Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Baroness Mallalieu Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2012 Lords Chamber

I am sure the Minister will agree that if the penal system has at its heart, alongside the need for punishment and protection, a commitment to rehabilitation, and if it accepts that human beings can change, then surely it is an expression of that belief that everyone, however heinous the crime, should be reviewed at least after 30 years.

[Baroness Mallalieu]

My Lords, I support the amendment. I do so in part having been around prisons in Hong Kong some years ago—I have no reason to think that the position has changed since—and seen considerable numbers of very old and very sick men who were there because there was no means of their ever being released. They presented very considerable difficulties for the prison service and they presented difficulties in their management during their term in prison because they had nothing to gain by behaving well during their time there.

It requires political courage to accept an amendment such as this—just as it requires courage on the part of a judge who is dealing with a case which has aroused great public emotion, just as it requires courage on the part of a parole board to deal with a prisoner who has been in the media and attracts media attention—but if we believe that people can change, and if we believe in reformation, then it is essential that there is something at the end of the tunnel for those who can demonstrate that they have come through the process and now put behind them any capacity to be dangerous. For that reason I very much hope that, difficult as it is, the Government will find the courage to put some provision like this in to the Bill.

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, I, too, support the amendment, for all the reasons that have been given. It is surely inhumane to say to a prisoner that they will remain in prison for the whole of their life, other than in the most exceptional compassionate circumstances—which I understand to mean that they are dying—whatever progress they may make, however long a period may elapse. Surely it is also very damaging to prison order to have in prison this number of prisoners who have no incentive whatever to progress, to behave and to move towards a responsible approach.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, mentioned that the Vintner case would inevitably go to the Grand Chamber. I very much hope and expect that the Grand Chamber will take into account the views of those in your Lordships' House who have expressed the opinion that this is indeed an inhumane way to treat prisoners.

I note that the amendment is drafted in terms of a discretion for the Parole Board. I would understand that to be the case because the Secretary of State faces this difficulty: either he retains an absolute position, whereby there will be no review; or he recognises that there will be a review, but by an independent body—the Parole Board. As I would understand it, the Secretary of State is simply unable, as a result of earlier European Court judgments, to take upon himself a statutory power to review the position and to decide on release after 30 years.

I also note that the amendment is drafted in terms of it being the duty of the Secretary of State,

“with the consent of the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge if available”.

I would welcome assistance from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, when he comes to reply, as to whether it is his intention that after 30 years it should be the duty of the Secretary of State to refer the matter to the Parole Board only if the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge—that is, both of them, if the latter is available—consent. Will he explain the purpose of involving the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge? Is it intended that they should enjoy some discretion; and if so, pursuant to what criteria?

I respectfully suggest that it would be more appropriate to say that these matters should automatically be referred to the Parole Board after 30 years. That is a very long time. Of course the Lord Chief Justice of the day and the trial judge, if available, should be invited to give their opinions on what should happen to the individual, but I am troubled by the idea that there could be an impediment to the Parole Board even considering the matter after 30 years if, say, the trial judge thinks it inappropriate to do so. That is a drafting question. I strongly support the principle of the amendment, for all the reasons that have been given already, and those that I have added.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Baroness Mallalieu Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

My Lords, I say at once that Clause 114 seems to be wholly pointless. The only explanation for it that I can imagine is that it was a quid pro quo for the abolition of the indefinite sentence for public protection in Clause 113, in case somebody should say that the Government were getting soft on crime. Since the official position of the Opposition is not to oppose Clause 113—I am very glad about that—I suggest that the Government might now look again at dropping Clause 114.

In brief, the clause states that if a person commits an offence for which he serves 10 years in prison, and then commits another offence for which he might expect 10 years in prison, the judge must give him a life sentence unless this would be unjust. It has been called a mandatory life sentence, but of course it is nothing of the sort. The clause explains that the judge has discretion to do what is just, so there is no “must” about it. So what on earth is the point of Clause 114?

Considering the sort of facts that might give rise to a life sentence under Clause 114, the judge would almost certainly have a life sentence in mind anyway. If he does impose a life sentence, Clause 114 serves no purpose. If he does not, because it would be unjust to do so, Clause 114 adds nothing. Have the Government made any estimate of the number of people who will get a life sentence under Clause 114 who would not be given a life sentence anyway under the existing law? There is no point in replicating existing law with ever more offences.

Is Clause 114 perhaps meant to be a deterrent? Let us consider that for a moment and imagine a man coming to the end of his 10-year sentence in prison. How will he hear about Clause 114? Will he be warned by his solicitor, or will he hear about it from a fellow prisoner who is something of a barrack-room lawyer? The idea that this would ever act as a deterrent is ludicrous.

In debating a previous amendment, I warned of the dangers of Parliament becoming too closely involved in the sentencing process. At one extreme, it results in the sort of sentencing complexity of which we have plenty of evidence in the Bill. At the other, one finds clauses such as Clause 114 which, as far as I can see, serve no purpose at all and simply clutter up the statute book.

[Baroness Mallalieu]

My Lords, I support the noble and learned Lord. “Pointless” is a very good description of Clause 114. It is pure political posturing. That is the trouble in the area of criminal law; there has been too much of this going on in recent years, and to little effect. Why on earth can we not leave the detailed business of sentencing in cases such as this, with the guidelines that already exist, to the people who hear the evidence and see the cases: namely, the judges?

We have seen far too much interference with the criminal law. As a practitioner, I go along to courts and am asked by people in the robing room, “How on earth did you let this happen? Didn’t you speak up and point out that it’s a waste of time or has consequences that are totally adverse to the interests of justice?”. Well, I am speaking up, but without a great deal of hope that my words will fall other than on stony ground. Surely we can avoid, at the very least, complicating the statute book with clauses such as this which do not do anything.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Baroness Mallalieu Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

My Lords, this is an extremely important amendment, which I hope that the Government will accept. The other side of the coin when legal aid is taken away, particularly in the area of social welfare law, is that there must be some provision for advice to people who require it in that field—in others as well, but certainly for those concerned with welfare benefits and the like.

In this country, a huge amount of work is done, a lot on a voluntary basis, by citizens advice bureaux, law centres and other not-for-profit advice and support agencies. I want an assurance from the Minister that those organisations will fill the gap, that they will be properly funded and put on a secure footing for the foreseeable future to provide the advice that is clearly needed in those areas. Consequently, my Amendment 99 is to give the Lord Chancellor power to,

“make funding available for the obtaining of civil legal services on matters not included in Schedule 1 where it appears to the Lord Chancellor that the provision of such services would promote efficiency, the saving of costs or the attainment of justice”.

What I have specifically in mind is the funding of law centres, citizens advice bureaux and not-for-profit advice and support agencies.

I know that the Government have committed some £20 million for the support of Citizens Advice, but I understand that to be on a one-off basis. At the same time, we receive information that the Cabinet Office is working on schemes to provide some permanent support in this area. Citizens Advice has two sides: a side dealing with general matters, normally done by volunteers, and a side dealing with specialist matters. The specialist advice in Citizens Advice comes from generally qualified lawyers who are funded precisely by the legal aid that is about to be withdrawn if Schedule 1 to the Bill finally goes through. That is the focus. What will happen? Will people be left to stumble around in this incredibly complex area of social welfare law? Will they have any guidance and help when it comes to the new provisions that are being introduced under the Welfare Reform Bill, or what? That is what I want to hear from the Minister tonight. I beg to move.

[Baroness Mallalieu]

My Lords, I support this amendment as far as it goes. We are all worried about who will fund organisations such as law centres, which at present are largely reliant on legal aid. Clearly, many of them will go under if there is not some alternative form of funding. What troubles me about the amendment in its present form is that there is absolutely no break on the way in which this Lord Chancellor—or a future Lord Chancellor—may choose to hand out the money. I should like some requirement on him to consult and some way of knowing that a distant Lord Chancellor—of course, not the present one—could not operate for reasons of political expediency, or simply on a whim to withdraw funding from an organisation which, for example, might be involved in action against the Government. Although I welcome the amendment in its present form, I think that it needs more added to it.

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford. It addresses a question that is crucial for the success of legal aid advice at local level. The question is how the Ministry of Justice can deliver its legal aid budget cuts of £130 million out of £250 million while still delivering an effective system of support for legal aid. After a lot of thought, I have concluded that a centralised system of contract procurement is not likely to work well. It would mean high overheads and poor flexibility at a time when a significant number of third-sector providers will be forced to close because of lack of finance, with the consequence of problems that could be sorted out early not being sorted out, and a greater cost to the public purse.

We should note that the Legal Services Commission has very high costs. It spends £120 million on administration. After the cuts, with the new director of legal aid casework, the amount spent on administration is likely still to be around £120 million. That figure is very high. Of course, it includes criminal legal aid, but this has barely been cut at all. However, at local level, the budget cuts will be very significant. They will be in exactly the places that require a seamless service that will enable clients with problems that cut across agencies to benefit from integrated support.

I have a potential solution. I am grateful to Citizens Advice for its suggestion of how we might solve the problem. Could the Legal Services Commission, or its successor body, be moved from centre stage? Could, say, £20 million be reallocated from its administrative budget—which would thereby be reduced to £80 million —to front-line funding based on local legal advice partnerships that would map local advice needs, share back-office services and be based on clear professional standards? There would have to be—

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Baroness Mallalieu Excerpts

Monday 16th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Mallalieu]

My Lords, I wonder what on earth could, in fact, be a valid reason for objecting to the spirit of the amendments in this group, in particular the one proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. If, as I fear, some parts of the Bill remain unchanged by amendment and legal aid is withdrawn from some areas, it is almost certain that it will be shown in due course that legal of aid was essential for the smooth running of our benefits systems, our legal system and our society. I suspect that there will be a public sense of unfairness when the extent of the proposed cuts is more widely known. I suspect that at that stage there may need to be, as others have already said, some rapid amendment to the existing system.

Who knows whether our economy may once again prosper? Further money may be available to spend, not just on more lavish opening ceremonies for the Olympics, royal yachts or high-speed railways but on the needs of people who are poor and disadvantaged. It is surely not beyond the bounds of possibility, as history has often shown, that a new field of law will develop rapidly and that legal aid will need to be extended to a different category that has not been anticipated to require it. Flexibility, as others have said, so that further primary legislation, which is costly and time consuming and inevitably involves considerable delay, can be avoided, ought surely to be embraced by the Minister with enthusiasm. I look forward to seeing it in a moment.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

My Lords, the problem for many lawyers is that we so often look into the past. Common lawyers in particular try to piece together what has happened before. Consequently, we tend always to look for evidence to support our interpretation of events. I certainly share that problem, but I have also had some experience of running an independent local radio company. During that time I realised the great difference between businesspeople and lawyers. Businesspeople have to take decisions about the future, and they can do that only on limited information.

In this instance, the Government have had to take a decision; it has been forced upon them. To adopt a phrase first used by the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, 50 years ago, “The Visigoths were at the gates”. It was therefore necessary to decide how best we can cut the deficit and how, in this instance, legal aid should share that burden. This is an issue which I think I raised with Ministers before the Bill came here—I certainly referred to it in my Second Reading speech—and I have had further discussions since. When taking decisions about the future, one has to have flexibility when the future happens. One has to be able to adopt what was decided at one moment in accordance with experience.

This is an instance of that. Some of the prognostications that we have heard from the lawyers around this place—and there have been a lot of “mays” and “what is likely to happen” and so on from lawyers—might happen in the future, in which case the provision of legal aid will have to change. The changes might be positive and legal aid granted more widely. It is therefore essential that the Lord Chancellor has the power to add back into the scope of legal aid matters that prove not to be profitable in the way that the Bill envisages. There are not the alternatives that the Minister speaks of for dealing with various legal issues and the very important question of access to justice. That is why I am speaking to Amendment 25 in my name. This is a very positive way in which the Minister can demonstrate that the Government will be flexible in this area, will listen to the concerns that are voiced in the Chamber and will adapt the Bill accordingly.

--- Later in debate ---

The problem in terms of patient safety and avoidable errors has to be addressed when looking at changing a system like this. The cost savings have already been somewhat debunked as the costs are being transferred from one ministry to another. I would urge the Minister to listen to the NHS Litigation Authority in England and the Shared Services Partnership in Wales, which want clinical negligence kept in scope for legal aid. The plea to take it out has not come from anywhere within the NHS, and I hope that he will reflect carefully on the unintended consequences that have been addressed in this debate.

[Baroness Mallalieu]

My Lords, a number of noble Lords have spoken who have experience both of the legal and the medical sides of such cases. I am not one of them—it is outside the scope of my field of practice—but I am conscious that this debate on clinical negligence has produced some very powerful arguments, and more very powerful arguments are likely to be produced in the debates on Schedule 1 which are to follow it.

Noble Lords clearly will be arguing what I imagine will be described as special pleading for a number of deserving areas. After clinical negligence I know we are moving on, among other arguments, to those in relation to children, the disabled, disabled children, victims of domestic violence, victims of human trafficking, those who are in need of a guiding hand through the labyrinth of our welfare system, and those whose cases involve complex issues of law which often—indeed almost always—require expertise to present them fairly. Those are just some of the areas to follow. So my sympathy for the Minister, in listening to this particular debate, is great. However, it seems that the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, is the very least that could be conceded. I am not by any means sure that it goes far enough, for the reasons which I will come to in a moment, and which the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, set out very clearly.

The Minister will have a difficult time at the end of the debates on these particular additions—as parts of the House will seek to make them—to Schedule 1. He could just stop his ears and refuse to concede on anything, and if he does I suspect that he will leave civil legal aid in tatters, and leave the civil justice system almost wholly to the well-off—to those who can afford to pay. He could pick one or two of the special cases—perhaps clinical negligence, which is very strong, or some of the others, about which we are about to hear. He could pick cases to concede on the basis of who shouts the loudest. He could pick cases that have the strongest or most numerous advocates in debate, those that are likely to attract a bad press for the Government, those that are likely to command public sympathy or—perhaps even more likely—those whose advocates manage to twist his arm most severely between Committee and Report stages in this House.

I respectfully suggest that the Minister should look first at just how much will in reality—particularly in the light of the King’s College research—be saved by each one of these proposals. As the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, said, in some cases it seems that the gain simply is not worth the candle and that legal aid is ultimately the cheapest option and should remain, albeit with the careful scrutiny suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, for areas where money could clearly be saved.

Once the Minister has done that and has looked at each of the special areas to see whether the financial argument stands up, surely he must look at those remaining areas to see whether alternative access to justice could be maintained by other means—by mediation; by some form of alternative dispute resolution; or, in clinical negligence cases, by CFAs. We have heard from people closely involved in that area who say that those means will not be available in relation to clinical negligence.

Having done that examination, I am sure that the Minister will find areas where, in his own mind, he has a very real doubt about whether a satisfactory alternative exists and whether he is, by persevering with the Bill in its present form, going to leave people to make their own arrangements without financial help, expert guidance or advocacy and where the result is that the consequences of no legal aid will leave citizens who need the help of our civil justice system with no realistic means of access to law.

I am quite sure that neither he nor the Lord Chancellor would wish to do any of that. When he comes to examine fairly each of the arguments on this aspect and the ones to follow, I hope that he will be open minded in his approach to what is to be done. As I understand it, fairness is the principle that our Prime Minister has said all the cuts which the Government propose are to accord. I cannot believe that that means that civil justice should henceforth be the prerogative of those with means. Unless the Minister, whose judgment I respect and admire, is personally satisfied in each case that an adequate alternative provision is available to such people, I hope that he will take the matter back to his department, take out a red pen where necessary and put his foot down.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, I rise in the hope of commanding your Lordships’ attention for two reasons. First, my name is on one of the amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend Lady Eaton. Secondly, since I was unable to be here last week, I want the Front Bench to know that I am back. I have listened with care to the speeches that have been made, and obviously I express my support in particular for the arguments on children’s clinical negligence which were raised by my noble friend Lady Eaton. I also want to say to my noble friends that when they come across an amendment with the names Newton and Tebbit on it, they are in trouble. I am sorry that my noble friend is evidently not able to be here today. We are friends but no one who knows us both will think that we always come from the same perspective. Here, we are united.

I need not repeat the points that have been made in debate, not least the very important points made by a number of my noble friends, including my noble friends Lord Faulks and Lord Carlile and—not to minimise any other speeches—the very constructive remarks just made by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. I share the view that this is one of those areas where it is highly likely not only that the game is not worth the candle but that the costs to other departments will be greater than any savings to the Ministry of Justice. That simply cannot be a sensible way to approach the problem of the deficit as a whole.

Without rehearsing all these arguments again, I hope that I am right in detecting in the air today a move away from what my noble friend Lord Carlile memorably described at an earlier stage as “irritated intransigence” from the other end of the building, and that we will get a constructive approach. We have certainly heard a lot of constructive speeches; I think that they deserve—if I may say so to my noble friends on the Front Bench—a constructive response. Leaving aside the Newton-Tebbit point, if I were them and looked at the totality of the names on the amendments in this group, I would decide, if I may coin a phrase, that concession was the better part of valour.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Baroness Mallalieu Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I briefly support the amendment by echoing the words that have already been quoted—those of the Lord Chancellor, who said:

“access to justice is a hallmark of a civilised society”,—[Official Report, Commons, 15/11/10; col. 659.]

and those of my noble friend Lord Pannick, who has said repeatedly that access to justice is a vital constitutional principle.

At Second Reading, I regretted that the word “rehabilitation” had been replaced by the word “punishment” in the title of this Bill, and I fear that the proposed denial of legal aid to some for whom its provision is a vital part of their rehabilitation suggests that there are some in government who are allowing an uncivilised concentration on punishment to supersede their duty to protect the public. I know that this is a hybrid Bill and that Part 3 will concentrate on rehabilitation, but I wish I felt the same of Part 1.

[Baroness Mallalieu]

My Lords, I wonder whether others felt, as I did, that what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, just said was music to the ears.

Of the amendments currently tabled to this Bill, I regard this amendment as by far and away the most important, and it is one that I strongly support. It provides the litmus test of what the Government are really trying to achieve with legal aid. This part of the Bill has been presented to us as a cost-saving measure that, in today’s climate, is hard to oppose, but as it stands it is far more than that. As others have said, Schedule 5 to the Bill repeals the fundamental principles of legal aid, which appear at present in the Access to Justice Act 1999. By removing them under Schedule 5, the Government have removed their obligation to supply legal services, to make sure that they are available and to make sure that the means of accessing them are available to those in need. They are, in effect, casting away two of the most vital parts of our constitution and essential ingredients of a just society. They are, first, equality before the law and, secondly, the principle that no one should be denied access to justice through lack of means. The omission of an overarching statement of principle at the start of this Bill signals that the Government no longer wish to honour that obligation. If the obligation does not rest on the Government, it does not in reality rest, or exist, at all.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Baroness Mallalieu Excerpts

Monday 21st November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Mallalieu]

My Lords, I must first declare two interests. I am a practising member of the criminal Bar with an almost exclusively legal aid practice. In addition, I have a daughter who has followed me into the same area of practice, despite my best efforts to stop her boarding a sinking ship. I have had 40 years’ experience of looking at the legal aid system from inside and outside, and in my seven minutes I will concentrate on Part 1 of this Bill.

Most members of the public give credit to the 1945 Labour Government for laying down the foundations of the National Health Service. However, few people outside this Chamber remember that that same Government introduced legal aid and that, later on, reforming Labour Lord Chancellors, notably Lord Gardiner and Lord Elwyn-Jones, built on those beginnings to try to ensure that no one in our country should be denied access to justice through lack of funds. They saw that principle, as I do, as a fundamental aim of a just and civilised society and part of our very constitution.

Since then, like the health budget, the legal aid budget has grown and grown as areas of law have developed and expanded. In the present climate, every area of public spending, including legal aid, faces cuts in addition to those that have already been imposed on criminal legal aid with very damaging consequences under the previous Administration.

The legal profession has not been guilty of special pleading. It entered into the consultation with the Government fully on this Bill and identified alternative cost savings of more than £350 million in the administration of justice, which the Government have so far chosen to ignore. Those proposals would have saved money yet retained the structure of the legal aid system without abandoning some of the most vulnerable to do-it-yourself justice. But instead, in Part 1 of the Bill, the Government have preferred to throw out the baby as well. Indeed, Part 1 might just as well be titled the “slash and burn” Bill, because it is destructive and in no way constructive. What it says is, “We’ll get rid of legal aid and maybe we’ll give a little help to some further mediation here or a bit of encouragement to some pro bono work there”.

If access to our health service was to be reduced to as many people and to the extent to which this Bill proposes to reduce access to legal assistance for those in need, there would be a public outcry and very probably a major demonstration taking place outside in Parliament Square today. We can all readily envisage a time when we or those close to us may need a doctor or a hospital, but few of us envisage needing a lawyer or having to go to court until it actually happens to us. Much of the outcry against this Bill, and there is one which will grow as its reality becomes better known to the wider public, comes from people who have seen for themselves those in need of help and the protection of the law, or with good and valid claims sometimes against government departments or large companies with big purses, who lack the means and the ability to pursue them without proper help.

Like others who have spoken, I hold no brief for ambulance chasing, for referral fees which should rightly go, or for excessive legal costs. For the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, I spoke out against conditional fee agreements when they were introduced in this House, but I have to say now, “Thank goodness for them”. I am very concerned about some of the steps that are proposed in a later part of the Bill which are likely to close that avenue off to many people.

To remove legal aid altogether, saying that there will be nothing but self-help in so many areas of the law for those who cannot afford to pay, ultimately does not punish the greedy lawyers, who if they exist in this field will simply move on to other work, but puts the most needy outside the protection of the law. Strong cases have been advanced in a number of areas during the course of this very interesting debate. People have argued for the victims of domestic violence, for those involved in welfare claims and also in cases of clinical negligence. All of these are likely to fall outside the scope, as far as I can see, of any remedy. I would just say this. Clinical negligence is not alone. There are many other cases where medical reports and expensive preparations have to be made before a case can be begun, and I doubt very much that many solicitors will take up those costs unless the case is 100 per cent sure, which they seldom are.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said, we have in this country the best legal system in the world. Our judges are drawn from the top of the practising profession and they are of the highest quality. Our courts are not corrupt, they are relatively speedy and they have a worldwide reputation for fairness. But our justice system will be tarnished if it lies beyond the means of whole sections of our poorest citizens. On the figures I have heard mentioned, over half a million people a year who would now be eligible for help will be excluded. If people are left with no alternative but to grin and bear it or try to represent themselves, usually against a trained lawyer experienced in the field, where does that take equality of arms? I sat as a recorder for some years in both criminal and civil cases. A litigant in person was the one thing I most dreaded. The whole case took far longer as everything had to be explained—the procedure and the law, which usually I had no time to check. I had to help them with the evidence, with cross-examination and, indeed, with every aspect of the case. The rest of the list, which was always long, often went out of the window.

The Government’s own research shows that poorer outcomes, longer delays, fewer settlements and overall a greater likelihood of injustice occurs where someone is not represented. To take away legal aid in cases where at present there is no practical alternative and to leave so many of our poorer people without help in a time of need is to strike a blow at fairness itself. We may all have to stomach many unpalatable cuts in these difficult times but we would be mad to dismantle the very structure of one of the pillars of our constitution which goes to the essence of fairness in our society and respect for the rule of law.

When we come to the Committee stage of this Bill for my part I shall support the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, indicated that he would put down and which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, indicated that he would support, which will place clearly on the head of the Lord Chancellor a duty to secure that legal aid is made available in order to ensure effective access to justice. If we cannot stop unpleasant and painful cuts being made, we can at least stop the pillars of our constitution being knocked down in this way.