to see that child legally adopted, and the Government are very keen on adoption. However, the child has no legal status in this country. Such cases are complicated when it comes to getting all the paperwork together and arguing the case to the immigration authorities, which have already turned down my constituent’s case once. That is the kind of case that requires legal assistance.
The second case involves a trafficked woman, and it is one of the worst cases that I have ever had. She was trafficked here as a teenager, was raped repeatedly and gave birth to twins. She has never had her immigration status regularised. She cannot conceivably be sent back to Africa now, having been here for 12 years. These are the kinds of case that will be totally denied justice under the Government’s proposals. I appeal to the Minister, on behalf of my constituents and all those who work in advice services in Lewisham and elsewhere, to think again and not just to sit there laughing, as he is at the moment.
Simon Reevell (Dewsbury) (Con): I too should declare an interest, in that I have practised at the criminal Bar since 1990.
I congratulate the Minister on at least having the decency to bring in clause 12 through primary legislation, unlike the previous Government, who sought to bring in such a measure through secondary legislation until they were prevented from doing so by the High Court. I am afraid, however, that that is the limit of my congratulations, because—
Karl Turner: I do not think that what the hon. Gentleman has just said is accurate. The Lord Chancellor has confirmed that the previous Government had no plans to bring in the legislation that the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned.
Simon Reevell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I will send him a copy of the case.
The clause reveals a lack of understanding of the criminal justice system, and especially of the importance of the timing and purpose of police interviews. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) has spoken—perhaps until just recently—with passion about police interviews from a defence perspective, and what he said was right. Just in case the Minister is not swayed by the defence, however, I would ask him also to pause and consider this matter from the perspective of the prosecution.
Police interviews always take place at a time chosen by the prosecuting authorities, and the time is chosen because it is advantageous to them. In complex cases, perhaps involving drugs or organised violence, the police may arrange for simultaneous arrests, not least so that they can try to put the account of one arrested person against that of another, and try to break up those whom they believe to be part of a complicated conspiracy. The timing of the arrest might also be brought forward for the purpose of arranging the interview, in order to prevent a crime, or to protect a witness or a police source.
All that will fail if the arrest has taken place and the person has been brought to the police station for interview, yet nothing happens while their means are picked over and the interviewing officer drinks tea. Evidence could
2 Nov 2011 : Column 993
be lost, co-accused could flee, and witnesses could be harmed. All that will take place in the period allowed for detention, which is slowly being eaten away. The accused will not have details of his means on him. Surely we are not seriously suggesting that armed police who are looking for drugs, blood-stained clothing or weapons will be asked to look for three years’ accounts or 12 months’ pay slips.
There is a serious point to that. The rapist whom I prosecuted in the summer, who is now serving a seven-year prison sentence, was interviewed at a time that the police chose because it was appropriate for the purposes of their investigation. If they had had to wait while his means were established in order for his legal representation to be provided, it would not have been helpful to their inquiry—it would not have been what they wanted to do, and I am sure it would not have been what the victim of that offence would have wanted them to do.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con): My hon. Friend makes an absolutely proper set of points, but given the realities of life in the police station, from either a defence or a prosecution point of view, does it not come down to the fact that that is not the time for means-testing? At a later stage—for example, on conviction—a proper account could be made of a guilty person to establish whether they had the means to pay for their legal representation.
Simon Reevell: My hon. Friend is aware from his practice that at the point of conviction the court will consider applications for prosecution costs, which are effectively the costs of bringing the case before the court. There is nothing wrong in principle with somebody who can afford to contribute being invited to do so—“invited” in the firmest sense of the word. However, it is entirely appropriate to have a system that delays the proper prosecution of criminal justice while people’s bank accounts are checked to determine whether they qualify for legal aid at the police station. The problem is not only the injustice that might result for the accused, but the frustration that might be caused to those whom we task with investigating crime and prosecuting offenders. The introduction of such a counter-productive measure is in no way excused, in my opinion, by a promise never to use it.
Jeremy Corbyn: I am pleased to be able to contribute briefly to this debate. I am one of a minority of hon. Members in the Chamber who is not legally qualified, but on this occasion I am grateful that so many solicitors and barristers are Members of the House. They have made this a much better debate and brought experience to it. I hope the Minister has listened carefully to what has been said, particularly in relation to the removal of clause 12.
When the House learns from its mistakes, it can introduce much better legislation. I have been here long enough to have gone through the experience of the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six, Stefan Kiszko and many other appalling miscarriages of justice. It is true that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 made a big difference and brought about a much fairer system of investigation. However, unfortunately it did not lead to the release of people who were wrongly convicted in Birmingham, which came much later as a result of a huge campaign, which in turn led to
2 Nov 2011 : Column 994
establishment of the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which has hopefully reduced the chances of future miscarriages of justice.
My experience and that of many other hon. Members of dealing with immigration cases, miscarriages of justice and many other misfortunes that befall our constituents is that problems often come from the initial point of contact with authority, be that a police or immigration officer, a housing official or someone else. People who are not represented at the initial point of contact when they should be might confess to things that they did not do, suggest they have done things that they could not possibly have done or just become hopelessly confused and accept whatever the official says. How many of our constituents have told us that they have said all kinds of things in good faith to an official, things they clearly did not understand because they were intimidated by the experience? It is at that point that our constituents—all of them—deserve the right of independent legal representation.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Simon Reevell) made a good point about the delays that will happen in a police station if clause 12 is operated as drafted. It will be utterly ludicrous if the police arrest somebody and want to interview them, but are unable to get the basic information that they require and so have to keep them at the police station for a long time. That will take up police time and space when releasing the person might be the best course of action, all because there is an argument about whether a solicitor should be available.
On the point about wealthy people getting advice, I am quite sure that Roman Abramovich goes around with the numbers of half a dozen solicitors in his wallet, or at least that his security staff do. I am not particularly worried about the ability of such oligarchs to gain access to lawyers should they fall on the wrong side of the police. I am worried about people who cannot afford to get a solicitor, who do not carry a number with them and who cannot get a duty solicitor because they cannot prove that they are entitled to legal aid. I suggest that the Government should simply accept this point and withdraw clause 12 in its entirety.
I want to make two more quick points about the effect of the trajectory of legal aid. I was concerned about the trajectory of legal aid under the previous Government, as were many Members. The Liberal Democrats used to be concerned, but they have had a damascene conversion. Something far worse is now happening and they support it. When something less bad was happening, they opposed it. I do not know what has happened. Perhaps somebody can explain it to me at another time. I am too simple a soul to understand it.
The changes in legal aid have been devastating for many good solicitors’ practices in inner-urban areas. Many have closed in my area because they cannot survive any longer. There is not enough other work so that they can cross-subsidise within the company. I am not sure that that would be a good principle even if they could do it. The shortage of funding for legal advice has hit law centres badly and they are trying hard to survive. As a result, many people who should be legally represented go unrepresented.
I have the utmost time, respect and admiration for Islington law centre, but it is creaking at the seams with the pressure of the work that has fallen to it because of
2 Nov 2011 : Column 995
the number of solicitors’ practices that have closed and the number of people who are in desperate situations and want its help. It is doing its best. It relies heavily on pro bono work and trainee solicitors who work at the law centre as part of their training. That is not a bad thing—in fact, it is a good thing—but the whole system should not rely on pro bono solicitors and on the good will of trainees. I am very grateful to those people, but the system should not rely on them.
Likewise, Islington council, despite the huge problems and pressures it is facing, like every inner-urban area, has to its credit found the time, political determination and resources to open a citizens advice bureau on Upper street, opposite the town hall. It is absolutely packed out, largely dealing with debt advice. A lot of the advice that is given does not require legally qualified people, but can be given by good advisers. However, the resources have to be there to ensure that it happens.
Stephen Lloyd: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what is proposed by those of us in Parliament who work closely with Citizens Advice would still lead to a reduction in cost from the current £25.5 million to £16.5 million, which as I said earlier is a 40% reduction? Citizens advice bureaux are trying to be productive to ensure that they can retain their funding.
Jeremy Corbyn: Citizens advice bureaux do a fantastic job and they do their best to be as productive as possible. It is hard to measure productivity when one is dealing with advice. It is hard to measure how long it takes to explain to people the seriousness of their situation. As we all know from our advice surgeries, some people get it quickly and others take a long time to understand the reality of their situation. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) said, it sometimes takes several visits. A solicitor or advice bureau cannot do that; only MPs can do that. That is why we are vulnerable to such visitations every Friday evening, or whenever we hold our advice surgeries.
4.30 pm
The other point I wanted to make is about the effect of these provisions on the legal profession. Like other hon. Members, I visit universities and colleges on occasion, and I meet and talk to students. I meet many enthusiastic young law students who are working hard and doing well. They want to work in criminal law and advice, but they cannot get work in those areas. We are turning out a generation of lawyers who pursue property and commercial cases because that is where the money is, and the criminal law will suffer, along with the rights of the individual. The poorest people in the poorest communities in this country will suffer as a result.
The legal aid changes will lead to an inequality of justice. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford made two very important points. The first was about family reunion cases in immigration law. Notwithstanding the problems with the Border and Immigration Agency, there is a cost implication of removing legal aid for family reunion, because it will lead to children being taken into care, more misery for families—sometimes with accompanying abuse—and children under-achieving in school because they are so
2 Nov 2011 : Column 996
stressed by being divided from a family in a refugee camp in Kenya, Sudan or the horn of Africa, as is often the case in my constituency. Those children deserve to be represented so that they can have a family around them to give them support.
The second point was about housing. Like every other constituency in London, mine is increasingly dominated by the private rented sector, which is now bigger than the owner-occupier sector and is increasing fast. Tenants face short-term tenure, difficulties with landlords, absentees and problems with repairs, and all the other insecurities involved in such situations, and they need, deserve and should have access to appropriate legal advice to ensure that the law is carried out and they receive the protection that is due to them.
Yes, legal aid is expensive. When it was introduced in the 1940s by the very progressive Labour Government, it was seen as part of the welfare state. The welfare state included social security, housing, health, unemployment benefits and a right to access to justice. I honestly believe that the trend of cuts in legal aid means that universal access to justice is slowly disappearing before our very eyes, and that is wrong.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab): I support everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) said from the Front Bench about the cuts in welfare rights, and I also agree with the comments by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). I shall not reiterate everything that they said as time is short, but I want to address clause 12 and ask the Minister to remove it from the Bill.
Before I go into the reasoning behind that request, I have a general caveat. What I am about to say is not a criticism of police officers. In all professions and walks of life there are people who do not do their jobs properly and have mala fide motives. Section 52 of PACE, which was introduced in 1984 by a Conservative Government, gave people arrested at a police station the right to see a solicitor of their choosing. As hon. Members may remember, that particular piece of legislation came about because of several riots over the sus laws, and Lord Scarman was asked by the then Government to investigate the cause of those riots.
In those days, under the old sus laws, the police could stop anyone walking on the street without any justification and without having to show reasonable cause. Inevitably, a lot of the people stopped were young men of Afro-Caribbean origin in London and young men from working-class backgrounds in the rest of the country. As a result of Lord Scarman’s inquiry and investigation, the then Conservative Government passed that piece of legislation, which, generally, was a good one that brought us up to date with many other countries with similar economies to ours and with what we could call western democratic institutions. We would be hard-pressed to find, in any of those countries, a defendant at a police station being denied the right to free legal advice. Taking away that right will almost put us back three centuries. It is not compatible with modern, 21st-century Britain and its place in the world.
We talk about saving money, but more money is saved when people are advised properly at a police station. I agree with the hon. Member for Dewsbury
2 Nov 2011 : Column 997
(Simon Reevell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner). From the prosecution and defence perspective, they talked about how such advice should be allowed. As someone who has both prosecuted and defended for the past 20-odd years, I think that access to legal representation at a police station is not only the fair, right and proper thing for a civilised society, such as ours, to do, but in the long term it saves money. It avoids unnecessary not-guilty pleas and saves unnecessary time going to court and prosecuting people. If people are spoken to by a solicitor, often—in most cases, I would say—solicitors advise their clients correctly. In my experience, if there is evidence against clients, the solicitors and lawyers tend to advise people to plead guilty. This proposal, therefore, will not save money, but waste more money. If the argument is about economy, I would have to point out that it is a false economy.
I shall give an example involving the Crown Prosecution Service. Following the Narey review, which looked into why so many cases going to court were leading to acquittals, Crown prosecutors started going into police stations, looking at cases and working with the police in order to speed up the criminal process. As a result of that direct input by lawyers at the beginning of the criminal prosecution system, the number of cases going for not-guilty pleas has been reduced and many more people now plead guilty.
I also want to mention the disclosure system, which was introduced under a fantastic piece of legislation brought in, again, by a Conservative Government—the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996. Prior to that, we had a system under which some police officers and police forces withheld material evidence in criminal cases, leading to many miscarriages of justice. The new disclosure regime came into being to deal with that and, as a result, everything now has to be disclosed.
Those were Conservative Government policies, which is why I am so surprised that the Government have proposed clause 12. It will not save any money, but there is a more fundamental point. The worst thing that a person can face is being arrested, detained, taken to a police station—often a very hostile environment—and having no one to speak to who understands the procedures. This proposal will remove a fundamental right.
Despite our financial difficulties, we are still a rich nation in comparison with the rest of the world. When I worked for the United Nations Mission in Kosovo, I helped to deal with criminal justice issues, and one of the first things we did when we got the system up and running was to draft—I was involved in it—the regulation of access to a lawyer for a person arrested by the police. That was 11 years ago in a country that had suffered 10 or 12 years of civil unrest. Its institutions were not working properly and it was financially not very solvent, but even there, 11 years ago, this particular provision was brought in because it was recognised that a person who is arrested and taken to a police station must have independent legal advice.
Mr Ward:
Does the hon. Lady not think it quite telling that although we had intervention after intervention from those on the Government Benches last night when it was argued that existing legislation allowed action to be taken against squatters, we have had no interventions
2 Nov 2011 : Column 998
today to explain why we are wrong about clause 12 or new clause 17, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue)?
Yasmin Qureshi: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that observation, and I agree with him.
I shall conclude my remarks, because I know that we want to get on to the next piece of business. My fundamental plea is this: please do not take away the right to legal advice at a police station.
Kate Green: I want to ask the Minister two questions about social welfare law. I also feel obliged, even at this late stage in the debate, to speak briefly to the three amendments standing in my name—amendments 69, 70 and 71—which have not yet been debated.
My first question for the Minister follows the sensible remarks of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) earlier about how the Government are making significant legislative changes to a number of areas in social welfare law. They include some that he mentioned, such as the introduction of the universal credit and the changes to disability living allowance. I would add to that the substantial changes to housing, child maintenance and the immigration system, where I can already report a shortage of supply in my constituency when it comes to accessing good advice. If legal aid is not to be available to take people through what will be a period of incredible complexity and confusion, what discussions has the Minister had with ministerial colleagues in other Departments to ensure adequate provision and funding for people to receive advice, at least in this transitional period? Failing to put that funding in place will cost the Government more rather than less.
My second question for the Minister relates to the additional £20 million of funding that has been made available to support advice agencies—or really, to cope with the loss of legal aid coverage in certain categories of law. That is particularly important in my constituency, because Trafford law centre stands to lose almost all its funding, given that it is currently funded by an immigration contract and an employment contract, both of which will go. It also receives Equality and Human Rights Commission funding, which is due to end, with a small and diminishing proportion of its funding coming from the local authority. Can the Minister tell us a bit more about the £20 million fund, which my law centre is understandably interested in, but which it rather suspects has already been earmarked to support agencies elsewhere? Is it a one-off fund or will it be available in future years? What is the process for deciding how the money will be disbursed?
Finally, my amendments 69, 70 and 71 deal with the transfer of Legal Services Commission staff to the civil service, which the Minister spoke about in his opening remarks this afternoon. My understanding is that the Bill is proceeding on the assumption that TUPE will not apply to the transfer. Of course, only the courts can finally determine whether that is the case, but in any event, the Bill should proceed on the basis that transferring employees will have at least the same protection that would apply if TUPE applied. In any event, what should apply is the Cabinet Office statement of practice on staff transfers in the public sector, paragraph 19 of which says that
“transfers at the instigation and under the control of Central Government will usually be effected through legislation,”—
2 Nov 2011 : Column 999
“in particular those involving Officeholders. Provision can then be made for staff to transfer on TUPE terms irrespective of whether the transfer is excluded from the scope of the Directive implemented by TUPE. Departments must therefore ensure that legislation effecting transfers of functions between public sector bodies makes provision for staff to transfer and on a basis that follows the principles of TUPE along with appropriate arrangements to protect occupational pension, redundancy and severance terms.”
I was grateful for the assurances that the Minister offered this afternoon on some of those points, and I understand that transferring employees will be offered membership of the premium section of the principal civil service pension scheme. I accept that that is at least as favourable as the Legal Services Commission’s own pension arrangements. The terms on which members of the LSC scheme can transfer their accrued rights to the civil service pension scheme will no doubt be set out in the transfer scheme contemplated in schedule 4. Will the Minister confirm that my understanding of the position is correct?
4.45 pm
If the TUPE regulations and the acquired rights directive that lies behind them apply, the current early retirement and severance arrangements that apply to LSC employees would continue to apply to them post-transfer. That is what the TUPE regulations and the directive require, and those arrangements provide for the early payment of enhanced pensions if an employee over the age of 50 is made redundant. If the Cabinet Office statement of practice to which I alluded earlier is to be honoured, those rights will continue to apply post-transfer. I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed whether they will. If he cannot do so this afternoon, I would be most grateful if he would write to me on that point.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans): Exceptionally, to deal with new clauses and amendments not dealt with by Mr Slaughter earlier, I call Jenny Chapman.
Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab): I speak in support of amendment 116, which would delete clause 12 from the Bill. It is with regret that I will keep my comments extremely brief. Some of the matters discussed today should really have been discussed on Monday. This regret is most keenly felt because the parents of Jane Clough are in the Gallery and had hoped to see us debate changes to bail.
Clause 12, which would allow the Government, based on either a means test or a an interest of justice test, to choose not to provide an arrested person with an independent legal adviser. The powers that the Government seek to gain were not subject to consultation and have generated significant controversy. It is not just Labour that opposes this clause. Members of all parties oppose it. The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) spoke eloquently against it in Committee and again today. Others who have spoken against it include my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), and the hon. Members for Ipswich (Ben Gummer), for
2 Nov 2011 : Column 1000
Dewsbury (Simon Reevell), for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart), and the right hon. Members for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) and for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes). Some Tory Back Benchers have told us that they, too, oppose it. The Liberal Democrats have signed the amendment, for which we are grateful.
On this issue, however, the Minister appears to be against the clause. He said to the legal action group conference:
“I am pleased to say we have no intention to take legal help away from the police station.”
It appears, however, that the Secretary of State for Justice is embarrassed by that. He tried to blame it on Labour, saying that it was one of our proposals. A few weeks later, after the bemused Labour Front-Bench team checked with the House of Commons Library, the Secretary of State’s spokesman issued the following statement:
“The remark was made in error by the Justice Secretary during the Second Reading debate. The provisions in clause 12(3)(a) and (b) are new and, so far as I know, there have not been similar provisions in any previous Bills that did not pass into legislation.”
What a shambles—but there is more!
In the Public Bill Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) subsequently said:
“My opinion is that as things stand, the practicalities are the greatest stumbling block, and costs could be significant.”––[Official Report, Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Public Bill Committee, 8 September 2011; c. 437.]
This might well be the first time a Minister has argued against his own legislation while seeking to enact it.
There was a time when people did not have access to a lawyer on arrest. Injustice after injustice propelled Parliament into action. It was, in fact, the previous Conservative Government—one who included the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke)—who enacted the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which for the first time provided a suspect in police custody with a statutory right to legal advice. A textbook on police law explains:
“By section 58 of PACE, a person arrested and held in police custody is entitled, if he so requests, to consult a solicitor privately at any time.”
I am deeply concerned. In Committee, the Minister—whose conflicts of opinion match his alleged conflicts of interest—changed his mind again. Having said earlier
“I am pleased to say we have no intention to take away legal help from the police station”,
“I am not asking the Committee’s permission to implement means-testing. I am asking for permission to introduce flexibility into the Bill, so that at a later stage it could be considered, subject to full consultation.”––[Official Report, Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Public Bill Committee, 8 September 2011; c. 436.]
We know what the Government’s consultations are like. There were 5,000 responses to their consultation on legal aid, and they ignored them all.
At present, police station advice is provided free to anyone who is arrested. What takes place in the police station often determines how the case will proceed, and whether or not the police decide to lay charges.
2 Nov 2011 : Column 1001
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab): I congratulate my hon. Friend on her speech so far. Does she agree that the Government are being penny wise and pound foolish? Their proposals present the prospect of many miscarriages of justice, which could ultimately prove very costly for them to sort out.
Mrs Chapman: I could not have put it better myself.
It is essential for people who are detained in police custody to have access to free, independent legal advice, not only because they are at their most vulnerable and because evidence obtained from people in custody may be inadmissible if they have not had access to independent legal advice, but because the presence of a solicitor makes a significant difference to the fairness of the investigation and the subsequent smooth progress of the case. It would therefore be utterly inappropriate to introduce a merit test that goes beyond the fact of arrest.
As for a means test, it would in practice deprive many people who failed it of their right to a lawyer, as they would not feel able to afford to pay privately. However, that is not the only reason for not introducing such a test. Applying it would inevitably introduce delay in the process and prevent the police from proceeding as quickly as they would wish. Clients who are in police custody will not have access to documents with which to verify their entitlements, and clients who do not pass the means test are in no position to instruct the solicitor of their choice on a private basis, because they cannot pick and choose and cannot argue about terms and conditions. In short, they will be completely disfranchised, and in the most terrifying position in which the average citizen can find himself.
It should be clear by now that we oppose the new clause. It is no good hoping and praying, as the Liberal Democrats keep doing, that it will be repealed in another place. I urge all Members to join us in the Lobby when we press it to a vote—unless, of course, the Minister has the sense to withdraw it.
Mr Djanogly: I welcome the hon. Member for Darlington (Mrs Chapman) on the occasion of her first outing at the Dispatch Box.
Most of what was said by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) concerned the scope of civil legal aid, and was therefore not directly covered by the new clauses and amendments. It would have been good if he had discussed all the amendments that he had tabled, but he could not even do that. However, he certainly showed us once again that he knows how to spend taxpayers’ money, but not how to save it. He mentioned only one saving, when he said that he would have proceeded with criminal contract competition to save money rather than cutting social welfare law. Criminal competition in line with Labour’s model would have secured a very small reduction in the £180 million spent on police station advice—a reduction of only about 10%—which is not really enough. The hon. Gentleman will have to say where else he would make cuts. When Labour tried to address contracting, it failed, and it had to pull its contracting proposals in 2009.
Amendment 123, to which the hon. Member for Hammersmith spoke, is intended to alter the provisions in relation to the independence of the director of legal aid casework. That subject was debated substantially in Committee, but having heard the hon. Gentleman speak
2 Nov 2011 : Column 1002
about it again, I still fail to understand the rationale behind the amendment, and, as I will explain, I consider it unnecessary. Let me briefly explain the role and key functions of the director, and also explain why I believe that independence is important and why it is already enshrined in the Bill.
Under the provisions, the Lord Chancellor is obliged to appoint a civil servant as a statutory office holder who will be responsible for making funding decisions in individual cases, as well as funding decisions in relation to exceptional case applications under the Bill. The statutory office holder is to be known as the director of legal aid casework. The Lord Chancellor is also obliged to provide civil servants to assist the director in carrying out their functions.
Under the new structural arrangements, clause 4 is potentially the most important provision. It ensures that the director has independence in making funding decisions, and is free from any political interference in making those decisions. That independence is enshrined specifically by subsection (4), which the hon. Member for Hammersmith wishes to delete, and which prohibits the Lord Chancellor from giving guidance or directions in individual cases. There are provisions in the clause that oblige the director to comply with directions given by the Lord Chancellor and to have regard to guidance issued by the Lord Chancellor, but crucially they cannot relate to individual cases.
The protection of the director against interference in individual cases is an important safeguard. The Bill already establishes the director in a way that maintains and protects the director’s independence of decision making. The director is a separate office from the Lord Chancellor created by statute. I therefore believe that the Bill already establishes a proper role for the director, free from any political interference in individual cases. I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Mr Llwyd: Will the Minister give way?
Mr Djanogly: I am sorry, but I do not have time to take interventions.
Mr Djanogly: No, I will not give way.
Mr Llwyd: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I want to ask the Minister whether progress has been made on introducing a clause that would allow an appeal against the granting of bail. A concession was given in Committee, and several Members have tabled amendments, but we will not reach them today. Will the Minister update us?
Mr Djanogly: I would dearly have loved to reach the provisions relating to bail, and I think the right hon. Gentleman should ask the official Opposition why we have not done so.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans): Order. Clearly, that was not a point of order, and the Minister has now dealt with the point raised.
Mr Djanogly: I shall now turn to amendments 69, 70 and 71, tabled by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), which address pensions and compensation.
2 Nov 2011 : Column 1003
Amendment 69 looks to ensure that Legal Services Commission employees transferring to the civil service are treated fairly. As drafted, the Bill and commitment between the Ministry of Justice and the LSC will achieve that. The Ministry is committed to ensuring that transferring staff are not put in a less favourable position than that of existing civil servants. The Bill protects LSC employees’ terms and conditions at the point of transfer, with the exception of those for pensions and compensation. The Bill also protects employees’ length of service.
When LSC employees transfer to the civil service, they will be enrolled as members of the premium section of the principal civil service pension scheme. The Government Actuary’s Department has determined that that scheme is “broadly comparable” to the existing LSC pension offer. Broad comparability is the standard defined by the Cabinet Office for the pension offer for staff transferred to organisations within the public sector. LSC staff will be able to choose whether to move any entitlement built up in the LSC scheme to the civil service pension scheme, or whether to leave it within the LSC scheme. Those arrangements have been communicated to LSC employees and their representatives. I will write to the hon. Lady on the TUPE point.
New clause 17 was moved by the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue). Her significant experience in the field became clear, as it also did in Committee. Many Members spoke to the new clause, including the hon. Members for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), my hon. Friends the Members for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) and for Bradford East (Mr Ward) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake).
The new clause is very broad and would widen the scope of legal aid and increase its cost at a time when we are seeking to focus funding on the highest priority cases. It would have the effect of bringing into scope areas which are not covered in schedule 1—and which we intend no longer to fund—by virtue of their interconnected and complex nature. We have undertaken a comprehensive consultation on legal aid with published impact and equality assessments, and we have received almost 5,000 responses. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington pointed out, cases will arise where it will be difficult to separate two or more legal issues in terms of funding. Under the current legal aid scheme, there are provisions in the funding code to cover mixed cases, where the case is partly in and partly out of scope. Those provisions allow funding of the whole case in certain circumstances, and in others they allow funding for aspects of the case. I am pleased to confirm to my right hon. Friend that paragraph 39 of schedule 1 ensures similar appropriate provision in the new scheme. We consider that that approach provides a more proportionate means of dealing with interconnected matters than the new clause proposed by the hon. Member for Makerfield.
5 pm
Leaving aside the technicalities, I appreciate that various right hon. and hon. Members have used the new clause as a hook to debate admittedly important issues
2 Nov 2011 : Column 1004
on the scope of social welfare law and legal aid. As anyone who attended the Committee will know, that area was of significant concern to all hon. Members, not only as a stand-alone issue, but in its interaction with the not-for-profit provision. The Government have already made a number of changes to our proposals in the area of social welfare law following consultation, which shows that we are aware of concerns and have been listening. Those changes include: retaining special educational needs cases; expanding the range of debt matters; and retaining unlawful eviction cases in scope. We will also still be spending £50 million on social welfare law post-reforms. I shall address the not-for-profit sector, but I take this opportunity to assure hon. Members that, as this Bill heads to the other place, we will continue to listen and engage on this important issue. For the reasons I have given, therefore, I urge the hon. Lady not to press her new clause to a Division.
On not-for-profit organisations, I wish to address points made by the hon. Member for Makerfield, my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington, the hon. Members for Bradford East and for Walsall South, and the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes). In order to do so, I shall speak to the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), although it should be noted that it was debated in Committee and his amendment 162 also covers ground debated then.
The primary purpose of new clause 43, as in subsection (1), is to enable funding to be made available for advice on areas of law that would otherwise have been taken out of scope. However, the important qualification to that is in the definitional provision in subsection (5), which specifies that “civil legal advice” does not include representation for the purposes of proceedings. As such, the provision is limited to the “legal help” level of service, which encompasses the range of early advice offered, in particular, by the not-for-profit sector. Amendment 162 is very similar in nature and seeks to provide funding for out of scope areas under schedule 1 at the “legal help” level.
New clause 43 and amendment 162 are unnecessary. Let me start by reiterating my statements from Committee, where I said clearly that I greatly admire the work of the UK’s not-for-profit advice centres and recognise that they are an important national asset. I can tell the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford that I very much value the advice they provide to my constituents, and I am sure that all hon. Members feel similarly. Throughout all the parliamentary debates thus far on changes to legal aid, the value and esteem that MPs and local communities place on their local advice centres has been made very clear.
In that context, I would like to deal head-on with the issue that hon. Members have raised about the provision of early advice. Let me make it clear that, as I said in Committee, I strongly agree with the argument that many people with disputes or grievances need early, good-quality general advice, and not necessarily the expertise of specialist lawyers. I acknowledge hon. Members' points and intuitively I agree with the hon. Member for Makerfield that some early advice may well have a preventive benefit in avoiding downstream costs. However, changes to legal aid should not of themselves undermine the provision of general advice. As a matter of principle,
2 Nov 2011 : Column 1005
legal aid is money that has been intended for specialist advice, not for cross-subsidising other activities, as the amendments appear to provide for. I say to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) that, as a matter of practice, legal aid represents only one of several income streams for many organisations. For example, 85% of citizens advice bureaux funding comes from other sources, with half of all bureaux getting no legal aid funding whatsoever.
The Government share the views raised by hon. Members and want to see a robust and sustainable not-for-profit advice sector. We have heard and considered carefully the concerns about the risks that a combination of funding changes presents, and we intend to keep the conversation with the advice sector going. The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) asked about this area, and I can tell her that the £107 million transition fund made available last December is testament to a pan-government commitment to general, practical advice that empowers individuals in resolving their issues.
In addition, the Lord Chancellor announced £20 million for this financial year to support not-for-profit agencies delivering front-line services. Both citizens advice bureaux and advice centres more widely will be able to bid for that. Work between Departments on the administration of the fund is proceeding well. I hope and expect that the Cabinet Office will make an announcement shortly to provide the detailed terms of the fund. A review of free advice centres will be launched to ensure that we are doing all we can to support the sector. The review will start in early November and conclude early in the new year. It will look at the future funding for these services and likely levels of demand, and will focus on what Government can do to help the sector.
My right hon. Friends the Members for Bermondsey and Old Southwark and for Carshalton and Wallington and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne all spoke about help for complicated benefits advice. They will appreciate that that is very much to do with identifying what should be dealt with as legal advice and what should be dealt with as early general advice. It is this type of issue that the review will need to cover, so yes, we will be looking carefully at these issues not again, but on an ongoing basis.
Subsection (2) of new clause 43 seeks to provide the Lord Chancellor with a power to enter into arrangements regarding the funding and delivery of services, and specifies the nature of the funding arrangements that the Lord Chancellor may enter into. This is an unnecessary amendment because the Lord Chancellor enjoys wide powers to enter into any arrangements under clause 2, pursuant to his duty to provide legal aid under clause 1. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr to withdraw his amendments.
Let me agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith)—my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington, and the hon. Members for Hammersmith and for Makerfield made the same sort of points—that the Departments of State need to make better decisions at an earlier stage, leading to fewer appeals. I can tell hon. Members that I have been working closely with Ministers in the relevant Departments to that end and I will continue to do so.
2 Nov 2011 : Column 1006
The hon. Member for Walsall South said that she was concerned about the removal of education. I can confirm that we will now retain legal aid for special educational needs and discrimination matters relating to the contravention of the Equality Act 2010.
The hon. Members for Hammersmith and for Makerfield spoke about welfare benefits law being complex and asked how claimants could prepare their own tribunal applications. In most cases individuals will be able to appeal to the first tier social security and child support tribunal without formal legal assistance. The appellant is required only to provide reasons for disagreeing with the decision in plain language. According to the 2007-08 report by the president of the tribunal, it is a regular theme at the tribunal that DWP decisions are most commonly overturned because the tribunal elicits additional information from the appellant, rather than through legal arguments. So success is clearly not generally dependent on the appellant receiving legal advice.
Finally, on clause 12, many points were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart), my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington, the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer), my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Simon Reevell), and the hon. Members for Islington North and for Bolton South East. The final series of amendments—90, 104, 116, 125 and 148—seek to amend clause 12, which deals with legal aid determination for individuals arrested and held in custody in a police station or other premises.
I should point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West and the hon. Member for Darlington who spoke to the amendment that amendment 116 would remove clause 12 entirely, which would mean that the Bill would make no provision at all for individuals held in custody at a police station or other premises to be provided with initial advice and initial assistance. Surely that is not the hon. Lady’s or any other hon. Member’s intention. She may therefore wish to reconsider whether a Division is appropriate on the amendment.
Many right hon. and hon. Members made serious and appropriate points. Having heard what has been said and having considered the issue, I appreciate that there are many deeply held concerns across the House and more widely on both the principle and the practicality of means-testing for advice and assistance for those in police custody and in relation to the concept of contingent legislation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich said. I can confirm that we will, therefore, carefully review our approach to these clause issues as the Bill goes through its stages in another place.
Karl Turner: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Simon Reevell) referred in his remarks to claims that the previous Government planned to legislate for means-testing in police stations. The Lord Chancellor wrote to my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State on 2 August. Will the Government confirm that he wrote to apologise and that the letter will appear in the Library?
2 Nov 2011 : Column 1007
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): That is not a point of order, but the hon. Gentleman has certainly got it on the record.
New clause 4 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
‘Schedule [Northern Ireland: information about financial resources] (Northern Ireland: information about financial resources) has effect.’.—(Mr Djanogly.)
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
‘(1) Civil legal services other than services described in Part 1 of Schedule 1 are to be available to an individual under this Part if subsection (2) is satisfied.
(2) This subsection is satisfied where the Director—
(a) has made a complex case determination in relation to the individual and the services, and
(b) has determined that the individual qualifies for the services in accordance with this Part,
(and has not withdrawn either determination).
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), a complex case determination is a determination—
(a) that the individual has complex, interconnected needs in relation to which the individual requires comprehensive civil legal services, and
(b) not all of those civil legal services would otherwise be available to the individual because they do not all fall within the scope of Schedule 1.’.—(Yvonne Fovargue.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The House divided:
Ayes 238, Noes 301.
[5.11 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane
Abrahams, Debbie
Ainsworth, rh Mr Bob
Alexander, rh Mr Douglas
Alexander, Heidi
Ali, Rushanara
Ashworth, Jonathan
Austin, Ian
Bailey, Mr Adrian
Bain, Mr William
Balls, rh Ed
Banks, Gordon
Barron, rh Mr Kevin
Beckett, rh Margaret
Begg, Dame Anne
Benn, rh Hilary
Berger, Luciana
Betts, Mr Clive
Blackman-Woods, Roberta
Blears, rh Hazel
Blenkinsop, Tom
Blomfield, Paul
Blunkett, rh Mr David
Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben
Brake, rh Tom
Brennan, Kevin
Brown, Lyn
Brown, rh Mr Nicholas
Brown, Mr Russell
Bryant, Chris
Buck, Ms Karen
Burden, Richard
Burnham, rh Andy
Byrne, rh Mr Liam
Campbell, Mr Alan
Campbell, Mr Ronnie
Caton, Martin
Chapman, Mrs Jenny
Clark, Katy
Clarke, rh Mr Tom
Coffey, Ann
Connarty, Michael
Cooper, Rosie
Cooper, rh Yvette
Corbyn, Jeremy
Crausby, Mr David
Creagh, Mary
Creasy, Stella
Crockart, Mike
Cruddas, Jon
Cryer, John
Cunningham, Alex
Cunningham, Mr Jim
Cunningham, Tony
Curran, Margaret
Danczuk, Simon
Darling, rh Mr Alistair
David, Mr Wayne
Davies, Geraint
De Piero, Gloria
Dobbin, Jim
Dobson, rh Frank
Docherty, Thomas
Dodds, rh Mr Nigel
Donohoe, Mr Brian H.
Doran, Mr Frank
Dowd, Jim
Doyle, Gemma
Dugher, Michael
Eagle, Ms Angela
Eagle, Maria
Edwards, Jonathan
Efford, Clive
Elliott, Julie
Ellman, Mrs Louise
Engel, Natascha
Esterson, Bill
Evans, Chris
Farrelly, Paul
Field, rh Mr Frank
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Flint, rh Caroline
Flynn, Paul
Fovargue, Yvonne
Francis, Dr Hywel
Gardiner, Barry
George, Andrew
Gilmore, Sheila
Glass, Pat
Glindon, Mrs Mary
Godsiff, Mr Roger
Goggins, rh Paul
Goodman, Helen
Greatrex, Tom
Green, Kate
Greenwood, Lilian
Griffith, Nia
Gwynne, Andrew
Hain, rh Mr Peter
Hamilton, Mr David
Hamilton, Fabian
Hancock, Mr Mike
Hanson, rh Mr David
Harman, rh Ms Harriet
Havard, Mr Dai
Healey, rh John
Heyes, David
Hillier, Meg
Hilling, Julie
Hodge, rh Margaret
Hodgson, Mrs Sharon
Hoey, Kate
Hood, Mr Jim
Hopkins, Kelvin
Horwood, Martin
Howarth, rh Mr George
Hughes, rh Simon
Hunt, Tristram
Irranca-Davies, Huw
Jackson, Glenda
Jamieson, Cathy
Jarvis, Dan
Johnson, rh Alan
Johnson, Diana
Jones, Graham
Jones, Helen
Jones, Mr Kevan
Jones, Susan Elan
Jowell, rh Tessa
Joyce, Eric
Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald
Keeley, Barbara
Kendall, Liz
Khan, rh Sadiq
Lammy, rh Mr David
Lavery, Ian
Lazarowicz, Mark
Leslie, Chris
Lewis, Mr Ivan
Lloyd, Stephen
Lloyd, Tony
Llwyd, rh Mr Elfyn
Long, Naomi
Love, Mr Andrew
Lucas, Caroline
Lucas, Ian
MacShane, rh Mr Denis
Mactaggart, Fiona
Mahmood, Mr Khalid
Mahmood, Shabana
Mann, John
McCabe, Steve
McCann, Mr Michael
McCarthy, Kerry
McClymont, Gregg
McDonagh, Siobhain
McDonnell, John
McFadden, rh Mr Pat
McGovern, Alison
McGovern, Jim
McGuire, rh Mrs Anne
McKechin, Ann
McKenzie, Mr Iain
McKinnell, Catherine
Meacher, rh Mr Michael
Mearns, Ian
Michael, rh Alun
Miliband, rh David
Miller, Andrew
Mitchell, Austin
Morden, Jessica
Morrice, Graeme
(Livingston)
Morris, Grahame M.
(Easington)
Mudie, Mr George
Mulholland, Greg
Munn, Meg
Murphy, rh Mr Jim
Murphy, rh Paul
Murray, Ian
Nandy, Lisa
Nash, Pamela
O'Donnell, Fiona
Onwurah, Chi
Osborne, Sandra
Owen, Albert
Pearce, Teresa
Perkins, Toby
Pound, Stephen
Qureshi, Yasmin
Raynsford, rh Mr Nick
Reed, Mr Jamie
Reeves, Rachel
Reynolds, Emma
Riordan, Mrs Linda
Robertson, John
Robinson, Mr Geoffrey
Rotheram, Steve
Roy, Lindsay
Ruddock, rh Joan
Sarwar, Anas
Seabeck, Alison
Shannon, Jim
Sharma, Mr Virendra
Sheerman, Mr Barry
Shuker, Gavin
Skinner, Mr Dennis
Slaughter, Mr Andy
Smith, rh Mr Andrew
Smith, Angela
Smith, Nick
Smith, Owen
Spellar, rh Mr John
Straw, rh Mr Jack
Stringer, Graham
Sutcliffe, Mr Gerry
Swales, Ian
Tami, Mark
Thomas, Mr Gareth
Thornberry, Emily
Trickett, Jon
Turner, Karl
Twigg, Derek
Twigg, Stephen
Vaz, rh Keith
Vaz, Valerie
Walley, Joan
Ward, Mr David
Watson, Mr Tom
Whitehead, Dr Alan
Williams, Hywel
Williamson, Chris
Wilson, Phil
Winnick, Mr David
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie
Wood, Mike
Woodcock, John
Wright, David
Wright, Mr Iain
Tellers for the Ayes:
Nic Dakin and
Mark Hendrick
NOES
Adams, Nigel
Afriyie, Adam
Aldous, Peter
Alexander, rh Danny
Andrew, Stuart
Arbuthnot, rh Mr James
Bacon, Mr Richard
Baker, Norman
Baker, Steve
Baldry, Tony
Baldwin, Harriett
Barclay, Stephen
Barker, Gregory
Baron, Mr John
Barwell, Gavin
Bebb, Guto
Beith, rh Sir Alan
Beresford, Sir Paul
Berry, Jake
Bingham, Andrew
Binley, Mr Brian
Birtwistle, Gordon
Blackman, Bob
Blackwood, Nicola
Blunt, Mr Crispin
Boles, Nick
Bone, Mr Peter
Bottomley, Sir Peter
Bradley, Karen
Brady, Mr Graham
Bray, Angie
Brazier, Mr Julian
Bridgen, Andrew
Brine, Steve
Brokenshire, James
Browne, Mr Jeremy
Bruce, Fiona
Bruce, rh Malcolm
Buckland, Mr Robert
Burley, Mr Aidan
Burns, Conor
Burns, rh Mr Simon
Burrowes, Mr David
Burstow, Paul
Burt, Lorely
Byles, Dan
Cairns, Alun
Campbell, rh Sir Menzies
Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair
Carmichael, Neil
Carswell, Mr Douglas
Cash, Mr William
Chishti, Rehman
Chope, Mr Christopher
Clappison, Mr James
Clark, rh Greg
Clarke, rh Mr Kenneth
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Coffey, Dr Thérèse
Collins, Damian
Cox, Mr Geoffrey
Crabb, Stephen
Crouch, Tracey
Davey, Mr Edward
Davies, David T. C.
(Monmouth)
Davies, Glyn
Davis, rh Mr David
de Bois, Nick
Djanogly, Mr Jonathan
Dorrell, rh Mr Stephen
Dorries, Nadine
Doyle-Price, Jackie
Duddridge, James
Duncan, rh Mr Alan
Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain
Dunne, Mr Philip
Ellis, Michael
Ellison, Jane
Ellwood, Mr Tobias
Elphicke, Charlie
Eustice, George
Evans, Graham
Evans, Jonathan
Evennett, Mr David
Fabricant, Michael
Fallon, Michael
Farron, Tim
Featherstone, Lynne
Field, Mark
Foster, rh Mr Don
Francois, rh Mr Mark
Freeman, George
Freer, Mike
Fullbrook, Lorraine
Gale, Mr Roger
Garnier, Mr Edward
Gauke, Mr David
Gibb, Mr Nick
Gilbert, Stephen
Glen, John
Goldsmith, Zac
Goodwill, Mr Robert
Graham, Richard
Gray, Mr James
Grayling, rh Chris
Green, Damian
Greening, rh Justine
Griffiths, Andrew
Gummer, Ben
Gyimah, Mr Sam
Halfon, Robert
Hames, Duncan
Hammond, Stephen
Hancock, Matthew
Hands, Greg
Harper, Mr Mark
Harrington, Richard
Harris, Rebecca
Hart, Simon
Hayes, Mr John
Heald, Oliver
Heath, Mr David
Heaton-Harris, Chris
Hemming, John
Hendry, Charles
Herbert, rh Nick
Hinds, Damian
Hoban, Mr Mark
Hollingbery, George
Holloway, Mr Adam
Hopkins, Kris
Howarth, Mr Gerald
Howell, John
Huhne, rh Chris
Hurd, Mr Nick
Jackson, Mr Stewart
James, Margot
Javid, Sajid
Jenkin, Mr Bernard
Johnson, Gareth
Johnson, Joseph
Jones, Andrew
Jones, Mr David
Jones, Mr Marcus
Kawczynski, Daniel
Kelly, Chris
Kirby, Simon
Knight, rh Mr Greg
Kwarteng, Kwasi
Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Lamb, Norman
Latham, Pauline
Laws, rh Mr David
Leadsom, Andrea
Lee, Jessica
Lee, Dr Phillip
Leech, Mr John
Lefroy, Jeremy
Leigh, Mr Edward
Leslie, Charlotte
Letwin, rh Mr Oliver
Lewis, Brandon
Lewis, Dr Julian
Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian
Lidington, rh Mr David
Lilley, rh Mr Peter
Lord, Jonathan
Loughton, Tim
Luff, Peter
Lumley, Karen
Macleod, Mary
Main, Mrs Anne
May, rh Mrs Theresa
Maynard, Paul
McCartney, Jason
McCartney, Karl
McIntosh, Miss Anne
McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick
McPartland, Stephen
Mensch, Louise
Menzies, Mark
Mercer, Patrick
Metcalfe, Stephen
Miller, Maria
Milton, Anne
Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew
Moore, rh Michael
Mordaunt, Penny
Morgan, Nicky
Morris, Anne Marie
Morris, David
Morris, James
Mosley, Stephen
Mowat, David
Mundell, rh David
Munt, Tessa
Murray, Sheryll
Murrison, Dr Andrew
Neill, Robert
Newmark, Mr Brooks
Newton, Sarah
Nokes, Caroline
Norman, Jesse
Nuttall, Mr David
Offord, Mr Matthew
Ollerenshaw, Eric
Opperman, Guy
Parish, Neil
Patel, Priti
Paterson, rh Mr Owen
Pawsey, Mark
Penning, Mike
Penrose, John
Percy, Andrew
Perry, Claire
Phillips, Stephen
Pickles, rh Mr Eric
Pincher, Christopher
Prisk, Mr Mark
Pritchard, Mark
Pugh, John
Raab, Mr Dominic
Randall, rh Mr John
Reckless, Mark
Redwood, rh Mr John
Rees-Mogg, Jacob
Reevell, Simon
Reid, Mr Alan
Rifkind, rh Sir Malcolm
Robathan, rh Mr Andrew
Rogerson, Dan
Rudd, Amber
Ruffley, Mr David
Russell, Bob
Rutley, David
Sanders, Mr Adrian
Sandys, Laura
Scott, Mr Lee
Selous, Andrew
Shapps, rh Grant
Sharma, Alok
Shelbrooke, Alec
Shepherd, Mr Richard
Simmonds, Mark
Simpson, Mr Keith
Skidmore, Chris
Smith, Miss Chloe
Smith, Henry
Smith, Julian
Smith, Sir Robert
Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline
Spencer, Mr Mark
Stephenson, Andrew
Stevenson, John
Stewart, Bob
Stewart, Iain
Stride, Mel
Stuart, Mr Graham
Stunell, Andrew
Sturdy, Julian
Swayne, rh Mr Desmond
Swinson, Jo
Swire, rh Mr Hugo
Syms, Mr Robert
Tapsell, rh Sir Peter
Teather, Sarah
Thurso, John
Timpson, Mr Edward
Tomlinson, Justin
Tredinnick, David
Truss, Elizabeth
Turner, Mr Andrew
Tyrie, Mr Andrew
Uppal, Paul
Vara, Mr Shailesh
Vickers, Martin
Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa
Walker, Mr Charles
Wallace, Mr Ben
Walter, Mr Robert
Watkinson, Angela
Weatherley, Mike
Webb, Steve
Wharton, James
Wheeler, Heather
White, Chris
Whittaker, Craig
Whittingdale, Mr John
Wiggin, Bill
Willetts, rh Mr David
Williams, Mr Mark
Williams, Roger
Williams, Stephen
Williamson, Gavin
Willott, Jenny
Wilson, Mr Rob
Wollaston, Dr Sarah
Wright, Simon
Yeo, Mr Tim
Young, rh Sir George
Zahawi, Nadhim
Tellers for the Noes:
Mark Hunter and
Jeremy Wright
Question accordingly negatived.
2 Nov 2011 : Column 1008
2 Nov 2011 : Column 1009
2 Nov 2011 : Column 1010
2 Nov 2011 : Column 1011
Obtaining information
1 (1) The relevant authority may make an information request to—
(b) a relevant Northern Ireland Department, or
(c) the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (“the Commissioners”).
(2) An information request may be made under this paragraph only for the purposes of facilitating a determination about an individual’s financial resources for the purposes of —
(a) the Legal Aid, Advice and Assistance (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/228 (N.I. 8)), or
(b) the Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 (S.I. 2003/435) (N.I. 10)).
(3) An information request made to the Secretary of State or a relevant Northern Ireland Department under this paragraph may request the disclosure of some or all of the following information—
(a) a relevant individual’s full name and any previous names;
(b) a relevant individual’s address and any previous addresses;
(c) a relevant individual’s date of birth;
(d) a relevant individual’s national insurance number;
2 Nov 2011 : Column 1012
(e) a relevant individual’s benefit status at a time specified in the request;
(f) information of a prescribed description.
(4) An information request made to the Commissioners under this paragraph may request the disclosure of some or all of the following information—
(a) whether or not a relevant individual is employed or was employed at a time specified in the request;
(b) the name and address of the employer;
(c) whether or not a relevant individual is carrying on a business, trade or profession or was doing so at a time specified in the request;
(d) the name under which it is or was carried on;
(e) the address of any premises used for the purposes of carrying it on;
(f) a relevant individual’s national insurance number;
(g) a relevant individual’s benefit status at a time specified in the request;
(h) information of a prescribed description.
(5) The information that may be prescribed under sub-paragraphs (3)(f) and (4)(h) includes, in particular, information relating to—
(a) prescribed income of a relevant individual for a prescribed period, and
(b) prescribed capital of a relevant individual.
(6) Information may not be prescribed under sub-paragraph (4)(h) without the Commissioners’ consent.
(7) The Secretary of State, the relevant Northern Ireland Departments and the Commissioners may disclose to the relevant authority information specified in an information request made under this paragraph.
“benefit status”, in relation to an individual, means whether or not the individual is in receipt of a prescribed benefit or benefits and, if so—
(a) which benefit or benefits the individual is receiving,(b) whether the individual is entitled to the benefit or benefits alone or jointly,(c) in prescribed cases, the amount the individual is receiving by way of the benefit (or each of the benefits) (“the benefit amount”), and(d) in prescribed cases, where the benefit consists of a number of elements, what those elements are and the amount included in respect of each element in calculating the benefit amount;
“financial resources”, in relation to an individual, includes an individual’s means, disposable income and disposable capital;
“the relevant authority” means—
(a) a prescribed person, or(b) in relation to circumstances for which no person is prescribed, the chief executive of the Northern Ireland Legal Services Commission;
“a relevant individual”, in relation to an information request under this paragraph for the purposes of a determination about an individual’s financial resources, means—
(a) that individual, and(b) any other individual whose financial resources are or may be relevant for the purposes of the determination;
“relevant Northern Ireland Department” means the Department for Social Development in Northern Ireland or the Department of Finance and Personnel in Northern Ireland.
2 Nov 2011 : Column 1013
Restrictions on disclosing information
2 (1) A person to whom information is disclosed under paragraph 1 of this Schedule or this sub-paragraph may disclose the information to any person to whom its disclosure is necessary or expedient in connection with facilitating a determination described in paragraph 1(2).
(2) A person to whom such information is disclosed must not—
(a) disclose the information other than in accordance with sub-paragraph (1), or
(b) use the information other than for the purpose of facilitating a determination described in paragraph 1(2).
(3) Sub-paragraph (2) does not prevent—
(a) the disclosure of information in accordance with an enactment or an order of a court,
(b) the disclosure of information for the purposes of the investigation or prosecution of an offence (or suspected offence) under the law of England and Wales or Northern Ireland or any other jurisdiction, except as otherwise prescribed,
(c) the disclosure of information for the purposes of instituting, or otherwise for the purposes of, proceedings before a court, or
(d) the disclosure of information which has previously been lawfully disclosed to the public.
(4) A person who discloses or uses information in contravention of this paragraph is guilty of an offence and liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine (or both);
(i) in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both), and
(ii) in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both).
(5) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this paragraph to prove that the person reasonably believed that the disclosure or use was lawful.
(6) In this paragraph “enactment” includes—
(a) an enactment contained subordinate legislation (within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978), and
(b) an enactment contained in, or in an instrument made under, an Act or Measure of the National Assembly for Wales or Northern Ireland legislation.
(7) In relation to an offence under this paragraph committed before the commencement of section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the reference in sub-paragraph (4)(b)(i) to 12 months has effect as if it were a reference to 6 months.
Power to make consequential and supplementary provision etc
3 (1) The Department of Justice in Northern Ireland may by regulations make consequential, supplementary, incidental or transitional provision in relation to this Schedule extending to Northern Ireland.
(2) The regulations may, in particular—
(a) amend, repeal, revoke or otherwise modify Northern Ireland legislation passed before this Schedule comes into force or an instrument made under such legislation, and
(b) include transitory or saving provision.
Regulations
4 (1) In this Schedule “prescribed” means prescribed by regulations made by the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland.
(2) The powers under this Schedule to make regulations are exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1573 (N.I. 12)).
2 Nov 2011 : Column 1014
(3) Regulations under this Schedule are subject to negative resolution within the meaning of section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954, subject to sub-paragraph (4).
(4) The following regulations may not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Northern Ireland Assembly—
(a) the first regulations under paragraph 1, and
(b) regulations under paragraph 3 that amend or repeal Northern Ireland legislation (whether alone or with other provision).
(5) Section 41(3) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 applies for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) in relation to the laying of a draft as it applies in relation to the laying of a statutory document under an enactment (as defined in that Act).
(6) Subsections (1) to (3) of section 38 apply in relation to regulations made under paragraph 1 or 2 of this Schedule as they apply in relation to regulations made by the Lord Chancellor under this Part.’.—(Mr Djanogly.)
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Amendment proposed: 116, page 8, line 29, leave out Clause 12.—(Mr Slaughter.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The House divided:
Ayes 233, Noes 298.
[5.25 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane
Abrahams, Debbie
Ainsworth, rh Mr Bob
Alexander, rh Mr Douglas
Alexander, Heidi
Ali, Rushanara
Ashworth, Jonathan
Austin, Ian
Bailey, Mr Adrian
Bain, Mr William
Balls, rh Ed
Banks, Gordon
Barron, rh Mr Kevin
Beckett, rh Margaret
Begg, Dame Anne
Benn, rh Hilary
Berger, Luciana
Betts, Mr Clive
Blackman-Woods, Roberta
Blears, rh Hazel
Blenkinsop, Tom
Blomfield, Paul
Blunkett, rh Mr David
Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben
Brennan, Kevin
Brown, Lyn
Brown, rh Mr Nicholas
Brown, Mr Russell
Bryant, Chris
Buck, Ms Karen
Burden, Richard
Burnham, rh Andy
Byrne, rh Mr Liam
Campbell, Mr Alan
Campbell, Mr Ronnie
Caton, Martin
Chapman, Mrs Jenny
Clark, Katy
Clarke, rh Mr Tom
Coffey, Ann
Connarty, Michael
Cooper, Rosie
Cooper, rh Yvette
Corbyn, Jeremy
Crausby, Mr David
Creagh, Mary
Creasy, Stella
Cruddas, Jon
Cryer, John
Cunningham, Alex
Cunningham, Mr Jim
Cunningham, Tony
Curran, Margaret
Danczuk, Simon
David, Mr Wayne
Davidson, Mr Ian
Davies, Geraint
De Piero, Gloria
Dobbin, Jim
Dobson, rh Frank
Docherty, Thomas
Dodds, rh Mr Nigel
Donohoe, Mr Brian H.
Doran, Mr Frank
Dowd, Jim
Doyle, Gemma
Dugher, Michael
Eagle, Ms Angela
Eagle, Maria
Edwards, Jonathan
Efford, Clive
Elliott, Julie
Ellman, Mrs Louise
Engel, Natascha
Esterson, Bill
Evans, Chris
Farrelly, Paul
Field, rh Mr Frank
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Flello, Robert
Flint, rh Caroline
Flynn, Paul
Fovargue, Yvonne
Francis, Dr Hywel
Gardiner, Barry
George, Andrew
Gilmore, Sheila
Glass, Pat
Glindon, Mrs Mary
Godsiff, Mr Roger
Goggins, rh Paul
Goodman, Helen
Greatrex, Tom
Green, Kate
Greenwood, Lilian
Griffith, Nia
Gwynne, Andrew
Hain, rh Mr Peter
Hamilton, Mr David
Hamilton, Fabian
Hancock, Mr Mike
Hanson, rh Mr David
Havard, Mr Dai
Healey, rh John
Heyes, David
Hillier, Meg
Hilling, Julie
Hodge, rh Margaret
Hodgson, Mrs Sharon
Hoey, Kate
Hood, Mr Jim
Hopkins, Kelvin
Howarth, rh Mr George
Hunt, Tristram
Irranca-Davies, Huw
Jackson, Glenda
Jamieson, Cathy
Jarvis, Dan
Johnson, rh Alan
Johnson, Diana
Jones, Graham
Jones, Helen
Jones, Mr Kevan
Jones, Susan Elan
Jowell, rh Tessa
Joyce, Eric
Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald
Keeley, Barbara
Kendall, Liz
Khan, rh Sadiq
Lammy, rh Mr David
Lavery, Ian
Lazarowicz, Mark
Leech, Mr John
Leslie, Chris
Lewis, Mr Ivan
Lloyd, Tony
Llwyd, rh Mr Elfyn
Long, Naomi
Love, Mr Andrew
Lucas, Caroline
Lucas, Ian
MacShane, rh Mr Denis
Mactaggart, Fiona
Mahmood, Mr Khalid
Mahmood, Shabana
Mann, John
McCabe, Steve
McCann, Mr Michael
McCarthy, Kerry
McClymont, Gregg
McDonagh, Siobhain
McDonnell, John
McFadden, rh Mr Pat
McGovern, Alison
McGovern, Jim
McGuire, rh Mrs Anne
McKechin, Ann
McKenzie, Mr Iain
McKinnell, Catherine
Meacher, rh Mr Michael
Mearns, Ian
Michael, rh Alun
Miliband, rh David
Miller, Andrew
Mitchell, Austin
Morden, Jessica
Morrice, Graeme
(Livingston)
Morris, Grahame M.
(Easington)
Mudie, Mr George
Mulholland, Greg
Munn, Meg
Murphy, rh Mr Jim
Murphy, rh Paul
Murray, Ian
Nandy, Lisa
Nash, Pamela
O'Donnell, Fiona
Onwurah, Chi
Osborne, Sandra
Owen, Albert
Pearce, Teresa
Perkins, Toby
Qureshi, Yasmin
Raynsford, rh Mr Nick
Reed, Mr Jamie
Reeves, Rachel
Reynolds, Emma
Riordan, Mrs Linda
Robertson, John
Robinson, Mr Geoffrey
Rotheram, Steve
Roy, Lindsay
Ruddock, rh Joan
Sarwar, Anas
Seabeck, Alison
Shannon, Jim
Sharma, Mr Virendra
Sheerman, Mr Barry
Shuker, Gavin
Skinner, Mr Dennis
Slaughter, Mr Andy
Smith, rh Mr Andrew
Smith, Angela
Smith, Nick
Smith, Owen
Spellar, rh Mr John
Straw, rh Mr Jack
Stringer, Graham
Sutcliffe, Mr Gerry
Swales, Ian
Tami, Mark
Thomas, Mr Gareth
Thornberry, Emily
Trickett, Jon
Turner, Karl
Twigg, Derek
Twigg, Stephen
Vaz, rh Keith
Vaz, Valerie
Walley, Joan
Ward, Mr David
Watson, Mr Tom
Whitehead, Dr Alan
Williams, Hywel
Williamson, Chris
Wilson, Phil
Winnick, Mr David
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie
Wood, Mike
Woodcock, John
Wright, David
Wright, Mr Iain
Tellers for the Ayes:
Nic Dakin and
Mark Hendrick
NOES
Adams, Nigel
Afriyie, Adam
Aldous, Peter
Alexander, rh Danny
Amess, Mr David
Andrew, Stuart
Arbuthnot, rh Mr James
Bacon, Mr Richard
Baker, Norman
Baker, Steve
Baldry, Tony
Baldwin, Harriett
Barclay, Stephen
Barker, Gregory
Baron, Mr John
Barwell, Gavin
Bebb, Guto
Beresford, Sir Paul
Berry, Jake
Bingham, Andrew
Binley, Mr Brian
Birtwistle, Gordon
Blackman, Bob
Blackwood, Nicola
Blunt, Mr Crispin
Boles, Nick
Bone, Mr Peter
Bottomley, Sir Peter
Bradley, Karen
Brady, Mr Graham
Bray, Angie
Brazier, Mr Julian
Bridgen, Andrew
Brine, Steve
Brokenshire, James
Browne, Mr Jeremy
Bruce, Fiona
Bruce, rh Malcolm
Buckland, Mr Robert
Burley, Mr Aidan
Burns, Conor
Burns, rh Mr Simon
Burrowes, Mr David
Burstow, Paul
Burt, Lorely
Byles, Dan
Cairns, Alun
Campbell, rh Sir Menzies
Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair
Carmichael, Neil
Carswell, Mr Douglas
Cash, Mr William
Chishti, Rehman
Chope, Mr Christopher
Clappison, Mr James
Clark, rh Greg
Clarke, rh Mr Kenneth
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Coffey, Dr Thérèse
Collins, Damian
Cox, Mr Geoffrey
Crabb, Stephen
Crouch, Tracey
Davey, Mr Edward
Davies, David T. C.
(Monmouth)
Davies, Glyn
Davis, rh Mr David
de Bois, Nick
Djanogly, Mr Jonathan
Dorrell, rh Mr Stephen
Dorries, Nadine
Doyle-Price, Jackie
Duddridge, James
Duncan, rh Mr Alan
Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain
Dunne, Mr Philip
Ellis, Michael
Ellison, Jane
Ellwood, Mr Tobias
Elphicke, Charlie
Eustice, George
Evans, Graham
Evans, Jonathan
Evennett, Mr David
Fabricant, Michael
Fallon, Michael
Farron, Tim
Featherstone, Lynne
Field, Mark
Francois, rh Mr Mark
Freeman, George
Freer, Mike
Fullbrook, Lorraine
Gale, Mr Roger
Garnier, Mr Edward
Gauke, Mr David
Gibb, Mr Nick
Gilbert, Stephen
Glen, John
Goodwill, Mr Robert
Graham, Richard
Gray, Mr James
Grayling, rh Chris
Green, Damian
Greening, rh Justine
Griffiths, Andrew
Gummer, Ben
Gyimah, Mr Sam
Halfon, Robert
Hames, Duncan
Hammond, Stephen
Hancock, Matthew
Hancock, Mr Mike
Hands, Greg
Harper, Mr Mark
Harrington, Richard
Harris, Rebecca
Hart, Simon
Hayes, Mr John
Heald, Oliver
Heath, Mr David
Heaton-Harris, Chris
Hemming, John
Hendry, Charles
Herbert, rh Nick
Hinds, Damian
Hoban, Mr Mark
Hollingbery, George
Holloway, Mr Adam
Hopkins, Kris
Howarth, Mr Gerald
Howell, John
Huhne, rh Chris
Hurd, Mr Nick
Jackson, Mr Stewart
James, Margot
Javid, Sajid
Jenkin, Mr Bernard
Johnson, Gareth
Johnson, Joseph
Jones, Andrew
Jones, Mr David
Jones, Mr Marcus
Kawczynski, Daniel
Kelly, Chris
Kirby, Simon
Knight, rh Mr Greg
Kwarteng, Kwasi
Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Lamb, Norman
Latham, Pauline
Laws, rh Mr David
Leadsom, Andrea
Lee, Jessica
Lee, Dr Phillip
Lefroy, Jeremy
Leigh, Mr Edward
Leslie, Charlotte
Letwin, rh Mr Oliver
Lewis, Brandon
Lewis, Dr Julian
Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian
Lidington, rh Mr David
Lilley, rh Mr Peter
Lloyd, Stephen
Lord, Jonathan
Loughton, Tim
Luff, Peter
Lumley, Karen
Macleod, Mary
Main, Mrs Anne
May, rh Mrs Theresa
Maynard, Paul
McCartney, Jason
McCartney, Karl
McIntosh, Miss Anne
McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick
McPartland, Stephen
Mensch, Louise
Menzies, Mark
Mercer, Patrick
Metcalfe, Stephen
Miller, Maria
Milton, Anne
Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew
Moore, rh Michael
Mordaunt, Penny
Morgan, Nicky
Morris, Anne Marie
Morris, David
Morris, James
Mosley, Stephen
Mowat, David
Mundell, rh David
Munt, Tessa
Murray, Sheryll
Murrison, Dr Andrew
Neill, Robert
Newmark, Mr Brooks
Newton, Sarah
Nokes, Caroline
Norman, Jesse
Nuttall, Mr David
Offord, Mr Matthew
Ollerenshaw, Eric
Opperman, Guy
Paice, rh Mr James
Parish, Neil
Patel, Priti
Paterson, rh Mr Owen
Pawsey, Mark
Penning, Mike
Penrose, John
Percy, Andrew
Perry, Claire
Phillips, Stephen
Pickles, rh Mr Eric
Pincher, Christopher
Prisk, Mr Mark
Pritchard, Mark
Raab, Mr Dominic
Randall, rh Mr John
Reckless, Mark
Redwood, rh Mr John
Rees-Mogg, Jacob
Reid, Mr Alan
Rifkind, rh Sir Malcolm
Robathan, rh Mr Andrew
Rogerson, Dan
Rudd, Amber
Ruffley, Mr David
Russell, Bob
Rutley, David
Sandys, Laura
Scott, Mr Lee
Selous, Andrew
Shapps, rh Grant
Sharma, Alok
Shelbrooke, Alec
Shepherd, Mr Richard
Simmonds, Mark
Simpson, Mr Keith
Skidmore, Chris
Smith, Miss Chloe
Smith, Henry
Smith, Julian
Smith, Sir Robert
Soames, rh Nicholas
Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline
Spencer, Mr Mark
Stephenson, Andrew
Stevenson, John
Stewart, Bob
Stewart, Iain
Stride, Mel
Stuart, Mr Graham
Stunell, Andrew
Sturdy, Julian
Swales, Ian
Swayne, rh Mr Desmond
Swinson, Jo
Swire, rh Mr Hugo
Syms, Mr Robert
Tapsell, rh Sir Peter
Teather, Sarah
Thurso, John
Timpson, Mr Edward
Tomlinson, Justin
Tredinnick, David
Truss, Elizabeth
Turner, Mr Andrew
Tyrie, Mr Andrew
Uppal, Paul
Vickers, Martin
Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa
Walker, Mr Charles
Wallace, Mr Ben
Walter, Mr Robert
Watkinson, Angela
Weatherley, Mike
Webb, Steve
Wharton, James
Wheeler, Heather
White, Chris
Whittaker, Craig
Whittingdale, Mr John
Wiggin, Bill
Willetts, rh Mr David
Williams, Roger
Williamson, Gavin
Willott, Jenny
Wilson, Mr Rob
Wollaston, Dr Sarah
Wright, Jeremy
Wright, Simon
Yeo, Mr Tim
Young, rh Sir George
Zahawi, Nadhim
Tellers for the Noes:
Mark Hunter and
Mr Shailesh Vara
Question accordingly negatived.
2 Nov 2011 : Column 1015
2 Nov 2011 : Column 1016
2 Nov 2011 : Column 1017
2 Nov 2011 : Column 1018
Amendments made: 1, page 24, line 26, after ‘conviction’, insert ‘—
(i) in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both), and
Amendment 2, page 24, line 35, at end insert—
‘( ) In relation to an offence under this section committed before the commencement of section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the reference in subsection (4)(b)(i) to 12 months has effect as if it were a reference to 6 months.’.—(Mr Djanogly.)
Amendment made: 25, page 28, line 18, leave out ‘modify’ and insert ‘amend or repeal a provision of’.—(Mr Djanogly.)
Amendments made: 26, page 28, line 35, after ‘regulations’ insert ‘(except in Schedule [Northern Ireland: information about financial resources])’.
Amendment 27, page 28, line 37 [Clause 39], at end insert ‘(except in Schedule [Northern Ireland: information about financial resources])’.—(Mr Djanogly.)
Amendments made: 64, page 131, line 8, at end insert—
‘(6A) A transfer scheme may, so far as is necessary for giving effect to that scheme, provide that an enactment that applies in relation to compensation schemes or occupational pension schemes applies to a compensation scheme or occupational pension scheme that is the subject of the transfer scheme, the members of such a scheme or the transferee with modifications specified in the transfer scheme.
2 Nov 2011 : Column 1019
(a) amend or otherwise modify a compensation scheme that is the subject of the transfer scheme, and
(b) create, modify or remove rights, powers, duties or liabilities under or in connection with such a scheme.
(6C) The power under sub-paragraph (6B) includes power to amend or otherwise modify any instrument relating to the constitution, management or operation of a compensation scheme.
(6D) Transfer schemes amending or otherwise modifying a compensation scheme have effect in spite of any provision (of any nature) which would otherwise prevent or restrict the amendment or modification.
(6E) A transfer scheme may include consequential, incidental, supplementary, transitional, transitory and saving provision.’.
Amendment 65, page 131, line 15, at end insert—
‘Power to merge LSC occupational pension schemes
4A (1) The Lord Chancellor may make a scheme providing for the merger of LSC occupational pension schemes.
(2) A scheme under this paragraph may in particular—
(a) provide for the assets and liabilities of one LSC occupational pension scheme to become assets and liabilities of another,
(b) create, modify or remove rights, powers, duties or liabilities under or in connection with an LSC occupational pension scheme,
(c) provide for the winding up of an LSC occupational pension scheme,
(d) provide for references to one LSC occupational pension scheme in a document, including an enactment, to have effect as references to another, and
(e) include consequential, incidental, supplementary, transitional, transitory and saving provision.
(3) A scheme under this paragraph may in particular amend or otherwise modify—
(a) the trust deed of an LSC occupational pension scheme,
(b) rules of an LSC occupational pension scheme, and
(c) any other instrument relating to the constitution, management or operation of an LSC occupational pension scheme.
(4) A scheme under this paragraph must ensure that the merger of the LSC occupational pension schemes does not, to any extent, deprive members of the LSC occupational pension schemes, or other beneficiaries under those schemes, of rights that accrue to them under those schemes before the merger takes effect.
(5) Subject to sub-paragraph (4), a scheme under this paragraph has effect in spite of any provision (of any nature) which would otherwise prevent the merger of the LSC occupational pension schemes.
“LSC occupational pension scheme” means an occupational pension scheme under which—
(a) the LSC has rights, powers, duties or liabilities, or(b) the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State has rights, powers, duties or liabilities by virtue of a scheme under paragraph 4(3);
“occupational pension scheme” has the same meaning as in the Pension Schemes Act 1993.’.
Amendment 137, page 133, line 3, leave out ‘or transitional’ and insert ‘transitional, transitory or saving’.
Amendment 66, page 133, line 3, after ‘with’, insert ‘—
Amendment 67, page 133, line 4, after ‘by’, insert ‘this Schedule’.
Amendment 68, page 133, line 4, after ‘or’, insert—
2 Nov 2011 : Column 1020
Amendment 138, page 133, line 7, leave out from ‘Schedule’ to end of line 8.—(Mr Djanogly.)
Amendment made: 19, page 144, line 31, at end insert—
|
In Schedule 26, paragraph 51.’. |
—(Mr Djanogly.)
Mr Slaughter: I beg to move amendment 21, page 29, line 6, leave out Clause 41.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 150, page 29, line 36, at end insert—
‘(4A) The amendments made by subsections (2) and (4) do not apply in relation to proceedings which include a claim for damages for loss or bodily injury resulting from exposure to a harmful substance or process where the claim is made against a person who—
(a) carries on business in more than one country, or
(b) owns (wholly or partly) one or more businesses carried on in more than one country or in different countries.’.
Amendment 164, page 29, line 36, at end insert—
‘(4A) The amendments made by subsections (2) and (4) do not apply in relation to a success fee payable under a conditional fee agreement made in relation to—
(a) any proceedings in relation to a claim for—
(iii) misuse of private information;
(b) any proceedings arising out of the same cause of action as any proceedings to which sub-paragraph (a) refers.’.
Amendment 163, page 29, line 41, at end insert—
‘(7) The amendments made by subsections (2) and (4) do not apply in relation to a success fee payable under a conditional fee agreement made in relation to—
(a) any proceedings based on a claim of defamation; or
(b) any proceedings based on a claim of privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights; or
(c) any proceedings arising out of the same cause of action as any proceedings to which paragraphs (a) or (b) refer.’.
Amendment 22, page 31, line 1, leave out clause 43.
Amendment 151, in clause 43, page 31, line 45, at end insert—
‘(6) This section does not apply in relation to a costs order made in favour of a party to proceedings which include a claim for damages for loss or bodily injury resulting from exposure to a harmful substance or process where the claim is made against a person who—
(a) carries on business in more than one country, or
(b) owns (wholly or partly) one or more businesses carried on in more than one country or in different countries.’.
2 Nov 2011 : Column 1021
Amendment 165, in clause 43, page 32, line 4, at end insert—
‘(4) The amendments made by this section do not apply in relation to a costs order made in favour of a party to proceedings in a cause of action in relation to a claim for—
(c) misuse of private information.’.
Amendment 72, page 32, line 5, leave out clause 44.
New clause 39—Road traffic accident pre-action protocol—
‘(1) The Table in Rule 45.29 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (SI 1998/3132) (Amount of fixed costs under the Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents) is amended as follows.
(2) The figure for Stage 1 shall be £200.
(3) The figure for Stage 2 shall be £400.
(4) The figure for Stage 3 for Type A fixed costs shall be £125.
(5) The figure for Stage 3 for Type B fixed costs shall be £125.
(6) Any further amendment to the Table shall not be made by the Civil Procedure Rule Committee but may be made by the Lord Chancellor by rules made by statutory instrument and may not be made until a draft of the rules has been laid before and approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.’.
Mr Slaughter: This is an important group of amendments to part 2 of the Bill, which deals with a complex and vital area of access to justice. Because there are only 20 minutes left to debate this group, and I want to be fair to the Minister and give him 10 minutes to reply, I shall speak quickly in the hope of getting through the main part of my argument. I should make it clear at the outset that I wish to press to a vote amendment 21, which would undo the destruction of conditional fee agreements that the Government are pushing through in the Bill. I also ask, with the leave of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), the lead signatory to amendment 163, that we press that amendment to a vote.
Conditional fee agreements, also known as no win, no fee agreements, were brought in by a Conservative Government to preserve access to justice for those on moderate means at a time when vast areas were being removed from the scope of legal aid and eligibility criteria were being removed. The provisions were amended, with a remarkable lack of contention from the Conservative Opposition, in the Access to Justice Act 1999, to create their modern form.
The idea of contingency fee agreements was to create a viable market in legal services by introducing success fees paid by losing defendants—wrongdoers, in other words—to compensate lawyers for the cases that they lost, for which, of course, they received no fees. For lawyers, that form of payment by results meant not that they would take on spurious cases, but that they were allowed to take on cases that might be 75:25 or 50:50. That has created a system that works, for the main part, very well. It has created a viable market in legal services and permitted access to justice for millions since it was introduced.
What sort of people have availed themselves of contingency fee agreements? More than half of those who have used them have had an income below £25,000 a year and only 18% have had an income of more than £40,000 a year. Government Members carp on about footballers and models using them, but the average claimant is the average constituent.
2 Nov 2011 : Column 1022
How do the Government’s proposals work? First, winning claimants will lose. Victims will have to pay the costs of their insurance and their lawyer’s success fees from their damages—up to 25% of damages, aside from damages for future care, can be taken by the lawyer, and the insurance premium will take up even more of those damages, perhaps wiping them out altogether. To make up for part of those losses, the Government plan a 10% increase in damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity. Simple maths should be sufficient to show that that will not make up for all losses.
Losing claimants, including those bringing speculative and nuisance claims, will gain. They will benefit because it is unlikely that they will have to pay the costs of the winning defendant—that is part of the perverse, qualified one-way cost-shifting scheme that the Government intend to introduce when the Bill passes.
Losing defendants—wrongdoers, in other words—and their insurers will gain. Wrongdoers will benefit, because they do not have to pay the cost of after-the-event insurance or the victim’s lawyer’s success fees, thus limiting their liabilities and those of their insurers. Winning defendants will lose out. A winning defendant will no longer be able to reclaim the cost of their defence, thanks to qualified one-way cost shifting. To summarise, winners lose and losers win. That is simply wrong.
There was a time when the Conservative party worried about access to justice, but now it appears to be nothing more than the parliamentary wing of the insurance lobby, which according to an investigation by The Guardian has donated £4.9 million to the Tories since the Prime Minister became leader.
I have spent the past few months speaking to victims who have used contingency fee agreements to get justice. I have heard them tell me how our justice system helped them, and their fears that others who suffer in future will not get the help they need. A number of areas of law will be badly—
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Slaughter: I would love to give way to the Secretary of State, but I have very little time—[ Interruption. ] If I have time at the end I will do so.
A number of areas of law will be badly affected by this legislation, and I should like briefly to touch on a few of them—[Hon. Members: Give way!]
Mr Clarke: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman had to be bullied to give way to me, but there we are. I do not want him to exaggerate his case. No win, no fee was introduced by the Major Government and worked perfectly satisfactorily until the previous Government amended it. We are talking about how much winning lawyers are paid. The principles of access to justice and of no win, no fee are agreed on a bipartisan basis. They are not threatened at all by the Bill.
Mr Slaughter: I began my speech by informing the house how contingency fee agreements came about. Because the Secretary of State has merely repeated that, I will penalise the Minister by taking a minute off his time.
2 Nov 2011 : Column 1023
The Secretary of State believes that there are faults in the current system whereby lawyers are unjustly enriched—he may be right, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and I, and many other hon. Members, would probably agree with him—but let us cure those faults. Let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): Some categories of proceedings are particularly expensive to advance, yet lead to relatively minor awards. For instance, the largest award in a privacy case is £60,000, and below that, £13,000. The vast majority of libel cases end up with awards of less than £100,000. The problem is that in those cases, families such as the Dowlers, and people such as Christopher Jefferies, who was on the radio this morning, would have no chance of access to justice.
Mr Slaughter: That is why I will be very pleased to support amendment 163, which is in my hon. Friend’s name. As I have indicated, there are some cases—libel is a good example—when damages are small, but the defamation is important. Under the Secretary of State’s scheme, more than the sum of the damages could therefore be taken in fees.
Let me go through other areas of law, and I will come to privacy at the end if I have time. On clinical negligence, it is unavoidable that there will be good and bad doctors, just as there are good and bad in any profession. It is just and proper that compensation is paid to anyone harmed as a result of inaction, negligence or incompetence when a medical professional fails to live up to their obligations. I say that despite the fact that when the Secretary of State gave the figures, he conflated the cost of damages, claimant costs and defendant costs and pretended that they were a cost figure in themselves, for which he had to make another apology to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan).
On professional negligence, taking on a professional is always risky. No one knows the system better. People are never 100% likely to win such cases. Without success fees to compensate for the risk, many such cases will not be brought in future. So who will lose out? It will be the first-time home buyer whose surveyor negligently fails to spot subsidence, the pensioner whose financial adviser negligently makes a high-risk investment, the hard-working small businessman whose accountant negligently fails to prepare accounts and lands him with a huge tax bill that he cannot pay, and the bereaved family whose probate solicitor takes three years to deal with the case and then charges huge fees. Those are the kinds of case that our constituents experience.
5.45 pm
Business and human rights cases perhaps highlight the problems even more starkly. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) has tabled an amendment, which I fear she will not have time to speak to, that addresses precisely this issue. It is backed by Amnesty International, the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development, Friends of the Earth and Martyn Day of Leigh Day and Co., who brought Trafigura to justice on behalf of 30,000 Côte d’Ivoirians who were poisoned by toxic waste.
2 Nov 2011 : Column 1024
I move on to employers’ liability and breach of duty by an employer. We have created some of the safest workplaces in the world in Britain, and our incidence of accidents at work is among the lowest in the world. That is thanks in large part to the labour and trade union movement, which has made it a priority over the past 100 years. In one fell swoop, victims will have their rights taken away and employers will be incentivised to act negligently and capriciously.
Insolvency practitioners—for whom even Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Insolvency Service are lobbying for an exemption—have told us that they will not be able to bring cases. Given that HMRC is the largest creditor, with 25% of all unsecured credit, the public purse will lose out by up to £200 million a year. It will actually cost us money to enact the Bill.
I will move on to industrial diseases. The Association of British Insurers, an organisation that the Minister knows well and has met many times, is still obstructing victims of pleural plaques to try to avoid paying out. In the Insurance Times, it described a recent ruling in favour of victims of pleural plaques as a “disappointment”.
Finally, in the minute or two I have left, I turn to privacy cases and the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda. No one can forget the case of Milly Dowler. It remains a great source of anger throughout the country. When we heard that the phones of Milly’s parents, Bob and Sally, had been hacked by News International, we were all rightly outraged. We often hear about rich and powerful people having their privacy or reputation trashed by the press. However, there are thousands of cases that happen quietly to weak, vulnerable people who are exploited for cheap and tawdry scandal. Their only recourse is through the courts, and the only means to achieve justice is no win, no fee. The Dowlers bravely put their case to the Prime Minister. Without no win, no fee, they could never have taken on the leviathan of News International.
I will quote briefly from the Dowlers’ letter to the Prime Minister:
“What helped was the fact that we would be insured if we lost a case and the premium…would be taken from the other side if we won. Without that we would not have been able to start a case or even threaten it.
We were lucky that we fell under that system. We understand that the new law will affect thousands of people who want to sue News International and other newspapers. We had understood that you were on the side of the people not the press. Please do not change the law so that the ability to sue the papers is lost.”
“We are sure you do not want to go down in history as the Prime Minister who took rights away from ordinary people”.
I put those comments to the Minister and the Secretary of State today. That is the question being asked of us. Do we want to go down as the Parliament that took rights away from ordinary people so that large companies could break the law and behave as they like, without people being able to challenge them?
Part 2 of the Bill is appalling. Access to justice is being destroyed. When the Minister challenged me earlier and said that I was talking about part 2 during our discussion of part 1, as so often he missed the point.
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con): On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.
2 Nov 2011 : Column 1025
Chris Bryant: You are the Parliamentary Private Secretary.
Mr Wallace: PPSs are allowed to make points of order. Throughout the proceedings on the Bill Opposition Front Benchers, particularly the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), have made points about the perceived failure of Government Front Benchers to declare their interests. However, the hon. Gentleman has failed to point out that on 119 separate occasions the Labour party has received donations from lawyers who make their money from success fees.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Order. That is not a point of order and the matter was dealt with earlier in the week. Let us have no more of that.
Mr Slaughter: Let me just say that if the Government start talking about conflicts of interest on this Bill, they will open a Pandora’s box.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not going to open Pandora’s box. We are going to deal with the amendments before us.
Mr Slaughter: I was not talking about the Minister; I was talking about the Bill. I am not surprised that the Minister’s PPS is embarrassed by the Bill, after sitting through our proceedings in Committee.
The common link between parts 1 and 2 of the Bill is the destruction of access to justice in a way that we have not seen since the introduction of legal aid by a Labour Government after the second world war. The insurance industry is being given one of the biggest pay-offs in history which, as we know from experience, will go into the pockets of their directors and shareholders. While other aspects of this Bill display the startling incompetence of this Government, none shows their intent more truly than the provisions in part 2, which would give the whip hand to large public and private corporations, while taking rights away from ordinary people. What is the point in having rights if they cannot be enforced?
I ask the Liberal Democrats to look at amendment 21, which would deal with cases such as Trafigura and pleural plaques, and amendment 163, which would deal with cases such as that of Milly Dowler, and join us in the Lobby tonight.
Mr Djanogly: Amendments 21, 22, 72, 163, 164 and 165 all seek to undermine a fundamental element of the package of reform of civil litigation funding and costs based on the report prepared on behalf of the judiciary by Sir Rupert Jackson and now included in this Bill—the abolition of recoverability of success fees and after-the-event insurance premiums. I must say that I am rather perplexed by the amendments as in Committee the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) agreed that the intention of part 2 is
“perfectly sound, and it is one with which we have a great deal of sympathy.”––[Official Report, Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Public Bill Committee, 13 September 2011; c. 501.]
I will also deal with new clause 39, which is on the related but slightly separate matter of recoverable costs for low-value road traffic accident claims.
It is worth emphasising, as the Justice Secretary has just said, that we are not proposing to end conditional fee agreements or no win, no fee deals. What we are
2 Nov 2011 : Column 1026
addressing is the substantial legal costs that go to lawyers under the current no win, no fee regime. Our reforms are designed to make these legal costs more proportionate, while enabling meritorious claims to be brought. This applies equally to defamation and privacy claims and multinational claims as to other categories of case, but it is worth reminding ourselves of some of the disproportionate costs that have arisen and that emphasise the need for our reforms across the board.
Chris Bryant: The Minister referred specifically to defamation and privacy cases. The problem is that in the vast majority of cases—and in every single instance in privacy cases—the awards are so small that if there is no success fee, it will be completely uneconomic for a lawyer to come forward with a CFA. That may not be the Minister’s intention—I take him at his word—but the effect will be to stop CFAs in libel, defamation and privacy cases.
Mr Djanogly: In some cases, where the balance is against, that perhaps should be the case. In Naomi Campbell’s defamation case against the Daily Mirror, she received damages of £3,500 but the total costs exceeded £1 million.
In relation to clinical negligence claims, which can of course include substantial damages in catastrophic injury cases, lawyers’ costs are about half of the total damages that are paid out. In 2009-10, for example, the NHS paid out £297 million in damages and £121 million in legal costs, over half of which were no win, no fee costs. One of the leading no win, no fee cases against a multinational company is that against Trafigura. In that case, the claimants’ legal costs were more than £100 million, but the damages recovered were only £30 million. As a result, 30,000 claimants in the Ivory Coast received damages of an average of only £1,000.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab): Will the Minister give way?
Mr Djanogly: I will not—[Hon. Members: “Go on!”] I am afraid that I do not have time to give way.
It is these high legal costs which led to Sir Rupert Jackson’s review. Specifically in relation to defamation and privacy, it is these high legal costs which led to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), when he was Justice Secretary, seeking to introduce similar changes to those we are now proposing to reduce excessive legal costs, but he mistakenly limited them only to defamation and privacy cases. In effect, that is the exact opposite of what the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) proposes in his amendment. The sands seem to have been shifting dramatically in the Labour camp on this issue.
New clause 39, tabled by the right hon. Member for Blackburn, would reduce the amount of fixed recoverable fees on the pre-action protocol for low-value road traffic accidents in the light of the impact of the ban on referral fees. The Department is now reviewing the situation, but to achieve this outcome does not require primary legislation. Instead, a reduction can be implemented through changes to the Civil Procedure Rules. I can give the commitment that we are looking at this. Indeed, my officials plan to consult on appropriate changes to the level of recoverable costs, and any changes will be placed before the Committee for approval. I can also
2 Nov 2011 : Column 1027
tell him that I do not intend to go to all the trouble of stopping referral fees being paid to claims management companies, only to see those same fees staying with the lawyers rather than going back to consumers in lower insurance premiums or prices in the shops.
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab): I am grateful to the Minister for those undertakings.
Mr Djanogly: I shall take each amendment in turn. Amendment 21 would remove clause 41, the effect of which is to amend the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 so that success fees under a conditional fee agreement will no longer be recoverable from a losing party in any civil proceedings. Amendment 22 would remove clause 43. I should make it clear that we have listened carefully to specific concerns about the abolition of recoverability of after-the-event insurance premiums in clinical negligence claims and the impact it would have on funding expert reports. Such reports, which can be expensive, are often necessary in establishing whether there is a case for commencing proceedings, which raises particular issues if recoverability of ATE insurance is abolished. In responding to these concerns, clause 43 provides, by way of exception, for the recoverability of premiums in respect of ATE insurance taken out to cover the cost of expert reports in clinical negligence cases.
Amendment 72 would remove clause 44, which abolishes the recoverability of the costs incurred by membership organisations, such as trade unions, of insuring themselves against the risk of paying costs to another party in the event of losing a claim. I strongly believe that the abolition of recoverability should apply equally to the arrangements for membership organisations in order to maintain a level playing field. Amendments 150 and 151 seek to allow the recoverability of success fees and ATE insurance premiums from a losing party in certain claims for damages against a person who carries on business in more than one country or who owns one or more businesses carried on in more than one country or in different countries.
Lisa Nandy: Will the Minister give way?
Mr Djanogly: We understand that these amendments seek to protect the rights of individuals—[Hon. Members: “Go on. Give way.”] Oh, all right. How can I resist?
Lisa Nandy: I thank the Minister for finally recognising just how strongly so many of us on both sides of the House feel about this issue and how unfortunate it is that we have not been able to make the case today. Unfortunately, we have not had sufficient answers to make Members on both sides of the House feel that these cases will be able to continue. Will he therefore agree to meet a cross-party group of us before the Bill is sent to the other place, so that we can make at least make our case before the Bill becomes law?
Mr Djanogly: The hon. Lady will be pleased to hear that I have met the Corporate Responsibility Coalition—CORE—and the solicitors who acted for Trafigura. I have acted for a number of people, and of course I shall be prepared and happy to receive additional representations from her.