Civil Liability Bill [Lords]

Bambos Charalambous Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 4th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

One of the fundamental principles of the legal system in England and Wales is equality before the law. This Bill skews things even further in favour of the insurance industry at the expense of the general public. It is yet another attempt by the Government to deny access to justice. It is an attack on victims of accidents at work and victims of road traffic accidents.

The insurance industry has been successful in lobbying the Government and already has a huge advantage over the general public thanks to various enactments by previous Conservative-led Governments. In 2012, the Government passed the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act, which took away legal aid for all personal injury claims and introduced fixed fees, with some costs having to come out of claimants’ damages. In 2015, the Government passed the Criminal Justice and Courts Act, which introduced the “fundamental dishonesty” defence allowing defendant insurance companies to have a claim dismissed if, on the balance of probabilities, the judge was convinced that the claim was fraudulent.

The insurers also set up “askCUE”—Claims and Underwriting Exchange— which, for a fee, can find those who are repeat claimants. The insurers also fund a unit at City of London police to help detect and prosecute fraudulent claims. Insurers have amassed quite an arsenal of weaponry to use against fraudulent claims, but they tell us that this is not enough and that there is widespread insurance fraud. I have yet to see any reliable figures that support that.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

What does the hon. Gentleman say to people like me who have received emails from compensation claim companies asking them to commit fraud? Does he acknowledge that phenomenon?

[Bambos Charalambous]

In the cases of people who are willing to enter into a criminal enterprise with those companies, we should be going after the claims management companies. I would support targeting those, but not at the expense of attacking the public with the measures in this Bill.

Included in their figures of alleged fraud are people who have withdrawn their claims and those who have had their claims refused over the phone. Figures from the Government’s own Compensation Recovery Unit show that claims are at their lowest since 2009. Government measures are already working and the insurance industry is settling 99% of all road accident claims. This Bill and its measures are totally unnecessary and unwarranted.

As hon. Members have already stated, the increase in the small claims limit from £1,000 to £2,000 generally, and to £5,000 for road traffic accidents, is scandalous. If the Bill passes, claims for the same injury suffered by the same person will be treated differently because it occurred when in a car. How is that equality before the law? We should not forget that claimants are the innocent parties and would be suing someone for the negligence that caused their injury. If claimants are not able to secure the services of a solicitor, they may not succeed in their claim. That will deprive them of damages to which they should be entitled, and may well make things difficult. For example, an employee suing their employer for accident at work would find it very hard to do so without a solicitor.

Clause 1 of the Bill tries to define what a whiplash injury is, but seems to have done so without any medical references. It says that an injury is defined as whiplash if it is a “tear” or “rupture”

“of a muscle, tendon or ligament”.

This clumsy attempt to define whiplash fails to take into account the fact that many of these injuries can be debilitating, requiring serious and complex medical treatment. The definition also unfairly captures serious injuries that could result in the victim not receiving the proper compensation they are due.

Clause 3 then goes on to say that the Lord Chancellor will set the tariffs for compensation for whiplash claims. The draft tariffs seem to have been plucked out of thin air. There is no rhyme or reason when compared with the figures currently set by the Judicial College or the Government’s own figures for the criminal injuries compensation scheme. Under the current criminal injuries compensation scheme, if someone was hit by a driver who was then convicted of a criminal offence, and if they suffered whiplash for over 13 weeks, their claim would be worth £1,000; the Government would pay the claimant £1,000. Under the current proposals in the Bill, a claim for a whiplash injury of between three to six months recovery would be worth only £470. Why are the Government allowing insurers to pay less than half of what would be paid by the Government? The inconsistency is staggering and shows just how much the Government are willing to please insurers.

It should not be left up to the Lord Chancellor to set these tariffs. No explanation has been given for how these figures have been reached. It should be for the judiciary to set the tariffs, as they have daily experience of dealing with such evidence-based claims in court. If the Lord Chancellor is allowed to set these tariffs, figures for whiplash will be unlikely to rise if past performance of the criminal injuries compensation scheme is anything to go by.

Under the criminal injuries compensation scheme, a claim for a whiplash injury from which the victim took six to 13 weeks to recover was set at £1,000 in 1995. These figures have been revised twice—in 2001 and 2008—and the compensation rate of £1,000 remained unchanged despite inflation. In 2012, whiplash claims of six to 13 weeks were removed altogether, and the rate of £1,000 was available only for claims of over 13 weeks. If the figure of £1,000 had been index linked to the retail prices index since 1995, a whiplash claim under the scheme would have been worth £2,780.30 in today’s money.

Let me turn to part 2 of the Bill. Last year, the Justice Committee produced a report on the discount rate. The discount rate applies only to large awards of damages for victims who have suffered catastrophic, life-changing injuries that leave them in need of constant care, adaptations to their home and additional support. The Justice Committee recommended the setting up of an independent expert panel to advise the Lord Chancellor on setting the rate and said that the panel’s advice should be published in full. I can see no reason why the Government are trying to restrict the transparency of this process, and I invite them to amend this measure. I think we would all agree that the rate needs to be reviewed more frequently than it has been over a number of years, but three years is far better than five years, as it would ensure far fewer fluctuations in the figure.

It is also deeply concerning that the Lord Chancellor can take into account other factors than those defined by the Bill when setting the rate. This wide discretion opens up the setting of the rate to potential lobbying that could adversely impact the compensation of those who have suffered severe, catastrophic injuries. It is also worth noting that for the purposes of setting the discounted rate, the Bill changes the level of risk of an investment from “very low” to “low”. The lump sum to be invested is there to last for a victim’s entire life, so reducing the level of risk of the investment in setting the discounted rate is concerning, and it has not been properly explained.

This Bill does nothing for the innocent victims of personal injury. It is littered with inconsistencies, has parts that do not stand up to scrutiny, and loads the dice in favour of the insurance companies. The Bill will result in innocent victims of road traffic accidents being penalised because the insurance companies are unable to deal with the alleged whiplash fraud, which they cannot properly quantify. It is shameful that the Government have indulged the insurance companies to such a degree, to the detriment of innocent, law-abiding people. This Bill puts profit before people, restricts access to justice, and creates further inequality before the law. The basic principle that underpins our system of justice is being undermined. This Bill is plainly and simply unjust.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bambos Charalambous Excerpts

Tuesday 5th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

I challenge the hon. Gentleman on his figures. I am happy to give him the correct figures, but the Government are doing a lot to reduce waiting times for every type of tribunal, by increasing the number of members of the judiciary and bringing in a number of measures to make tribunals work much more effectively together.

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

One of my constituents has a brother who has been missing for more than a year. She would like to step in to manage his affairs and protect his property and finances, but she cannot: although the Guardianship (Missing Persons) Act 2017 received Royal Assent on 27 April 2017, it has yet to come into force because the rules of court have not been published. When will the Minister publish the rules of court to allow the Act to take effect, so that my constituent can deal with her missing brother’s affairs?

Criminal Legal Aid

Bambos Charalambous Excerpts

Tuesday 8th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

The fundamental principles of justice and the right to a fair trial have been enshrined in the English law since as far back as Magna Carta, and despite all the many different threats to the right to a fair trial since its signing in 1215, the biggest threat facing our country’s legal system is right here, right now, today. The constant chipping away at, and the catastrophic underfunding of, criminal legal aid has led to a broken justice system perilously close to collapse. Two years ago, the Public Accounts Committee stated that the criminal justice system was at breaking point. The Government have failed to heed those warnings, and we now have a situation whereby it is only through the extraordinary good will and willingness to go the extra mile of prosecutors and defence barristers that justice can be done.

I had an email on Sunday from one of my constituents who is a pupil barrister specialising in criminal law in her second six months of training. She told me that she had already been prosecuting cases, had had experience of being handed papers to prosecute a case at court on the day, had seen cases adjourned because of disclosure failures, and that this was not uncommon. She went on:

“I’m afraid that I won’t be able to earn enough to support myself, let alone enough to buy a home, start a family, retire with a decent pension. I hope I’ll be able to justify staying in this profession, which is so hard but which I already love so much, and which I’ve invested so much work and money in joining. I don’t need riches, but I need to be able to live, and my future clients will need me to be able to dedicate the time their cases require and deserve. I need to know I will be paid for my work, or I just won’t be able to do it. And where will we be if a thousand people in my position come to that conclusion, and there is no one to replace us?”

That is the point. Where will we be if we stop being able to attract people to practise criminal law? How many miscarriages of justice can we expect for defendants and victims as disclosures are made late, documents are not properly read, and defendants cease to be properly represented? With more cuts planned in the Ministry of Justice, it is clear that this is a targeted assault on the criminal justice system, and that the Government have a flagrant disregard for the future of criminal justice.

The advocates’ graduated fee scheme is the means by which the Government hope to reap some of those cuts. AGFS spending has fallen by 40% since 2010, and given that the new scheme proposed in the regulations is meant to be cost-neutral, this is surely just a case of rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. The fact that the views of the Criminal Bar Association have not been listened to also leads me to conclude that the scheme is a sham, and exists purely to deliver cuts for the Government.

There are so many absurdities in the current AGFS system that one would think it had been devised in an “Alice in Wonderland” environment. Why—this question was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon)—is an advocate who deals with a case involving 250 pages of evidence paid the same as an advocate who deals with one involving 5,000 pages? Why is someone handling a rape case with one defendant and one complainant paid the same as someone else handling a case involving multiple victims and multiple complainants? Why is there no recognition of the additional work involved in dealing with vulnerable witnesses, children or people with mental health conditions? Is a standard appearance fee of £90 really acceptable when the cost of catching a train to the court is significantly more? Is a fee of £125 for a sentencing acceptable? Why have fees not gone up since 2007? The Minister and others have claimed that this scheme is an improvement on the previous one, but an improvement on a terrible, failing scheme which makes it into a bad one is, for criminal barristers, no improvement at all.

The impact of the cuts in criminal legal aid will be felt for many years to come, as barristers and solicitors leave criminal justice in their droves. Why would anyone stay in a profession that is incredibly stressful when the pay is barely enough to survive on? Research conducted by Young Legal Aid Lawyers—lawyers with up to 10 years’ experience—revealed that 30% of respondents earned less than £20,000 and 83% earned less than £35,000. Throw into the mix tuition fees for undergraduates and the Bar Professional Training Course, which could leave them with debts of £50,000 or more, and we have a very unappealing set of factors that will repel applicants rather than attract them.

We are approaching a tipping point which, if not addressed, could have disastrous effects on the number of practitioners working in criminal law, and could also have an effect on the quality of the legal advice that people receive. We can forget any diversity or social mobility targets, because unless criminal legal aid is properly funded, only those who are able to afford to support themselves will enter the profession. That threatens the very right to a fair trial, which takes me back to where I started. Unless criminal legal aid is properly funded, which means tearing up the AGFS and starting again, this will sound the death knell for those practising criminal law. I say to the Minister, “You cannot do justice on the cheap.”

Leaving the EU: Justice System

Bambos Charalambous Excerpts

Thursday 29th March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck. As a former solicitor, I know only too well the vital services provided by the legal profession, not only to clients in the UK but across Europe and globally. Legal services are the largest market in the EU, thanks to the strength and stability of English and Welsh law, our independent courts and judiciary and the excellence of our legal service providers.

The contribution of the legal services sector to the UK economy was worth more than £26 billion, or 1.5% of the UK’s GDP, in 2017, so any impact of Brexit on legal services would have a knock-on effect on the UK economy. The sector employs more than 380,000 people and the latest statistics suggest that the legal services sector was responsible for a net export of more than £4 billion.

At the moment, European directives mean that lawyers and law firms are able to benefit from a simple, predictable and uniform system that allows them a temporary or permanent presence in other EU member states. UK lawyers are able to service the cross-border needs of businesses and individuals from both satellite offices in the EU and London offices, and 36 out of the 50 top UK law firms have at least one office in another EU or EEA state or in Switzerland. They have a presence in 26 of those 31 countries.

As lawyers from an EU member state, UK lawyers can appear before EU courts. If we were to lose those rights, UK lawyers would not be able to advise on areas such as competition, intellectual property or trade, due to restrictions on rights of audience at certain EU institutions, such as the Court of Justice of the European Union. Those are all currently lucrative practices for UK-qualified lawyers and bring business to UK law firms. Losing such business could be economically catastrophic for firms and for the UK economy.

Without a deal, the attractiveness of UK law and lawyers for multinational business will decrease, which will lead to an increase in costs for transactions involving UK lawyers and law firms. Even though the UK will remain an open market for global lawyers, having no partnership agreement could lead to restrictive regulations against leading law firms in the UK that want to provide services in the EU27. It is possible that 30 different regimes could impose restrictions and limitations on practice rights on UK lawyers and law firms. For example, subject to any potential visa requirements, French lawyers could be providing on-site legal advice to UK businesses, but the reverse would not be true.

Unless alternative arrangements are agreed, UK lawyers would lose the right to represent their clients before EU courts prior to the UK’s exit. They would no longer be authorised to carry out that work. Clients of UK lawyers would no longer automatically benefit from client-lawyer confidentiality, until an alternative is agreed, as the CJEU does not recognise the privileged nature of communications between a lawyer who is not qualified in the EU and a client. It is essential that the Government negotiate mutual access for lawyers to practise law and base themselves in the UK and the EU, and that should include rights of audience in EU courts and legal professional privilege at the EU Commission.

We know that the Government are seeking an agreement like the comprehensive economic and trade agreement, but CETA provides voluntary, not binding, guidelines for concluding mutual recognition agreements between professional bodies. As the Law Society has stated, a CETA-style agreement

“is essentially a ‘no deal’ outcome for the legal services sector...The CETA style agreement would lead to a lack of legal certainty which would affect business confidence and have a negative wider impact on the UK economy”.

We need to make sure that the UK is a global centre for legal services and that we promote it across Europe and internationally. I hope the Minister will address my points and the questions in the Committee’s report, in her reply.

Private Probation Services

Bambos Charalambous Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2018 Westminster Hall

[Ellie Reeves]

I agree. If offenders are contacted only by telephone, if appointments are missed without any follow-up and if months pass before there is contact from the probation service, the system is not working; it is driven by profit, rather than by the need to rehabilitate and prevent reoffending. That is all too often overlooked.

The HMIP report stated that in almost every respect, the quality of probation work was noticeably better across the national probation service than in the body of CRCs. That highlights the point that outsourcing and privatising probation services is just not working. It is clear that the fragmentation of services has led to an overall decline in communication and co-operation between stakeholders. The report is clear in its criticisms of CRCs and their pitiful attempts at Through the Gate rehabilitation. The conclusion of the chief inspectors was damning:

“The gap between aspiration and reality is so great, that we wonder whether there is any prospect that these services will deliver the desired impact on rates of reoffending.”

They also noted:

“If Through the Gate services were removed tomorrow, in our view the impact on the resettlement of prisoners would be negligible.”

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the failure of CRCs’ Through the Gate services will lead to more serious offending and therefore to more problems higher up for the national probation service?

[Ellie Reeves]

Yes. If the Through the Gate system is not working and if offenders are not resettled in the community with employment, housing and engagement with probation services to get their lives back on track, we know that they are more likely to reoffend. The CRCs are not getting reoffending rates down—they have failed to deliver that.

The “Transforming Rehabilitation” programme was not just about rehabilitation, but about protecting the public—a linchpin of any justice system. However, in a recent BBC “Panorama” documentary, Dame Glenys Stacey, the chief inspector of probation, stated that she could not say for certain that every private probation company was managing to protect the public as well as it should. In its investigation, “Panorama” spoke to an offender who was released from a short sentence in May. He said that he had not met his probation officer for almost a month after release, and that probation services were deteriorating; in the past, he knew exactly who his probation officer was, but now it was hard to tell. The CRC in that instance was MTCnovo, which covers all medium and low-risk offenders in London.

Parole Board: Transparency and Victim Support

Bambos Charalambous Excerpts

Friday 19th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

As my hon. Friend will be aware, accountability for decisions on prosecutions is not an area that falls within my responsibilities. However, I very much understand and sympathise with her point, and I know that this is an issue on which the Attorney General is very focused.

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

Following on from the comments of the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach), will the Minister be looking at how the CPS and the police deal with cases where it comes to light that, in cases of serious offences such as this, there are further victims? John Worboys was convicted of the rape of and sexual assault against 12 women, but more than 85 others came forward after the event, and that needs to be looked at in case similar such events occur.

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Gentleman has put his point, which is a very fair one, on the record. To some extent, I refer to my earlier answer, but clearly with regard to whether there is a public interest case in bringing further prosecutions, that is no doubt something that both the Metropolitan police and the Crown Prosecution Service will want to consider.

Prison Reform and Safety

Bambos Charalambous Excerpts

Thursday 7th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

Nelson Mandela said:

“It is said that no one truly knows a nation until one has been inside its jails. A nation should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens, but its lowest ones.”

Those words should be at the forefront of our minds as we consider the ways in which prisons operate in England and Wales.

With £3.954 billion of annual expenditure, prisons take up the largest share of the Ministry of Justice’s budget. That goes towards maintaining the 118 adult prisons and keeping roughly 86,000 people in prison. According to 2015-16 figures, that works out at a staggering £32,510 per prisoner.

As a member of the Justice Committee, a week ago I made a very interesting visit to Cookham Wood young offenders institute and Medway secure training centre. I was heartened to see the education and training provided, but at the same time I was concerned to learn that, due to staffing levels, young people were not getting the 27 hours of education that they were supposed to get. Instead, they were receiving just half that amount. In my view, that seriously hampers the rehabilitation of those young men and increases the chances of them reoffending.

I was also concerned about the number of black, Asian and minority ethnic young offenders at Cookham Wood, and I want to link that to the Lammy review, which was published on 8 September, and improving outcomes for young black and/or Muslim men in the criminal justice system. The review states that BAME people make up 3% of the population but more than 12% of the adult prison population, and the proportion of under-18s in custody who are BAME has risen from 25% in 2006 to 41% in 2016. There is a disproportionate number of BAME prisoners in the criminal justice system at a cost to taxpayers of at least £309 million each year.

The Lammy review highlighted three key themes for action. The first is to strengthen the link between scrutiny and equitable decision making on the fairness of the system. That means using the principle of “explain or reform”, so that if there is no evidence-based explanation for the disparities, they should be addressed through reform. The second is understanding and addressing the trust deficit. The Centre for Justice Innovation has found that more than half of British-born BAME people believe that the criminal justice system discriminates against particular groups, compared with 35% of British-born white people. The third is identifying where responsibilities lie beyond the criminal justice system. Issues include parenting, the exploitation of young people, and the need for closer work with communities to hold offenders to account.

The review made 35 recommendations and considered how they relate to prisons, among other areas, and preventing reoffending. One of the recommendations was to collect data. What do the Government plan to do in relation to collecting and disclosing data on the ethnicity of prisoners and offenders?

I am also concerned about the basic screening custody tool for reception and resettlement. I am aware of problems faced by community rehabilitation centres and their subcontractors in receiving data that would help them to inform their view of what help a prisoner may need for resettlement. I am firmly of the view that more investment is needed for resettlement to work in prison.

As has been said, there is serious concern about the state of some of our older prisons, whose living conditions are poor and inadequate. Hon. Members may have read recently about the appalling conditions at HMP Liverpool. There is also concern about the staffing of our prisons, with 95 out of 104 of Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service prisons being understaffed. There are 13% fewer operational staff than in 2010, and we all know that a full complement of staff is required to keep prisoners safe and protected from violence, and to help to reduce the prevalence of psychoactive drugs in our prisons.

One of the reasons why there is such demand for psychoactive drugs is the fact that many prisoners are locked up for long periods. It is a widely held view that more purposeful activity outside cells is a good way to reduce demand for drugs. Similarly, more staffing would help to keep vulnerable prisoners safe. It is worrying that there were 120 suicides in prison in 2016, which was double the number in 2012. We need to keep prison staff safe as well. In the 12 months prior to March 2017, there were 7,159 assaults on prison staff, which was a 32% increase on the previous 12-month period.

In conclusion, the Minister and the Ministry of Justice have much work to do if they want to reduce reoffending among prisoners.

Legal Aid

Bambos Charalambous Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this important debate, Mr Robertson. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) on securing it.

To get perspective on the problem of access to legal aid, we first need to remind ourselves that the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949 came in as one of the Labour Government’s swathe of measures to help alleviate poverty in the welfare state following the 1945 election victory. Over the years, scope was increased to keep up to date with social developments, but over the past 25 years, we have seen a gradual erosion of legal aid, culminating in a full-scale attack on it via the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, or LASPO, to give it its shorter name.

Let us be under no illusions: LASPO was introduced under the cloak of austerity to cut the legal aid budget. To that extent, it has succeeded, cutting the total spend on legal aid from £2.499 billion in 2010-11 to £1.554 billion in 2016-17: a cut of £945 million, or 38%, to give the percentage total. Taking areas such as some family law and welfare law out of scope is having a devastating effect on some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

Couples who split up, sometimes acrimoniously, and who disagree about access to the children are not legally represented owing to the cuts, leaving a judge in the invidious position of trying to sort out the case with limited documentation. Who knows what the impact will be on the children while the court tries to muddle through the process? This could be the most important decision in a child’s life, yet we are likely to have two aggrieved people thrown into a combative situation, with terminology and procedures misunderstood, and making matters worse for the child. Or there are instances where a vulnerable person has a valid case for claiming backdated housing benefit, but is unable to find a lawyer to help, because an application to a social security tribunal is taken out of scope, leaving the person with arrears of rent and facing eviction. We have gone from 80% of people being eligible for legal aid to only 20% being eligible. The onslaught on the legal profession owing to the legal aid cuts has resulted in legal aid firms closing, leaving legal advice deserts in more and more parts of the country, and people desperate, with little chance of getting proper representation.

In a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) on 11 September 2017, the Ministry of Justice said that nationally the number of legal aid providers had fallen from 2,991 in 2012 to 2,393 in 2017. That is a fall of 598, or nearly 20%, in five years. The firms that have survived are also struggling as legal aid rates have not increased in over 20 years. I congratulate the Law Society on its excellent recent report on legal aid, as referred to by my hon. Friends the Members for Westminster North (Ms Buck), for Glasgow North East, and for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves).

The legal aid cuts are also impacting on barristers. Junior criminal barristers face a crazy situation whereby they would receive only £44 for doing a plea in Coventry tomorrow, when the train fare is £83 and not recoverable. Would anybody seriously do a job that would leave them out of pocket? The truth is that the legal aid cuts are a false economy and end up costing us all more in the long run. Goldsmiths University has estimated that every £1 cut in legal aid costs us all £6 in additional services provided.

So what is to be done? Hon. Friends have referred to the Bach commission’s final report, “The Right to Justice”, which was published in September this year. It made 22 recommendations to improve access to justice and redress the failure of LASPO, which has left many people unable to access justice because they cannot afford to. The 22 recommendations, as touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), include: creating a right to justice Act, which would enshrine the right of access to justice in statute and would set up a justice commission to advise, monitor and enforce that right; reforming legal aid assessment, so that anyone in receipt of a means-tested benefit is automatically eligible for legal aid; broadening the scope of legal aid, so that all social welfare law, matters relating to children, various areas of private family law, immigration and inquests, which were so eloquently referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge, are brought back into scope; replacing the Legal Aid Agency with an independent body that is at arm’s length from the Government; and reducing the administrative burden on providers.

In addition to implementing the recommendations, we need to repeal LASPO and make sure that legal advice is provided earlier and quicker, along the lines of the old green form scheme. We also need to embrace technology and educate the general public as to their rights, and we need to ensure that the legal aid system is fit for purpose, so that we do not get miscarriages of justice because of the cuts, or see the decimation of the legal profession that does legal aid work. We should never forget that the legal aid scheme was designed to help the most vulnerable in our society, and right now the system is failing them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dominic Raab]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention and hope he accepts the figure showing that the spending in England and Wales per capita is 13% higher. I agree with him on a point that the hon. Member for Glasgow North East did not take up: this is not just about how much money is spent, but about how the resources are allocated. Indeed, the question of access to justice is broader than purely the administration or funding of legal aid, so on that point, I accept what he said.

In truth, the legal aid scheme has been the subject of regular change since its inception. Spending has increased substantially, and all Administrations—Labour, the coalition, and Conservative—have sought to exercise control over spending in recent times. I think we all agree that we need to exercise control over legal aid and other precious public services in order to ensure that the finite, precious resources go to those who need them most.

The most recent reforms were part of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which came in the context of huge financial pressure on the country’s finances. The reforms were founded on the principle of ensuring that legal aid continues to be available for the highest priority cases—for example, when an individual’s life or liberty is at stake, when someone faces the loss of their home, in domestic violence cases, or when children may be taken into care—and in achieving that, delivering better value for money for taxpayers by reducing the cost of the scheme and discouraging unnecessary litigation. Again, although this has not been mentioned today, in some cases—not all—going to court is not the right thing to do, and I will touch on that if I have time later.

I appreciate that the changes in LASPO were contentious. They were subjected to a significant amount of rigorous scrutiny at the time, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) said. They were debated extensively and amendments were made before the legislation was approved by Parliament. It has been several years since the implementation of those landmark reforms, so it is absolutely right to take stock. That is why we recently laid before the House a detailed, post-legislative memorandum summarising how LASPO was implemented and making a preliminary assessment of its impact. In addition, my predecessors made a commitment to the House to conduct a detailed post-implementation review of the changes to establish to what degree the reforms had achieved their objectives. It is right that we are now fulfilling that pledge.

As hon. Members have acknowledged, that appraisal will cover each issue that has been subject to a previous commitment by Ministers in this House. The Lord Chancellor recently announced the start of the process. That will be led by officials, but I am keen to listen to interested parties, including hon. Members from across the House. Given the importance of the reforms, it is right that we take time to gather the necessary evidence and views of experts on the impact of the changes.

The hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) asked me about the detail of the review. I will write to stakeholders shortly to invite them to participate in a series of expert panels to consider and sift through relevant evidence to inform our review, which will be comprehensive. I want to ensure that we get the review right. Of course, I will not pre-empt or prejudice the outcome of the review—I am sure she expected me to say that—but we will publish our findings by the summer recess. One or two hon. Members asked about that.

We must acknowledge that the financial pressures in which the LASPO reforms were introduced remain with us today. The proportion of departmental spend on legal aid remains broadly the same today as it was prior to 2010. We in the Government have the responsibility to ensure that taxpayers get the best value for money, as well as deal with the challenges and fixing the problems of the legal aid system as and when they arise.

That is why I recently announced our changes to the fee scheme for criminal litigators in the Crown court. Defence solicitors do incredibly valuable work and we want to remunerate them fairly for it, but since 2013-14 there has been a rise of more than £30 million in the annual spend on that work. That is primarily attributable to a costs judge ruling that changed what we were paying for beyond the initial policy intention. We do not accept that that reflects an increase in the work done by defence solicitors and do not think that the rise reflects value for money for taxpayers, so it is right that we acted to address that.

We have targeted the action to the 2% of Crown court cases—the most expensive cases—in which the problem was identified. Effectively, the change involves a shift in policy so that more remuneration is for work that is actually done and not just for the amount of paperwork that is produced in court. It is absolutely right that solicitors are properly paid for work that is reasonably done through the scheme. At the same time, as the quid pro quo for putting the proper reforms in place to ensure that the precious, finite resources go to those with the greatest need, we announced our intention not to pursue the suspended 8.75% fee cut, which would have affected all solicitors. Those two parts of the jigsaw will make sure that we get this right. As I mentioned, this is not just about the money that goes in, but about ensuring that we get the best use out of it.

The hon. Member for Westminster North raised the issue of domestic violence, as did the shadow justice Minister, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero). Domestic violence is absolutely abhorrent; it appals every one of us in this place, I am sure, and it is an absolute priority for this Government. We are completely clear that genuine victims of domestic violence and abuse must have access to the help that they need, including access to legal aid. That is why we retained legal aid for protective injunctions. Legal aid was granted in more than 12,000 protective injunction cases last year. In addition, in cases involving child arrangements and financial matters, funding is available for those who will be disadvantaged by facing their abuser in court.

As the hon. Lady mentioned, we are considering the findings of the further internal review of the evidence requirements. I will make an announcement on that shortly, which I am confident—or at least, I hope—will receive support from all parts of the House. She also asked who would be consulted. That is of the greatest importance and we are working very hard to get this into the right kind of shape, engaging Rights of Women, Resolution, Women’s Aid and the Law Society, so that we can be confident that we are doing everything we can to protect and support genuine victims.

Although it is right to ensure that those who are most in need of legal aid are able to access it, we should acknowledge that the courts are not going to be the right solution in non-domestic violence cases in other areas. I am thinking particularly of some family law disputes, which the hon. Lady mentioned. In many family law cases, the challenge is to see them not go to court. I accept the point about mediation not being as successful as we had hoped, but the answer is to renew and revive the efforts to achieve greater use of alternative dispute resolution in some cases. That is not just because of the financial implications, but because of the trauma of going to court—not for lawyers, but for the many people affected by such cases. I think that needs to be emphasised.

We need to do more to promote alternative dispute resolution, so we have protected legal help in many cases. Last year, we spent £100 million on early legal advice and assistance in civil and family cases. In other areas, we have introduced a telephone helpline to provide legal advice in certain categories of case to allow individuals to access advice quickly and easily. Last year, there were more than 20,000 instances of advice being obtained usefully and helpfully through that system. We have also developed a user-friendly digital tool—as the world becomes more digital, it is right that the justice system strives to catch up—to make it clear to people when legal aid is available to them.

When an alternative route is more appropriate, people should feel empowered to pursue it without having to find a lawyer at great expense, whether that is to themselves or the taxpayer. For instance, in cases involving separating couples, mediation can be less stressful and quicker than going to court, and it is often far cheaper than using a lawyer. Critically, it can help to reduce conflict after separation and the trauma of that, often on both sides, which in some cases litigation will make worse, not better.

The Government are committed to promoting mediation and its benefits, and legal aid remains available for these cases. In the 12 months to June 2017, a full or partial agreement was reached in 62% of publicly funded cases in which both parties engaged in mediation. Of course, as hon. Members have mentioned, citizens can and do represent themselves in court, in some cases irrespective of whether legal aid is available or whether they are privately funded. Litigants in person are not a new feature of our justice system. People involved in litigation are engaged in a variety of disputes and have a wide range of needs and capabilities. We recognise that for some people, representing themselves in court is purely a matter of choice, but for others it can be very challenging and demanding.

[Bambos Charalambous]

Is the Minister aware that there is a piece in this week’s Law Society Gazette about rewriting civil procedure rules to accommodate litigants in person, who may not fully understand court procedures in civil proceedings?

[Dominic Raab]

I have not seen that article, but we are constantly looking to ensure that the court system is as amenable as it can be to litigants in person. Contrary to what the shadow Minister suggested, a range of support is available for that; we have ensured that persons without legal representation can get help and support. Since 2015, the Government have invested £5 million of funding to support litigants in person through the litigant in person support strategy, which works with a range of partners across the advice, voluntary and pro bono sectors to provide practical support, whether that is online self-help resources, access to free or affordable legal advice or representation where possible. Personal support units provide trained volunteers who give free and independent assistance to people facing proceedings without legal representation in civil and family courts and tribunals. More personal support units have opened in courts to provide direct support and information to litigants in person, and there are now 20 such centres in 16 cities.

Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Bill

Bambos Charalambous Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 20th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why I pay enormous tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), who, with the Police Federation, has led the charge on this issue and brought it to the House. I feel as if I am merely carrying the baton that she elegantly shaped.

Figures from NHS Protect are equally disturbing. There were 59,794 attacks on NHS staff in 2011-12. That is bad enough, but the figure increased to 70,555 by 2015-16. Yet the number of criminal sanctions for those assaults has actually fallen in that time, from 1,380 to 1,250. That is a lot of people who are not seeing justice.

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that the cost to the NHS of these attacks is estimated to be £69 million a year?

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend is able to read my mind, because that was my next sentence.