|Back to Table of Contents
|Lords Hansard Home Page
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am not so concerned about the provisional listing as about the listing in entirety. The noble Lord referred to due process in that listing but, I repeat, there is no independent consideration of evidence, there is no open procedure, there is no merits test, and it does not amount to due process in the normal sense of the term.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Nevertheless, my Lords, it is still open for the person concerned to appeal to an independent tribunal. I believe that provisional listing is an important issue which we have debated before. It provides a means of immediate protection to vulnerable adults until the matter is decided by the process. I accept that there is a difficult balance to be drawn between the individual rights of a person about whom an allegation is made and the protection of vulnerable people. We believe that we have the right balance, although I accept that the noble Lord thinks otherwise.
In conclusion, I believe that all noble Lords are agreed generally about the positive impact which the Bill will have in so many care sectors and, indeed, in the private healthcare sector. I believe that the debate has confirmed the general thrust in which the Bill is directed, although I accept that we shall have many interesting debates in Committee and at later stages of the Bill. Therefore, I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these regulations are necessary to underpin contracts that will replace a substantial part of the existing legal aid scheme with effect from 1st January 2000. The Legal Aid Board has announced awards of around 5,000 general civil contracts to solicitors' firms and over 330 contracts to not-for-profit agencies. In future those will be the exclusive method of delivering legal aid for the categories of work that they cover. Depending on the expertise of each contractor, contracts can cover all advice and assistance in civil matters and representation in family and immigration cases.
Contracting is central to the Government's plans to improve quality, to target priority needs and to control the cost of publicly funded legal services. All contracts will go to providers of proven quality and expertise. To win a contract, a provider has to have passed the Legal Aid Board's quality franchise audit on a full or provisional basis. Provisional franchisees have to meet the full standard within one year.
In order to control cost, each solicitor's contract specifies the number of new advice and assistance cases that the provider is authorised to start next year. That number could be increased during the year to meet unexpected demand. The Legal Aid Board has retained a reserve for that purpose in each category. On the other hand, the number can be reduced if a provider's average case costs increase to ensure that the total cost of the contract remains within budget, or if it is clear that the provider will not start the number of cases allowed in the contract.
The effect of the regulations will be to amend the Legal Advice and Assistance (Scope) Regulations 1989 by excluding much of Part III of the Legal Aid Act 1988. Part III currently covers all advice and assistance, including assistance by way of representation.
From 1st January next year, legally aided advice and assistance in civil matters will be provided through the Legal Aid Board's civil general contracts. Those contracts will be governed by Part II of the 1988 Act until the Access to Justice Act 1999 takes effect on 1st April 2000. Part II is the free-standing power for the Legal Aid Board to make contracts to secure advice and assistance, and representation, provided that the Lord Chancellor authorises them to do so by direction. The entitlement to funding and protection from costs available under the other parts of the Act do not apply to services procured under Part II.
Section 8(3) of the 1988 Act provides for regulations to exclude from Part III, advice and assistance of all descriptions or of any prescribed description. These regulations, with a few exceptions, will exclude most civil matters from Part III. The purpose of that is to ensure that only those with contracts under Part II will be able to provide advice and assistance in accordance with their contracts.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, seeks to amend the Motion to approve the regulations so that it calls on the Government to defer implementation until the Access to Justice Act is brought into force. I shall not dwell on the technical validity of that. As amended, the Motion would still approve regulations which state on their face that they come into force on 1st January next year. However, the noble Lord is really asking--no doubt in a few moments he will tell us--why the contracts and related changes are being introduced under the Legal Aid Act, rather than waiting until the Access to Justice Act is brought into force.
The timetable for the contracting process, culminating on 1st January next year, was set and published by the Legal Aid Board well before the Access to Justice Act was passed. That process has involved extensive consultation at every stage and it has required a great deal of work on the part of thousands of solicitors' firms and hundreds of advice agencies in the voluntary sector in order to achieve the franchise standards and apply for contracts. The firms and agencies which undertook that work and have been awarded a contract have every right to expect those contracts to take effect on 1st January, and that they will be the exclusive means of providing legally-aided advice and assistance.
I shall deal as shortly as I can with the exceptions. First, I turn to assistance by way of representation, or ABWOR. The regulations leave most ABWOR unaffected, so it will continue to be provided under Part III of the 1988 Act; ABWOR in family proceedings is retained because it is necessary to ensure that costs protection under Section 12 of the Act continues for such cases. Nevertheless, that work will be restricted to holders of a family contract by virtue of the Prescribed Panel (Amendment) Regulations to
Most other ABWOR relates to criminal matters, or to matters which, although technically civil, are essentially criminal in nature; for example, cases involving a risk of imprisonment for failure to obey a court order. Those cases will be funded as part of the Criminal Defence Service from October next year. Meanwhile legal aid remains available.
Two categories of ABWOR are excluded from Part III by Regulation 7: ABWOR for representation before the Mental Health Review Tribunals is excluded because in future that will be dealt with under the contracts under Part II of the Act; ABWOR for proceedings under the Fire Precautions Act is excluded altogether. Funding for those cases, which concern the regulation of commercial premises, is not justified under a scheme intended to help individuals.
The regulations also provide for some green form advice and assistance to remain within the scope of Part III--that is, advice and assistance relating to criminal matters, clinical negligence and personal injury.
Criminal advice and assistance will be preserved until the Criminal Defence Service comes into effect in October 2000. It is available for individuals who are arrested and held in custody or who are involved in criminal investigations or proceedings. The regulations set out a list of proceedings which are defined as criminal proceedings for that purpose. Again, that includes matters which are technically civil, but which will be funded by the Criminal Defence Service in due course; for example, proceedings for anti-social behaviour orders and judicial reviews arising out of criminal proceedings.
Advice and assistance will also continue to be available under Part III for clinical negligence cases. It will continue to be restricted to franchised solicitors under the Legal Aid (Prescribed Panels) Regulations 1999 until 1st April next year when the Access to Justice Act takes effect. At that stage, the existing arrangements will be incorporated in the general civil contracts held by relevant franchisees.
Similarly, personal injury work is excluded from the scope of the contracting regime introduced on 1st January next year. Until 31st March, any solicitor will be able to take on personal injury cases. On 1st April, the contract specifications will be amended to cover advice, assistance and representation in residual personal injury cases; that is to say, cases which are not excluded from the scope of funding by Schedule 2 to the Access to Justice Act 1999 because they do not relate to injury caused negligently. Those are, for example, cases where the client alleges that he was assaulted by the police while in custody. Personal injury franchisees with contracts will also be able to apply for additional funding in support of a conditional fee agreement in exceptionally expensive personal injury cases. The Lord Chancellor will issue a
Noble Lords will notice that Regulation 5 refers, among other things, to the making of wills. The Lord Chancellor intends to make a direction authorising funding under the 1999 Act to assist vulnerable clients to make a will. That will cover broadly the same categories for which legal aid funding is available now. The Legal Aid Board's contracts will provide for that from January 2000.
We are planning to spend a total of £202 million on advice and assistance next year, compared with about £180 million this year. It is important that this public money is spent wisely. Our reforms will be good for the client because they assure him or her of a quality service; good for the taxpayer because they help to control cost and to improve value for money; and good for competent providers as well, for example, because they provide greater certainty about workload and cashflow than the current scheme. I commend the regulations to the House.
Lord Goodhart rose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end to insert "save that this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to defer the coming into force of paragraphs 2 to 7 until Section 4 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 has been brought into force".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, is a major step in dismantling the Legal Aid and Advice Scheme which has served the country well for the past 50 years. As was pointed out, the order does not directly concern legal aid for litigation. It concerns legal advice and assistance, provided under Part III of the Legal Aid Act 1988. It is generally known as the green form scheme.
The green form scheme has meant for many years that someone who cannot afford to pay for his own legal advice can go to any solicitor who does legal aid work. He can walk in at short notice, even perhaps off the street, and receive advice on his legal problems for an hour or so. The green form scheme is usually the first point of contact with the legal profession for ordinary people who have a legal problem or who think that they may have a legal problem. It is essential, in the interests of those people, that advice and assistance should be available as widely as possible. That is particularly true in country districts and in socially deprived urban areas.
At present, advice and assistance can be provided, as we have been told, under Part III of the Legal Aid Act 1988, on all matters except conveyancing and the making of wills. There are significant exceptions to the exclusion of the making of wills. However, as the Minister pointed out, we are now on the verge of fundamental changes. It is the intention of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to bring the Access to Justice Act into force on 1st April next year. Under that Act, aid, advice and assistance will be funded by the Community Legal Service through contracts with providers. The Legal Aid Act will, in effect, be wholly repealed.
In debates on the Access to Justice Act, we fought hard to keep a wider network of solicitors' firms available to provide publicly funded services for those in need of them. I refer in particular to the great efforts made in those debates by my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury, who will also speak in the short debate on this amendment.
However, we lost that battle. We shall have to accept that the Access to Justice Act or, as I prefer to call it, the restriction of access to justice Act, will come into force. But this order is made under the Legal Aid Act, not the Access to Justice Act. As we have been told, it will have the effect that almost all advice and assistance on civil matters, except for personal injury cases, will be excluded from Part III of the Legal Aid Act in non-criminal cases--that is, personal injuries and clinical negligence. On all other matters, such as housing law, employment law, family law, and social security law, advice and assistance will be available only from solicitors who have a contract with the Legal Aid Board under Part II of the Legal Aid Act.
That will, at a stroke, reduce by a half the number of solicitors able to provide advice and assistance at no cost to the client. It will reduce the number from 10,000 to 5,000 firms. That will inevitably reduce access to justice.
The Law Society believes, as I do, that there is also a serious problem with the timing of the order. As I understand it, contract offers were only sent out on Friday 26th November. That means they will not have reached solicitors until 29th November at the earliest. Those offers have to be accepted by next Wednesday, 15th December. But the timetable means that by 1st January there will be no public information about which firms have contracts. The public will not know where to go and the other advice organisations will not know where to send referrals. In some fields, such as welfare law, the Legal Aid Board has only so far offered contracts for about half the work that will need to be contracted out. That will create uncertainty as to the sources of advice and assistance for weeks, if not months, to come.
The regulations are wrong in principle because they make it harder for people who need legal advice to get it. The order is wrong in timing because the contract system is not yet capable of handling the burdens.
Moved, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end to insert "save that this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to defer the coming into force of paragraphs 2 to 7 until Section 4 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 has been brought into force".--(Lord Goodhart.)
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, this is a strange debate, coming after a long, hard-fought debate over the measure, the Access to Justice Act, as it now is. I want to avoid going over the old territory because it is passe. I fully accept what the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said in opening this short debate: namely, that the deed is done and we must now make the best of it. My comments are meant in that spirit, although inevitably they will be critical. However, I hope they will be critical towards a better implementation of the massive amount still to be done under the Access to Justice Act. It is solely with that in mind that I wish to speak.
First, one must accept that there is something approaching bureaucratic mayhem in the legal aid world at the moment. The blue sky reforms which the Government pushed through--again I need not elaborate on how ill-advised we thought many of them were, however well-intentioned--have created a monster of bureaucracy. I urge the Minister to take on board that the future steps in implementation of the Act should, so far as possible, reduce the amount of bureaucracy.
Perhaps I may wave before the House this 270-page document called: General Civil Contract (Solicitors). It is merely the handbook for those who seek a franchise. It is stuffed with systems, regulations, impenetrable gobbledegook. It has 90 definitions before one can start reading the wretched book. That may seem good and dandy to those who believe that solicitors are, to a man and woman, a load of crooks wishing to rip off the system. However, in reality it is a huge impediment, particularly to the small and smaller firms which the Government should be most concerned to help. It is those small and smaller firms which are often closest to their clients, have the lowest overheads, are willing to take the rough with the smooth, understand the social circumstances with which they are trying to deal, and often have the energy and initiative which is not always present in more mature firms.
One must also have regard to the fact that the scheme is extremely expensive by reason of bureaucracy. I have talked to a number of firms which reckon that the additional bureaucracy created since the Act came into effect and in preparation for it have perhaps put 10 per cent on the overheads of providing legal aid. That money must come from somewhere or they will simply withdraw.
My noble friend Lord Goodhart mentioned accessibility. Again, I know that it is a deed now done--that is to say, putting the green form scheme, the old legal advice and assistance scheme, exclusively into the hands of those who have contracts--but, if the Government cannot review that decision because it has only just been taken, I urge them at least to have regard to its consequences in other areas of work.
As we have heard, something like half the firms that were doing legal aid a year ago have now dropped out. Admittedly, in many, if not most, cases they are firms which did a small amount of legal aid. But, nonetheless, we are talking about 5,000 offices spread over all parts of the country that were accessible to people in their high streets and able to provide some cheap, immediate and first-class legal aid.
We are now seeing not only a severe reduction in geographical access but also an internal blockage within the firms with the general civil contracts (which, therefore, retain the right to do the old green-form work). That is because one of the rules of the contracts states that there should be an authorisation process, which, I am told--and I know--is actually getting in the way of people giving advice to those who need it, when they need it. In other words, unless you can find an authorised partner ready and available to consider the particular item of work needed for the client, it cannot properly be done. I need hardly say that most solicitors are extremely busy, either out of the office or involved in engagements within it. Clients will not come into a solicitors' office and hang around for an uncertain time waiting in case a solicitor may come back and be able to give the necessary authorisation. So we have that problem.
As I indicated, we also have a problem with regard to small and smaller firms. Perhaps I may make reference to one particular case, which is the subject of a judicial review claim against the Legal Aid Board. It is no problem to that litigation that I mention the facts involved. Mackintosh Duncan was a firm established only last summer specifically to deal with legal aid in the fields of mental health, community care, health and human rights law. Two young solicitors with a great deal of experience came together specifically to undertake this sort of work. But what did they find? They found that they were not even asked to apply for a franchise.
I conclude by saying that we must, of course, "suck it and see". However, I really hope that the Government will be prepared, if necessary, to go back on parts of the scheme as currently envisaged. I am delighted to see that they are already not talking, as they were not long ago, about introducing a block contracting system.
I suggest that a better relationship with the profession, particularly with the Law Society, would be a very good start towards improving this dramatic revolution in legal aid. I urge the Government that that relationship should be one of a willingness to listen; indeed, more than has been the case in the past. Although I have these strictures, I sincerely hope that what we see over the next months and years will make my fears and those of my noble friends on these Benches seem unnecessary and ill-conceived.
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page