Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Ben Gummer Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2011 Commons Chamber

It is unbelievably short-sighted of this disgraceful Tory-led coalition Government, disgracefully propped up by the Liberal Democrats, to suggest that this might be a good idea. [Interruption.] I am not sure what the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), said from a sedentary position, but I am sure it was not worth hearing. The reality is—make no mistake about it—that this will cost an awful lot more money in the long run. I am glad I have put that on the record because at some point in the future I will be saying it again to those on the Treasury Bench.

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

It is always a considerable pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner). His speech was passionate, well informed and full of some good sense. I was unable to support a similar amendment of his in Committee, because on one rather important issue I disagree with him. I do not think it is wrong in principle for a millionaire who has been convicted of murder to be charged for the legal defence they received at the police station. However, I do agree with the hon. Gentleman that what is important is the point at which that charging happens.

[Karl Turner]

I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Gentleman, too. I mean that sincerely.

I recall attending a police station to represent a doctor who had an NHS practice as well as a private practice. If he had said to me, “Listen, I’ll pay you,” I would not have continued to advise him in what was a very important case. When a solicitor turns up at a police station in such circumstances, they cannot be sure they will be paid. Even if the doctor had given me an absolute, cast-iron assurance that I would get that money, the firm of solicitors that employed me would not have allowed me to stay there. That is why I disagreed with the amendment of the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) in Committee. He suggested that two hours should be free, and then there could be charging. I disagree; I think anybody in a police-station scenario should be entitled to free and independent legal advice.

[Ben Gummer]

At the risk of this turning into a mutual affection session, let me say that I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point and agree with the foundation of his argument, which is that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 was the most significant advance in criminal law in this country since the second world war and we must take into account the abuses that led to its introduction. On that basis, it is an important principle that there should be free and unmolested legal advice at the point of arrest for all people, no matter how much they are worth, so that no one need be worried about the quality of the advice they are getting.

We could, however, debate whether it is appropriate to have retrospective charging for people of means who have subsequently been convicted.

[Mr Burrowes]

All Members want there to be proper access to justice for all, and informed legal advice that can address miscarriages of justice and uphold people’s basic human rights in police stations. Might those charges be best recovered at the point of conviction? That would not create risks in respect of access to justice. Also, in prosecutions by the Department for Work and Pensions and other agencies, applications are made that cover the costs for the whole of the investigation as well as the court costs.

[Ben Gummer]

I bow to my hon. Friend’s superior experience of such matters. There might be a mechanism under which retrospective charging would be possible. We could debate that, and Members on both sides of the House would make reasonable arguments. Given the phrasing of the provision currently under discussion however, such a debate is not possible now.

I hope the Government will be able to provide assurances on another problem. In principle, I am against contingent legislation. I remember sitting up in the Public Gallery when I was very small, watching others in this Chamber discuss prevention of terrorism legislation. The then Opposition, headed by Neil Kinnock, were arguing passionately against that legislation for precisely the reason I am discussing. I do not think that they were right in that circumstance, but I find troubling the idea of putting contingent legislation on the statute book that could be re-enacted by order later without reference to Parliament. I hope, therefore, that the Government will either flesh out their proposals for the retrospective charging of defendants should they be convicted or decide to approach this matter in a different way.

[Lyn Brown]

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could help us on the motivation of his Front-Bench team for making this clause contingent. Does the Minister need people to walk through the Lobby with him and they might otherwise not choose to do so?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Gummer]

The motivation of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench is unimpeachable, as I have found from sitting behind them in the Public Bill Committee.

[Mr Llwyd]

First, I agree with the hon. Gentleman about that form of legislation and he makes a valid point. A couple of minutes ago, he asked why a millionaire or multi-millionaire should not pay for legal advice and assistance. In my experience, the vast majority of very wealthy people have their own lawyers and in many cases they actually carry their number with them all the time.

[Ben Gummer]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. However, a point of principle is involved here. I do not understand why people on low incomes in my constituency or that of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East should be subsidising the legal advice of those who can pay for it at a later date should they be convicted of a crime. We can have a debate about this. All I am saying is that we should have the debate now, perhaps with a new clause, or address it in another place in a different way.

I move on to the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue). Her expertise in social welfare law is probably unparalleled in this House and I very much value what she brought to this debate. However, I would remind her—I hope that she will not take this remiss—that at the last election she stood on a manifesto promising cuts in legal aid. Although the examples that she gave were pertinent, no recommendation has come from the Opposition Front-Bench team as to the alternatives they would introduce, either to make cuts elsewhere, which would otherwise be seen in her area of advice—

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Ben Gummer]

May I just finish my point? At the beginning—

[Mr Slaughter]

rose—

[Ben Gummer]

I will give way to the shadow Minister.

[Mr Slaughter]

I hope that we can make some progress in this debate now. This is not helping—[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) is laughing. I hope that he is not going back on his earlier promise that we would make progress today. Had the hon. Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) been here earlier, he would have heard me deal with that point, in terms and at length, in response to an intervention from the Chair of the Select Committee. Will he stop wasting time?

[Ben Gummer]

The hon. Gentleman is a little previous. Had he allowed me to continue my point, as I had asked, he would have heard me address exactly what he said. I did hear what he said, albeit outside the Chamber. Let me deal with this point about the Opposition. If they are to be credible, they have to make alternative proposals for cuts to legal aid, which they promised in their manifesto and have promised since, to this Chamber. A few months ago, during the Public Bill Committee, they clung to the proposals made by the Bar Council and the Law Society, until those proposals fell apart. They fell apart to the extent that the Bar Council and the Law Society have had to revise them in a resubmitted document provided earlier this week. That was the Opposition’s first cost-reduction plan and it was not one of their own making—it was made by others.

Some £245 million-worth of amendments were tabled by the Opposition in the Public Bill Committee, along the lines of those proposed by the hon. Member for Makerfield, but with no suggestions as to where cuts might be made elsewhere. So we get to a point where there is a complete absence of the other side of policy from Her Majesty’s Opposition—it might provide some credibility to what they propose—until perhaps today, when the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) appears before the House saying, “We are going to bring in accelerated competitive tendering in criminal defence work.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

This is just filibustering.

[Ben Gummer]

This is not filibustering. I will explain why. [Interruption.] I got the impression that a promethean career had been cut short by the principles of the hon. Member for Hammersmith, but at no point—

[Karl Turner]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can you offer some guidance? When time is short and we are keen to debate the important issues in the Bill, is it right for hon. Members to go off the point so widely?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I am allowing a little latitude, and I mean a little. I am sure Mr Gummer will wish to get his remarks straight back on to the business before us.

[Ben Gummer]

I was about to say that in none of that communication did I receive any indication that the hon. Member for Hammersmith disapproved of the previous Government’s termination of competitive tendering for legal services in 2009. On that point he was silent. There was no outrage that the scheme that he is now proposing had been stopped by the previous Government, no sense that he would step down from a position on that point, as he would on the issue of the third terminal. Thus this modern-day Prometheus has been found wanting.

May I ask, therefore, that in their submissions we may have a little more substance from the Opposition on how they might pay for the many amendments that they have tabled on Report, instead of their jumping on every passing bandwagon and every interest group to which they can plead?

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

I begin by declaring an interest as somebody who used to work for Citizens Advice Cymru before being elected to this place, and who currently serves as the secretary of the Citizens Advice all-party parliamentary group. I shall speak to new clause 43 and amendment 162 in my name. They are probing amendments so I shall be brief, but colleagues in the other place might want to pursue the matter in greater detail, especially as the amendments carry the support of the official Opposition, for which I am extremely grateful.

The amendments are supported by advice organisations concerned that a strict interpretation of legislation may leave holes in the legal aid safety net. From a pragmatic and practical perspective, the intention of the amendments is to allow funding for the provision of advice from third sector independent and impartial advice organisations to assist with understanding a case, without the requirement to provide formal and costly legal representation. That will help the Government achieve some of the savings aims in the Bill. In technical terms, the amendment would give the Lord Chancellor discretion to permit transfers from the legal aid budget to other funding streams for the provision of advice on issues to which schedule 1 does not apply.

If schedule 1 is to be the future shape of civil legal aid, the scheme needs to work alongside advice services which deal with other legal issues, such as debt problems, issues of benefit entitlement and appeals under social security law, employment rights and immigration decisions. On a practical level, it is a waste of resources if legal aid clients cannot receive holistic advice. I know that that is something on which Citizens Advice prides itself. There will also be many cases at the margins of the situations covered in schedule 1, and the Legal Services Commission’s response to the Green Paper highlighted the problem of what it calls boundary issues, warning that

“the administration costs of considering such cases could erode revenue savings that the Ministry of Justice has committed itself to.”

That addresses some of the points that Opposition Members have raised throughout the debate on the Bill and draws attention to the unintended financial consequences of what the Government are trying to pursue. I will close as I want to allow colleagues to speak about other parts of the Bill, but it would be helpful if, in response, the Government could explain how the concerns of civil society bodies about access to advice as a result of the prescriptive nature of schedule 1 will be addressed.