|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the BBC is the only one of our media which is not beholden in some way to proprietors, advertisers or the government? As that is so, is it not clear that it is the only truly independent voiceone of our few successful institutionsand that any aspect of charter renewal must preserve that distinct position, which has been of outstanding benefit to our country over the past 80 years?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I entirely agree with what my noble friend Lord Sheldon has just said. That is why I have already said that we shall, at all costs, maintain the independence of the BBC. That is why, in relation to the charter review, I also said that the process will be wide-ranging and thorough and that it will include a public debate and opportunities for parliamentary scrutiny. I believe that those are the assurances which my noble friend seeks.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, does the Minister have some sympathy with the BBC with regard to its charter requirement to maintain a proper balance and to be even-handed in all respects? For example, with regard to the Prime Minister's speech yesterday to the TUC, which version would the BBC have been correct in reportingthe robust version handed out in the official statement or the weaker, wetter version, being what was actually said to the TUC?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not believe that it would be at all appropriate for me to comment on the BBC's treatment of the Prime Minister's speech. But my understanding is not the same as that of the noble Lord, Lord Eden.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, in looking forward to charter renewal, do the Government agree that if the BBC was fully under the remit of Ofcoman independent regulatorthe current row leading to the Hutton inquiry would not have escalated in the way that it has?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is a hypothetical question on which the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, is entitled to form her own views. I shall not anticipate the form which the charter review will take or the role of Ofcom in any final BBC Charter or agreement.
Lord McNally: My Lords, do not the Minister's replies make an unanswerable case for the recalling of the Puttnam committee, particularly because the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, is extremely good at sequels?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin): My Lords, we received some 250 responses to the department's consultation paper on the future of publicly funded immigration and asylum work. The Legal Services Commission received 17 responses to its paper on proposed contractual changes. We are currently collating and analysing the responses.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, would it be fair to say that the opinion of the organisations representing asylum seekers, including the Law Society and learned counsel instructed by the Refugee Legal Centre and by the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association, was that the proposed limits of five hours' advice on preparation of an application and four hours on an appeal are wholly unrealistic and irrational; and that the manner in which they were prepared may have been unlawful?
Does the Minister agree that because of the procrustean time limits imposed on representatives, some genuine refugees will be sent back to their countries of origin to face torture and possible death? Does he accept that some of the best practitioners are likely to give up because they will not be able to deliver an adequate service; and if that happens that the LSC may be in breach of its duty under the Access to Justice Act? So will the Government withdraw these proposals and get the LSC to enter into consultation with providers on setting benchmarks and on other means of reducing the costs of legal aid?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I shall seek to pick about two questions from the five asked. The noble Lord is quite right on the first point, that the proposal to put a cap on the level of legal aid expenditure on individual asylum cases did not meet with strong support from lawyers. That was perhaps not surprising. Nevertheless, it opens up a serious issue that must be looked at by the Government and by the legal profession as to how one copes with the fact that legal aid expenditure on immigration and asylum has doubled since the year 2000 and that the average cost of each case of legal aid has doubled since the year 2000.
There was no illegality whatever in the process by which that consultation paper was put out. Of course, as ever, we are giving serious thought to the responses. But there is no doubt that government have to act in this area in order to fulfil their responsibility both to the taxpayers in giving value, to ensure that the legal aid system is protected for the benefit of others and to ensure that there is a fair hearing for people who claim asylum in our country.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, while accepting the need to ensure value for money, has my noble friend grasped that the cases which solicitors will hesitate to accept will be the more complicated ones because they will not be able to do justice to those under the new regime? Will that not be likely to lead to the more complicated cases falling to the non-profit-making organisations; and does my noble friend consider that that will contribute to speeding up the hearing of asylum cases, which is the very laudable intention of the Government?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, clearly where remuneration is on an average cost basis there is always a question as to whether work is displaced to other providers. Obviously, the Government were aware of that kind of issue when they put forward the proposals for consultation. I come back to the essential point that it is not just the level of spend that has been rising on legally-aided immigration and asylum work, there has been clear evidence of abuse of over-claiming, some evidence of touting for business and some evidence of poor quality work and advice.
As well as the points addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, the consultation paper also looked at how to bring in accreditation for lawyers in order to ensure that the work of those firms which provide first-class, high-quality advice services to asylum claimants is replicated and that those who do not provide good quality work do not continue to be state-funded in this way.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, during the passage of the Access to Justice Act 1999 we on these Benches pointed out the undesirability of having a single pot of money to fund all forms of legal aid. Does the Minister accept that we have been proved right and that increases in criminal and immigration spending have led to real cuts in civil legal aid, which has been cut in cash terms by 15 per cent over the past three years? Is it not right that this should be funded separately and that civil legal aid should be ring-fenced from the increases which have resulted from increased spending on criminal and immigration cases?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I do not, because the realities of life are that, whether or not one puts things into separate pots, there is ultimately one pot which is the Government's overall resources from taxation and other sources; and governments have to make judgments about how to deploy that. The reality is that it is not just legal aid on immigration and asylum that has been rising but legal aid expenditure generally. We
The other point in this respect of which the House should be awarelest there is any danger of an impression that we are mean, cheap or resistant to supporting appropriate justice and hearings for asylum claimsis that I cannot find another country in Europe with anything like the quality of legal aid and advice given at initial hearings compared to this country. Austria, France, Germany and Italy provide no effective legal aid system at initial hearings.
So, while there is a need for reform, we should not get carried away with the view that we are looking to, in a sense, do other than uphold justice and fairness for asylum seekers while fulfilling a duty to getting economy out of the system.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. Is the noble Lord aware that there is a very noticeable difference between efficient and inefficient firms? Some clearly run a case for as long as possible even though it is absolutely hopeless while others deal with matters very smartly in a very short period of time and probably save taxpayers a huge amount of money. Is not the answer proper supervision by the Legal Services Commission?
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page