Legal Aid

Karl Turner Excerpts

Thursday 15th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

I am pleased to have secured this very important debate on the effect of the reductions in legal aid on legal aid providers. I refer Members to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I was a practising lawyer before my election to this House. As a criminal lawyer, I relied on the public purse for much of my income.

The Lord Chancellor offered up 23% cuts without any fight and blindly conceded to the Treasury’s demands without looking at the real impact on justice and legal aid providers. The Government’s own impact assessment states:

“The lack of a robust evidence base means that we are unable to draw conclusions as to whether wider economic and social costs are likely to result from the programme of reform or to estimate their size.”

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. As a fellow Hull MP, he will know the importance of citizens advice bureaux and community legal advice centres in providing legal help and advice and of the genuine concern out there that people will not have access to good-quality legal advice. I am sure that he shares the concerns of many people in Hull.

[Karl Turner]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes an important point. As I understand it, 97% of funding to the—

--- Later in debate ---

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Jeremy Wright.)

[Karl Turner]

Some 97% of funding to Citizens Advice will go as a result of the Government’s plans, so my hon. Friend makes a valid point.

I am not just talking about the for-profit providers. The non-profit providers also provide important legal advice to people in our constituencies. I want to attempt to bust a myth that the Government are perpetuating. There seems to be the suggestion that publicly funded lawyers are fat cat lawyers earning fat cat salaries. In reality, publicly funded lawyers, whether solicitors or barristers, earn very modest incomes if funded by legal aid. The Lord Chancellor says that he does not want to hit women and children, but he does want to target fat cat lawyers. Why, then, is he making 53% cuts to social welfare legal aid?

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I declare an interest as a non-practising barrister. I worked for a number of years as a solicitor at a law centre. These cuts will affect some very poorly paid solicitors who work in law centres and who were previously doing work such as immigration before that was taken away. The profession will suffer because we will not be able to attract people and give them the expertise to do this kind of work.

[Karl Turner]

My right hon. Friend makes a very important point and one that solicitors and barristers have raised with me in recent days. There is certainly concern about attracting people into training contracts and even attracting people to study law as a result of the Government’s plans.

As I understand it, £350 million will be removed from legal aid as a result of the Government’s plans. The vast majority of that will be in social welfare law. In an attempt to bust the myth that publicly funded lawyers are fat cat lawyers, I spoke to some legal aid providers in my area today. I spoke with Keith Lomax, the senior managing partner of Davies Gore Lomax, which is based in Leeds. He represents the most vulnerable clients on such issues as housing, debt, welfare benefits and education, particularly special educational needs, and he told me that the Government’s 10% reduction in fees across the board was difficult for his firm to cope with. I was staggered when he told me that his hourly charging rate was £48.24. He charges the Legal Services Commission £3.78 per letter—hardly fat cat lawyers rates. The people who work for him earn very modest incomes—between £18,000 and £24,000 a year for fully qualified solicitors, he tells me.

Tim Durkin, the managing partner of Myer Wolff solicitors in Hull, runs a long-standing firm reliant on legal aid. Mr Durkin estimates that the cuts to his business in relation to child contact and residence applications will amount to about £300,000 per year. He describes that as simply unsustainable.

Max Gold, from the Max Gold partnership in Hull, reports to me that he has not been in a position to pay himself or his solicitors and staff an increase in salary for some six years. He says

“the Government are not living in the real world to describe legally aided lawyers as fat cats”.

In his view, the Labour Government were far from profligate when it came to legal aid. He says that the previous Government were not particularly generous in relation to publicly funded lawyers. However, he says that the previous Government at least understood the requirement to offer legal advice in areas such as social welfare law. Indeed, he also mentions immigration, which is particularly important, given that the other place almost accepted an amendment—it was defeated by, I think, 19 votes—a couple of days ago.

In 2000, there were 10,000 legal providers. There are now 2,000—a reduction of 8,000 firms in the last 12 years. Many closed their doors in the last 12 months. The impact of the cuts on legal aid providers is clear for anybody to see. Many firms that provide help mainly in family and social welfare law will have to withdraw from the market. The Law Society says

“firms already operate on the margins of viability…specialist firms and advice agencies…providing social welfare law services…are likely to be wiped out with catastrophic consequences for people in need”

of legal help. The Law Society says that it

“does not see how many firms can continue to operate in this environment.”

The current changes could reduce firms offering family law by as much as 60%.

The Government’s impact assessment, which accompanies the Green Paper, estimated a 67% decrease in income for law firms in rural areas and a 59% decrease in urban areas. That is simply unsustainable. It will not be economically viable for those firms to continue offering services on such tight margins. The Legal Action Group believes that legal aid will cease to be viable as a nationwide public service, with an overall decrease in civil legal aid to 900 firms, down from 2,000. My concern is about the potential for advice deserts to emerge as a result of those reductions. The impact on access to justice is therefore clear. If no service is available, our constituents will be left to paddle their own canoe. Some 75,000 children and young people are set to lose legal aid. Some 6,000 children under the age of 18 and 69,000 vulnerable young adults aged 18 to 23 will lose access to legal aid in their own right as a result of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill.

The Government claim that advice will be available elsewhere, from places such as the Free Representation Unit, jobcentres and Age UK. That claim has been disputed by the Advice Services Alliance. The Free Representation Unit represents clients in tribunals, but it does not cover the initial advice stages of, say, a welfare claim. The Child Poverty Action Group has stated:

“Unfortunately we do not have the resources to provide direct advice to people who are claiming benefits”.

Age UK has said:

“Our concern is that while it is true that both Age UK nationally and our partners in local Age UKs and Age Concerns do provide some help and advice with welfare benefits it is most often not at a level comparative to that provided through legal aid.”

The Government’s defence until now has been to talk about the telephone advice service. However, that is not the answer to advice deserts. Face-to-face legal advice is crucial. Fortunately, the Government suffered a defeat on this issue in the other place yesterday evening. I would respectfully urge the Government to take that on board. The Ministry of Justice predicts between only 4,000 and 10,000 additional mediation starts, despite withdrawing legal aid from 255,000 cases. It has simply not made a proper assessment.

The impact on for-profit and non-profit providers will be substantial, but it will be most keenly felt by those who rely on their services. The Government’s own impact assessment states that the proposals

“have the potential to disproportionately affect female clients, BAME clients”—

that is, black and minority ethnic clients—

“and ill or disabled people, when compared with the population as a whole”.

Despite that evidence and advice, the Government seem to want to plough on regardless. At a time when unemployment is rising and pressure is increasing on squeezed families, it is wrong for the Government to withdraw support for legal advice.

Opposing the legal aid cuts is not done due to narrow interest or to ensure that lawyers’ bank balances stay buoyant. It is about ensuring that people have not only these important rights but the means with which to exercise them. The Government must listen to the experts and base their cuts on the evidence. The Justice Select Committee, on which I serve, has said that the full cost implications of the Government’s proposals cannot be predicted. I therefore ask the Government to reconsider these cuts and not to take a gamble with justice.

Many eminent judges—not least Lord Hope, Lord Justice Dyson and Lady Hale—have also voiced their concern, along with academics and professionals, telling the Government time and again that there will be an increase in court administration due to the increased number of litigants in person, but that advice has been completely ignored. The Lord Chief Justice has echoed those concerns.

The opposition to the cuts in social welfare legal aid is, for me, about protecting the vulnerable and allowing access to justice. Of course, we are living in a time of austerity, and this must also be about saving money to the taxpayer, but there are alternatives. The early intervention provided for debt, employment, education, housing and family law matters through a mixture of voluntary and private sector organisations offers value for money. I shall not bore the Minister with the statistics produced by Citizens Advice, but it has provided Members with a helpful report that shows, pound for pound, the advantages of providing early advice. Unfortunately, however, the Tory-led Government have ignored crucial advice from, among others, the Lord Chief Justice, the Bar Council of England and Wales, and the Law Society.

The Lord Chief Justice has stated that the proposed reforms of public funding for civil cases will damage access to justice and lead to a huge increase in people fighting their legal battles alone. It is obvious to anyone that litigants in person will delay court time. The hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) is in his place. He sits as a recorder in the Crown Court, and he must know from experience the advantage of having a solicitor advocate or a barrister representing a client in court, as opposed to someone representing themselves.

The chairman of the Bar Council, Michael Todd QC, has told me today that

“legal aid barristers, working across a broad range of practice areas, are public servants, overwhelmingly operating in the public interest. Over a number of years, many members of the Bar and the junior Bar in particular, have found it increasingly difficult to sustain a financially viable career on legal aid work, which poses a grave threat to access to justice. Successive fee cuts and now the threatened removal of whole areas of law from the scope of legal aid means that many vulnerable people will be denied effective access to the Courts. It also means that many highly skilled and publicly spirited Barristers will be forced to leave the profession with a particularly heavy impact on female and BAME practitioners. That cannot be in the public interest”.

The Lord Chancellor needs urgently to take on board the defeats that the Government have suffered in the other place, and to look again at the real impact of these legal aid cuts before overturning those amendments in this place.

Oral Answers to Questions

Karl Turner Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I ask the Secretary of State to face the House.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

T3. The Lord Chancellor will know that the ALS interpreters’ contractor has been an unmitigated disaster, and I can provide specific examples of cases in my constituency. If it is about saving money, will he tell us how many hearings have had to be adjourned or postponed due to the fiasco?

[Mr Blunt]

There will be a full presentation of all the statistics and evidence relevant to the matter. I assure the hon. Gentleman that matters are in hand and that ALS’s performance is improving significantly. Particular problems remain with two nationality groups of interpreters, who are causing difficulties, but plans are in hand for them, too. [Interruption.] I do not wish to name them at the moment. The matter was in hand within two weeks of the system’s going live. There are weekly reports to me and daily management oversight from the Ministry of Justice. The matter is improving.

Oral Answers to Questions

Karl Turner Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

13. What steps he plans to take to maintain public safety when implementing his plans for the future of the Probation Service.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

15. What recent steps he has taken to review the work of the Probation Service; and what his policy is on the reform of the service.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)]

Public safety will always be of paramount importance when we are considering the way in which probation services are delivered. We are working on proposals to deliver more effective and efficient probation services, and will present them for consultation shortly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

I agree. We normally need people to co-operate quite closely to achieve successful outcomes if we are trying to reform offenders. Those who are trying to attract funds by achieving successful results in their programmes will, I hope, enter into collaborative arrangements with other providers. It must be a good thing that we are contemplating the possibility of bringing in more voluntary, charitable, private sector providers alongside the probation service and deciding where to channel most of our money on the basis of the success they achieve.

[Karl Turner]

I recently met Steve Hemming, chief executive of Humberside probation trust. He is due to retire in April after 30 years of long, loyal and patient service to the trust, but he is concerned that his patience might be about to run out. When will the Government publish their long-awaited probation review?

[Mr Clarke]

First, may I pay tribute to the retiring chief executive of the hon. Gentleman’s probation trust? There are many dedicated people in the probation service doing very valuable jobs on behalf of the public they serve. I am glad our consultation document is so eagerly awaited; we have been taking some time over it as we are trying to get it right, but we shall produce it soon.

Legal Aid (Women and Families)

Karl Turner Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Sharma]

I agree with every word that the hon. Lady has said. I am sure that the Minister will also take note of those points in his response.

Experts in the field cite two particular concerns. First, the definition of domestic violence currently used in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill is inconsistent with the cross-Government definition of domestic violence, which guides statutory agency practice and governs access to Government services. Importantly, the definition used in the Bill fails explicitly to refer to financial abuse and sexual violence, which are particularly insidious forms of domestic violence. It is not clear why the Bill uses a different definition of domestic violence, unless the purpose is to restrict the number of cases that will be deemed eligible for legal aid. Under the current proposals, many who are already known to be victims of domestic violence by other departments will not obtain the legal support that they need.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for giving way; he has been very generous. I wonder whether he would like briefly to address the fact that 23 special domestic violence courts are closing on the current Government’s watch. How will that affect women?

[Mr Sharma]

I think that I will come back to that. I thank my hon. Friend for the intervention. When I reach the last lines of my speech, he will hear about the impact of the various proposals on women.

Under the proposals, victims of domestic violence will be expected to provide “objective evidence” of that violence to qualify for legal aid. Experts unanimously agree that too many victims will remain ineligible for legal aid because the evidence that they will be required to present is dangerously restrictive. The evidence of domestic violence that the Government propose to accept relies on victims taking civil and criminal proceedings against perpetrators, yet we know that a large proportion of victims do not take those routes. To ensure that all women affected by domestic violence are protected, it is essential that the evidential criteria used reflect the experiences of women and the reality of domestic violence. That must include evidence from specialist domestic violence organisations, health services and social services. The Government have failed to think through their proposals adequately.

The notion that “We are all in it together” is not alien to the Labour party. Indeed, this may be the first time that a Conservative Prime Minister has adopted a socialist slogan as his mantra. However, these cuts are deliberately, unashamedly and, I argue, viciously targeted at those who most need help. I am looking at the time; I am sorry, but I have indicated that I need to rush. As I have said, the cuts are targeted at those who most need help and, in the case of domestic violence sufferers, there can be no defence.

I ask the Minister to think again, particularly on domestic violence. In its current form, the Bill will leave thousands of women who have experienced the trauma of domestic violence, trafficking for the purposes of sexual and other forms of exploitation and exploitation as a migrant domestic worker in a private household with a stark choice between representing themselves in legal proceedings or taking no legal action at all to protect themselves. It will also have a life-threatening impact on black and minority ethnic women, who, as a result of cultural, religious and other social pressures and racism, already struggle to access the legal system. The Bill will violate the rights and fundamental freedoms of all vulnerable women, but it will have an immensely disproportionate impact on black and minority ethnic women.

It is not too late to think again, but if the Minister does not make up his mind to do what I have asked, I pray that my colleagues in the other place will make his mind up for him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karl Turner]

I am obliged to the Minister for giving way. Will he address the point that I made in my earlier intervention? What effect does he think that the closure of 23 special domestic violence courts will have on women?

[Mr Djanogly]

The hon. Gentleman is avoiding the reality of the situation. In all except for fewer than five of those courts, the service is being transferred to other surrounding courts. I will write to him with the specific details because I do not have the numbers in front of me.

With that context in mind therefore, I will move on to the specific issue of the legal aid reforms. The £2 billion annual cost of legal aid, combined with the economic climate of the day, mean that hard choices must be made. It is essential that resources are focused on cases where legal aid is most needed—that is where people’s life or liberty are at stake, where they are at risk of serious physical harm or immediate loss of their home, or where their children may be taken into care.

As well as retaining legal aid for criminal cases, we are also keeping legal aid for mental health matters, asylum matters, debt and housing matters where someone’s home is at risk and legal aid for judicial reviews of public authorities. All of those are directly relevant to family welfare. That means that we are retaining legal aid to seek an injunction to prevent domestic violence and to oppose a child being taken into care. We are also retaining legal aid for private law family cases where domestic violence is a feature. We will also be keeping and extending legal aid for family mediation. The power to waive the financial eligibility limits in cases where someone is seeking an injunction against domestic violence also remains, so those who need help securing protection will be able to get it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Karl Turner Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

I cannot do so off the top of my head, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman. There might be good reasons for such occurrences, such as someone entering a guilty plea, as well as bad reasons. The situation is complicated.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

11. What assessment his Department has made of the potential effects on women of planned changes to legal aid.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

The Government published an equality impact assessment alongside our response to consultation, which laid out the best assessment of the effects on women of planned changes to legal aid. That recognised the potential for the reforms to impact on a greater proportion of women, alongside others featuring protected characteristics.

[Karl Turner]

There have been reports in the media that the Deputy Prime Minister is to announce a consultation on the definition of domestic violence. Will the Minister explain how it accords with the narrow definition in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, which will exclude many women from the legal support that they need and will, I believe, put a number of them at serious risk?

[Mr Djanogly]

As the hon. Gentleman says, there is to be a consultation on domestic violence, although I believe that it will be undertaken by the Home Office rather than the Deputy Prime Minister. We will look carefully at the results of the consultation, but the definition of abuse in the Bill is broad and comprehensive, and includes mental as well as physical abuse.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Karl Turner Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I rise to speak principally about new clause 17, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue).

Before I do so, I should like to comment on amendment 116. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) made a cogent case for deleting clause 12. The Minister rightly said in Committee that

“the practicalities are the greatest stumbling block, and the costs could be significant.”––[Official Report, Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Public Bill Committee, 8 September 2011; c. 437.]

My hon. Friend underlined that that had been the experience in Scotland. It is therefore clear what the Government’s response should be. For the sake of clarity and succinctness, the Bill could appropriately lose clause 12.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

I think I am right in saying that the right hon. Gentleman is speaking to an amendment that would effectively get rid of the idea of means-testing in police stations. I agree that this is an issue of great concern to Members in all parts of the House. I am surprised, however, that when he sat on the Bill Committee he did absolutely nothing about it when he could have supported my amendment or that of the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd).

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am not sure whether he is saying that I should not be raising the point now, but that is what I am doing.

[Karl Turner]

rose—

[Tom Brake]

I am not going to give way. The point has been raised, it is on the record. I am sure that the Minister will have heard it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) will speak about this in relation to amendment 148, and I am sure that he will echo the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Makerfield about the telephone gateway.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which is in the tradition of his speeches—lengthy. He should perhaps have waited until I had finished my comments before jumping to any conclusions.

[Karl Turner]

Will you be supporting it?

[Tom Brake]

We have rightly highlighted issues such as criminal negligence in earlier debates, and this afternoon we will focus on libel and slander cases that affect a relatively small number of people.

[Karl Turner]

Give us a clue Tom!

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ward]

Absolutely. We have talked about the evidence, but it is almost so overwhelming that we must begin to wonder what is behind this. What on earth is going on here?

[Karl Turner]

Come over!

[Mr Ward]

Hang on.

An answer that I have been given is that this is all in the coalition agreement.

[Karl Turner]

Come over!

[Mr Ward]

Hang on.

Occasionally I try to abide by the coalition agreement, but this is not in there. There is in the coalition agreement something about the deficit reduction, and I am up for that—we do desperately need to reduce it—but I am not convinced that this will contribute to that. It is a very dangerous thing if we are going to use deficit reduction as a justification for almost anything that we might do. We have to question what we are doing.

[Karl Turner]

rose—

[Mr Ward]

I need to bring my speech to an end. Others need to speak.

One thing that the coalition agreement does say is that we should have a fundamental review of legal aid. I am up for that. Absolutely. Where is it? Why on earth are we taking these measures? The Business, Innovation and Skills Committee is due to undertake a debt management review, and there are a series of other reviews looking at advice centres and the work that they do. We should do that first.

[Karl Turner]

rose—

[Mr Ward]

Oh, go on then.

[Karl Turner]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is making a powerful speech on behalf of his constituents, and he is also speaking for many Opposition Members. Has he thought about crossing the Floor and joining us?

[Mr Ward]

I tell you what: I promise to do so once we have sorted out the mess you left us in. I shall come across then, because it will just be so much easier—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ward]

I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Someone once told me that the world is divided into two groups of people. There are those who, when they see somebody walking down the street with a walking stick, believe in kicking the stick away because it will make that person stronger, and there are those who believe that if they kick away the stick, the person will just fall over. We are in grave danger of making some of those who are, by definition, the most vulnerable in our society fall over, and we will still have to be there to pick them up, at even greater cost to the public purse. It does not make sense; we should not do it.

[Karl Turner]

I of course support new clause 17, standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue). However, I will restrict my remarks to amendment 116, standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) and those of many Lib Dem Members, for what it is worth. Clause 12 will effectively provide for means-testing in the police station. I have many concerns about that from my experience as a lawyer. I have practised criminal law as a solicitor for many years—indeed, my wife is a qualified criminal duty solicitor—and shortly before the general election I joined my local chambers as a pupil barrister. I therefore come to this debate with some experience as a criminal lawyer.

I want briefly to talk about the practical difficulties of means-testing people in a police station. Let us imagine the situation—it happened last weekend, in fact. My wife’s pager goes off. It is three o’clock in the morning. She spends the next six hours in Priory Road police station, representing a young man who is suspected of very serious criminal offences. She is not in a position to go through the paperwork or CDS—criminal defence service—application form to make a claim for legal aid in that situation. What the client wants to know is: “How long am I going to be here?”, “What are the consequences if I’m charged?”, “What will happen if I end up appearing before the magistrates court?” and, at the end of the day, “What will happen if I am convicted?” The question is not: “How much do you earn?” That is the last thing that the client will want to put their mind to. Indeed, the solicitor in attendance would not be acting in a proper way if they asked that question. I firmly believe that everybody should be entitled to free and independent legal advice while in a police station. It is a fundamental right in a democratic society, and to remove it would be a huge mistake.

I have spoken briefly about the practicalities, but it is also important to spend a moment thinking about what used to happen. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) mentioned the green form. Yesterday evening I spoke to a solicitor who has been around long enough to remember the days of the green form. He told me that he used to send his secretary, or anybody in the office who was available. Things have changed for the better. People need to be qualified; they have to attend courses. I remember doing them: I did not like it very much at the time, but I went along, I paid the money—or the people who employed me did—I did the homework, I passed the examinations and I carried on with my CPD, or continuing professional development.

I did that because when I am called to a police station as a solicitor, it is important that I know what consent means in relation to an allegation of rape. It is important that I can explain what defences might be available. It is important that I have enough knowledge and experience to be able to say to a client, “It’s in your best interests to speak to the police,” or, “In my professional opinion, it’s not in your best interests to speak to the police.” We must not think that everybody who attends at a police station is guilty of a terrible crime. In my experience the contrary is true. The vast majority of detainees in police stations are either not charged, released on bail pending further inquiries, or, if they are charged, acquitted. A minority of cases make their way to the courtroom and end in a conviction. Everybody is entitled to access to a solicitor. It is a fundamental right, which, in my opinion, this Government are putting at risk.

I should mention the situation before the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Hon. Members have touched on it, but we had the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four—great miscarriages of justice—and we learned from that. I think I am right in saying that the current Lord Chancellor was responsible for the 1984 Act, which was the right thing to introduce. Before PACE was introduced, people were making “confessions” that it later transpired were not proper confessions at all. It is important to remember that time. Miscarriages of justice cost the country an awful lot of money, but it is not just about money; it is about the effect on society when people can be convicted for something that they did not do and when they were nowhere near the scene. That seems appalling and very short-sighted.

Another concern for me is adverse inferences from silence. I have not looked at case law recently, but eminent barristers on both sides of the House will be familiar with it. The most recent case I am aware of is Murray v. UK. If my memory serves me correctly—I admit I have read only a summary of the court case—it says that a jury could not be invited to hold an inference against a person’s silence in the police station if that person was prevented from seeking legal advice in that police station. I believe that this is one of the unintended consequences that the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) spoke about.

Let us imagine this scenario. A solicitor turns up at a police station to see a client and quickly establishes that the client has enough money to be able to pay for his own legal advice. Acting quite properly in the best interests of my client, I would say, “Keep your mouth shut.” I would tell the client to say absolutely nothing. I cannot afford to hang around because I am not getting paid and I am not sure that I will be paid even if the client makes an undertaking and assures me that the money will be brought to the firm of solicitors for which I work at some point in the future. I would probably be thinking, “I’m going. I’m not going to get any disclosure from the police, but in the best interests of my client I am going to tell him or her to keep their mouth firmly shut.” That provides an opportunity at some point in the future for that suspect effectively to make up their defence. It removes a valuable tool for the judiciary and the jury to decide whether they think an inference should be made from the client’s silence at the police station. This is a massive mistake.

This Government have not consulted on this proposal in clause 12. From a sedentary intervention I told the Minister earlier that it was probably written on the back of a fag packet. With respect, I think it probably was. There has been absolutely no consultation. I have spoken to many solicitors who have said that this proposal just came out of the blue. Nobody expected this. The Law Society was shocked. I have had meetings with the Bar Council and the Law Society, and they have told me that they did not expect this.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has much experience in this area. I declare an interest as a duty solicitor still on the books for doing my duty at police stations. I share many of the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about the practical application of a clause that I understand the Government have indicated they have no immediate plans to implement. Will he expand on the details about the interests of justice test? Does he agree that there is specific interest of justice in respect of the advice and assistance at the police station given to a detainee who has already lost his liberty? The issue of stating his case is different from what it would be in court, and he might need specific, independent advice.

[Karl Turner]

I would need more time to think about that, but I am tempted to say that I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s second point. On the first point, however, am I supposed to believe the Minister when he says, “Well, we want this on the face of the Bill, but we are never going to use it.”? That is absolute, utter and complete nonsense. I asked my researcher to make inquiries with the Library and find out on how many occasions the previous Government—of whom I am entirely proud—may have used this provision as a tool. My researcher came back to me to say, “As far as the Library is concerned, there is no example whatever of a Government building provisions into an Act of Parliament that they never have any intention of using.” It is complete and utter nonsense to suggest that that is the case.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Karl Turner]

I will not give way, because many other Members are keen to speak in this important debate.

It worries me that the Government are ignoring expert advice on a proposal which, in my view, would remove a fundamental right from citizens, and that there has been no consultation whatsoever. The Bar Council and the Law Society have expressed honest concerns about the legislation, but the Government have completely ignored them, which is outrageous. Many members of the Bill Committee took that point on board, but in an article one of them, the hon. Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer), described the Bar Council as bewigged Scargillites. I assure the House that my colleagues at the Bar are far from being bewigged Scargillites.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

This will be a terrible disaster for my constituents. The constituents of the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) may be more privileged than mine are. They may not need this kind of assistance, and he may not have surgeries bursting with constituents with problems. He may not receive the same number of e-mails, telephone calls and letters—[Interruption.] He smiles. Perhaps he would like to say—

[Karl Turner]

He thinks it’s funny. It’s disgusting. It’s a disgrace.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order.

[Simon Reevell (Dewsbury) (Con)]

I too should declare an interest, in that I have practised at the criminal Bar since 1990.

I congratulate the Minister on at least having the decency to bring in clause 12 through primary legislation, unlike the previous Government, who sought to bring in such a measure through secondary legislation until they were prevented from doing so by the High Court. I am afraid, however, that that is the limit of my congratulations, because—

[Karl Turner]

I do not think that what the hon. Gentleman has just said is accurate. The Lord Chancellor has confirmed that the previous Government had no plans to bring in the legislation that the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned.

[Simon Reevell]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I will send him a copy of the case.

The clause reveals a lack of understanding of the criminal justice system, and especially of the importance of the timing and purpose of police interviews. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) has spoken—perhaps until just recently—with passion about police interviews from a defence perspective, and what he said was right. Just in case the Minister is not swayed by the defence, however, I would ask him also to pause and consider this matter from the perspective of the prosecution.

Police interviews always take place at a time chosen by the prosecuting authorities, and the time is chosen because it is advantageous to them. In complex cases, perhaps involving drugs or organised violence, the police may arrange for simultaneous arrests, not least so that they can try to put the account of one arrested person against that of another, and try to break up those whom they believe to be part of a complicated conspiracy. The timing of the arrest might also be brought forward for the purpose of arranging the interview, in order to prevent a crime, or to protect a witness or a police source.

All that will fail if the arrest has taken place and the person has been brought to the police station for interview, yet nothing happens while their means are picked over and the interviewing officer drinks tea. Evidence could be lost, co-accused could flee, and witnesses could be harmed. All that will take place in the period allowed for detention, which is slowly being eaten away. The accused will not have details of his means on him. Surely we are not seriously suggesting that armed police who are looking for drugs, blood-stained clothing or weapons will be asked to look for three years’ accounts or 12 months’ pay slips.

There is a serious point to that. The rapist whom I prosecuted in the summer, who is now serving a seven-year prison sentence, was interviewed at a time that the police chose because it was appropriate for the purposes of their investigation. If they had had to wait while his means were established in order for his legal representation to be provided, it would not have been helpful to their inquiry—it would not have been what they wanted to do, and I am sure it would not have been what the victim of that offence would have wanted them to do.

--- Later in debate ---

Many right hon. and hon. Members made serious and appropriate points. Having heard what has been said and having considered the issue, I appreciate that there are many deeply held concerns across the House and more widely on both the principle and the practicality of means-testing for advice and assistance for those in police custody and in relation to the concept of contingent legislation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich said. I can confirm that we will, therefore, carefully review our approach to these clause issues as the Bill goes through its stages in another place.

[Karl Turner]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Simon Reevell) referred in his remarks to claims that the previous Government planned to legislate for means-testing in police stations. The Lord Chancellor wrote to my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State on 2 August. Will the Government confirm that he wrote to apologise and that the letter will appear in the Library?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Burrowes]

As we look forward to Christmas and see today the Third Reading of a criminal justice Bill, I am reminded of previous Government Bills that ended up as Christmas tree Bills with baubles being hung on them at any given opportunity as they went through Parliament. I am sure that as this Bill goes to the other place, Ministers will want to ensure that further baubles are not hung on it in the form of extra pieces of law that take the fancy of noble Lords, as well as any little elves.

I am particularly grateful for two important baubles in clauses 113 and 114—the significant victory for victims of crime concerning knife crime and serious injury by dangerous driving. One could look at the bottom of those provisions and see “Made in Enfield” on them. Six years ago, the Galli-Atkinson family in my constituency came to me after the sad loss of their daughter, who was the victim of a road crash in 1997. They told me about the impact on them of losing their loved one through the actions of a dangerous driver. They had campaigned vigorously for changes in dangerous driving legislation and increases in penalties, but when they came to me there was unfinished business with a gap in legislation. That led to my tabling an amendment in 2006 to try to plug that gap by ensuring that there is a specific offence of serious injury by dangerous driving, and that is now in the Bill.

I am sure that the whole House welcomes the fact that we now have a maximum sentence of five years for such offences. That deals with issues such as the very recent incident involving Rachel Jones, who is aged 13. She was crossing a road when she was hit by a car driven dangerously at 98 mph by Carl Smith, who was unlicensed and drunk—an all too familiar story, sadly, across this country. Rachel was left with severe brain damage, and she will be in a wheelchair for the rest of her life. She has no movement in the right side of her body. Her mum, Sheri Ozdemir, described Smith’s two-year jail sentence as “a joke”. Thanks to the Bill, there need be no more jokes like that; such offences will be taken seriously and will attract a five-year sentence.

Clause 114 deals with knife crime. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) for championing this issue locally and nationally, and raising awareness in Enfield and elsewhere of the prevalence of knife crime—

[Karl Turner]

What about me?

[Mr Burrowes]

I was talking about knife crime, but I also pay tribute to the work done by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) on injury caused by dangerous driving. He made his case very well in Committee, and I recognise my omission.

Knife crime is a real issue; I have seen many cases going through the youth courts. Sadly, there seems to have been a blind spot when it comes to sentencing, however. There has not been uniform enforcement of the law in this area, and there is a need to plug that gap. Under clause 114, anyone carrying a knife who is threatening and endangering life is likely to go to prison. If they are 16 or over, they will have to go to prison unless there are exceptional circumstances. Yes, we must pay due regard to the circumstances of young people, but the intention of the clause is that a custody threshold will have been reached. That has been welcomed in Enfield and across the country.

The Bill is good news for the victims of knife crime and of dangerous driving. The duties in the Bill relating to compensation are now going to be systemic, and that is important to the victims of crime. Prisoners will need to consider their victims as they serve their sentences; when they earn money, it will go into a victims’ fund. We will also at last see an open door to businesses, ensuring that prisons will work. The prisons Minister joined me in celebrating the 2,000th graduate from the National Grid young offender programme. Those people are now getting into real work and getting out of crime. Their reoffending rate is a very low percentage, compared with the national average. The Bill opens up the way for projects such as those, and many more. On prisons, we want to say that we are not locking out the community; we are open for business.

This is a reforming Bill; it does not simply seek to introduce more legislation without due regard. As we look to the new year, I want there to be a resolution that we shall not be coming back to the House next year with another piece of criminal justice legislation. I commend the sentencing part of the Bill to the House.

Education and Training (Young People with Autism)

Karl Turner Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before we come to the main business of the day—the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill—we have a point of order.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I have some guidance on whether it is appropriate for the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), to speak for the Government on this part of the Bill, given the media interest from The Daily Telegraph and The Guardian in his business interests in the insurance industry? I know that the Government have had a problem with this because they took part of his responsibilities from him on 17 October.

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer to the hon. Gentleman is that it is for Members to take responsibility for their own interests and, as necessary, if they think it appropriate, seek advice from the Registrar, and there is of course an obligation upon Ministers, of which the Minister will be well aware, to comply with the ministerial code, but beyond that no special comment needs to be made on the matter. It is perfectly proper for the Government to decide which Minister should take the proceedings on the Floor of the House.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Karl Turner Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

Does the Minister not accept that the law works perfectly well as it is? Some years ago, I defended someone who had chopped off someone’s ear with a samurai sword and the jury acquitted him, saying that he had used reasonable force in the circumstances.

[Mr Blunt]

I cannot comment on that individual case—[Interruption.] The shadow Justice Secretary tempts me down that road, but I will resist. The much clearer message that will be sent if the House chooses to accept the Government’s proposals will mean that the position should be crystal clear to householders and shopkeepers on the force that they are entitled to use. That is the purpose of these provisions. We are seeking to reassure the public, and this all sits as part of our desire to have a society that can exercise its rights and properly defend those rights, and that does not feel that people have to pass by on the other side, particularly when their lives and property are at risk.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Karl Turner Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hughes]

In one sense, the right hon. Lady makes an absolutely reasonable proposition. I am determined that we will win this argument, but I will wait to see what the Minister—[Interruption.]

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

Pathetic!

[Simon Hughes]

No, it is not pathetic at all. Let me say to the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford that there are four groups of amendments and that we have until 10 o’clock. The Opposition Front Benchers want to press their amendments to a Division, as do other colleagues, including me and my right hon. and hon. Friends. I hope the Minister will be helpful—[Interruption.] No, he originally indicated following my intervention that he was willing to look at the case again. I am determined to win that case. Whether we can win it today is not entirely in my hands. I hope that that is helpful, and I look forward to the right hon. Lady’s continued assistance in ensuring that we win the argument.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Llwyd]

I do not have any cases with me today, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I would not make the allegation without some evidence.

[Karl Turner]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is often the public policy of these authorities—certainly, in my experience, the national health service—to delay? I could not provide any examples either, but in my experience, they do delay.

[Mr Llwyd]

That is the point. Unless and until there is full disclosure at the very earliest point, these cases will be drawn out until the evidence is available. Everybody knows that any case against a health authority has to rely on expert evidence, and it is impossible to have that without experts’ reports from the health authority. This is the conundrum facing people who are often two, three or four years down the road and still no nearer to a conclusion. That is exactly the position that many people report, and that is why lots of these cases are, as we hear, high-value cases.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake]

I rise to make a few brief comments, particularly in relation to amendment 132, which appears in my name.

I have been ably supported by Action against Medical Accidents, which campaigns on the issue of clinical negligence and for a statutory duty of candour in relation to accidents in the NHS. If there was a statutory duty to confirm, at the outset, that an accident had taken place, it might ensure that many cases involving the NHS, which can drag on for many years, were brought to a much earlier conclusion. If, as was suggested earlier, it is management who get in the way of resolving such cases, they would not be able interfere to the same extent to delay proceedings—if, indeed, that is what they do—if confirmation that an accident had taken place was given at the outset.

I will focus on legal aid representation in relation to medical negligence. I welcome the confirmation we have been given that £6 million or £7 million of the £16 million that is currently spent on legal aid for medical negligence will be retained under the “Exceptional Funding” heading. The sum that is being discussed is therefore in the order of £10 million. Although we have received assurances that exceptional funding will be able to deal with many of the intense cases with which Members are familiar, such as cases of babies who have been seriously injured at birth, the question remains: which cases will not be funded once that £10 million is withdrawn from legal aid for medical negligence cases?

Given that the Government have a significant budget deficit to address and that this measure is part of that programme, I do not want to come empty-handed when it comes to saying where additional funding could come from if the Government were to restore that money. Later on, we will debate amendment 144, which is in my name. It would introduce a presumption against sending people to prison for a prison sentence of six months or less. The organisation that has done the calculations suggests that that could save the Government up to £400 million a year. That might be a slight or even a gross exaggeration of how much money could be saved, but it would be not unrealistic to expect that savings of the order of £10 million would be achievable if the Government were to look kindly on that amendment.

Medical negligence is high-profile. It might affect a relatively small number of families, but when it does, it does so dramatically.

[Karl Turner]

Does the right hon. Gentleman want his amendment to be pressed to a Division?

[Tom Brake]

My colleagues and I will get used to interventions of that nature, but the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I am expecting some reassurance from the Minister that the Government do not have a closed mind. Even if we cannot make progress in the House, there could be opportunities in another place to do so. I am just putting down a marker for the Government that they should entertain that idea.

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his intervention, even if he has identified a flaw in my proposal. The funding available for legal aid in cases of medical negligence deals with the serious cases with which Members will be very familiar, such as obstetric accidents. However, I am seeking clarification from the Minister, because although some of the funding for dealing with such cases will still be available through exceptional funding, some of it will no longer be available. I am seeking confirmation from the Government that all very serious cases will be addressed through the exceptional funding route. I hope it will be possible for the Government to identify additional funding to address the funding gap for any remaining cases, as I have done in amendment 144.

[Karl Turner]

I rise to speak to amendment 142, which is in my name and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) and the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd)—I think that that is the correct pronunciation of his constituency, but I apologise to him if it is not.

The amendment would put clinical negligence back into the scope of legal aid. The Bill will exclude many important areas of law from the scope of legal aid entirely, all of which deeply concern me.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Karl Turner Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

I would like to speak about the criminal justice system and our sentencing policy as reflected in the Bill. I declare my interest: I practised as a criminal barrister for some 16 years before being elected to the House.

If there was ever a man without a plan, it was the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan). He and the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and, indeed, many other Opposition Members really should hang their heads in shame. After 13 years of a Labour Government, we are faced with a legacy of complete failure in the criminal justice system. Yet again, rather like the deficit, it falls on this Government to clear up the mess left by Labour.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Lady not accept that crime fell by 43% under the previous Government? As a criminal barrister, she really ought to acknowledge that fact.

[Anna Soubry]

I am afraid that I do not accept that figure. I do not think that things are as simple as that. For example, as the Lord Chancellor explained, the theft statistics have fallen because of the protection that is now afforded to motor vehicles. Antisocial behaviour is not a recordable offence. I know from my own experiences in Nottinghamshire that the police are almost bending over backwards not to record criminal activities as recordable offences. So I cast real doubt on those statistics.

The hon. Gentleman talks about statistics, so let us listen to those on the legacy that we have inherited. Our prisons are full to bursting. Reoffending grew under Labour to 61.1% for offenders who serve short sentences. Half of adults leaving jail are reconvicted within a year, and 74% of young people sentenced to youth custody and 68% of young people on community sentences reoffend within a year. Those are the damning statistics. That is the legacy, and that is the reality.

We face other realities as we approach those difficulties. Prisons are awash with drugs. How many people are astounded to hear that there are things called drug-free wings? Hon. Members might suppose that all our jails should be free of drugs, but unfortunately they are not. Some people actually turn for the first time to class A drugs because they are in custody. I know from my experience of the people whom I represented that not only are drugs freely available in prisons, but they are often cheaper on the inside than out on the street. That is the legacy that we inherit.

Too many of our prisoners languish in 23-hour bang-up, because they cannot get on to courses and no work for them is available. The Bill specifically addresses such difficulties and issues, and I want to herald the proposals and want them to triumph. That will mean that people in prison will actually work. They will earn money that will go back to the people who are the victims of the crime. We are introducing good and right measures that will go a long way to ensure that prison works. At the moment, prison does not work. That is why we have those reoffending rates, why prisons are awash with drugs and why so many prisoners are on 23-hour bang-up.

We must not take a simplistic and broad-brush approach to sentencing. With great respect to many hon. Members, that is, unfortunately, what they do. The Bill achieves a difficult and delicate balance: it recognises the need to reform, but it does so within the financial restrictions and realities that this nation faces. Those who say simply, “Bang ’em all up and throw away the key,” fail then to say how much that would cost and how on earth we would pay for it.

The Bill recognises the failures of too many short-term sentences, as well as the fact that some people need to spend longer in prison. We are now considering the reform of indeterminate sentences for public protection. The last Government changed the distinction between short and long-term imprisonment, which fell at four years. Under their legislation, there was no such distinction. Those who got four years served three quarters of their sentence; those who got less than four years served half. Labour abolished that, so that all prisoners on determinate sentences were automatically released halfway through. We are now considering reforming imprisonment for public protection so that the most serious offenders return to serving three quarters of their sentence. We should welcome the measures, as I certainly do.

I am grateful that the Government have listened and consulted, especially among those of us who have only recently returned from the front line of the criminal justice system. I welcome the fact that we will not increase the amount of discount for a guilty plea to 50%. I spoke out against that without any difficulty. I urge the Government to go further and consider freeing our judges so that there is no mandatory figure. In some cases, a discount of more than 50% is needed and would be welcomed, while in other cases, there should be no discount however early a plea is entered. My message to the Government is to free our judges.

I know that many Government and Opposition Members have concerns about legal aid. I urge the Government to ensure that the poorest and most vulnerable in our society continue to have access to legal aid, especially women, who might be abandoned by feckless and adulterous husbands or partners who leave them penniless while themselves remaining in funds. Such women will not have access to legal aid to ensure that they are properly sorted out in the proceedings on divorce and ancillary relief for them and their children. We must protect them.

I am afraid that the clock is against me; I wanted to talk about IPPs. I welcome the Government’s proposals and I look forward to the consultation. I also put in a quick plug for the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), who is determined to increase sentences for dangerous driving, which is a thoroughly good idea. The Bill is a mixture of soft and hard. It is realistic, given the circumstances, and I commend it thoroughly to the House.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

It is always an absolute pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry). I agree with some of what she says, and certainly with her remarks on my Bill about dangerous driving.

I do not disagree with everything that the Government propose in the Bill, but I have concerns about parts of it. On civil liberties, for example, clause 12, which seeks to limit advice and assistance in a police station, is a mistake. It is no good for the Government to say that the previous Government proposed to do similar things; I am concerned about what this Government are doing. Section 58(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 provides that people in a police station are entitled to legal advice from a solicitor in private consultation. That absolutely must remain. Clause 52 proposes to prevent people from recovering defence costs in Crown courts. If they pay their own fees, they will be prevented from recovering their costs if they are successful at trial. That is a mistake.

I am concerned that the Government seem to be ignoring advice. Some of it is very good—the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) made some superb remarks about what effects she thinks the Government’s plans will have—but the Government seem to be passing it off as irrelevant and unimportant. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Broxtowe says that that is not right, but I have seen it. The Bar Council has provided detailed proposals for alternative savings. I have seen no evidence of the Government’s acknowledging those proposals. That also applies to Law Society proposals. I agree with the remarks of the Bar Council, my professional body, that the Bill represents do-it-yourself justice, not access to justice.

Of course, solicitors, whether family or criminal—whatever the nature of the practice—are bound to want to protect themselves from cuts to their businesses. However, in my experience, publicly funded lawyers do not act just for money but because they want to help people, give them advice and protect them from often complex law. Lawyers always say that law is complex—we are bound to do that. I say it constantly, even to myself. However, it is genuinely difficult, and the procedure is often complicated. Lay people struggle with the most basic proceedings, and I have real concerns about the Government’s agenda. It is truly the most vulnerable who will suffer the consequences of the Government’s proposals.

Let us consider only a few of the matters that will be outside the scope of legal aid provision: clinical negligence, criminal injuries compensation, debt, education and employment. It is madness. Providing employment advice and assistance saves money in the long run. If a client goes to an experienced employment solicitor with instructions about a case, the solicitor is often the filter that prevents them from completing what is nowadays called an ET1 and getting it to a tribunal. That prevents costs in the long run. The Government have failed to recognise that.

[Rehman Chishti]

Employment tribunals do not currently have the power to order costs. What about a position whereby a malicious claim is made, someone defends their character and fights all the way but cannot be awarded costs at the end? Does the hon. Gentleman think that that needs to change?

[Karl Turner]

I am not sure. I do not think that I have time to consider the hon. Gentleman’s point properly and give him a fair answer. It worries me that, although the Government are trying to save money, not providing advice and assistance at this early stage will cost them much more in the long run.

Excluding housing law and welfare benefits will mean the most vulnerable in society suffering the most. The Chairman of the Bar said:

“The Government has failed to listen to the views expressed by many in the judiciary, the legal profession and voluntary organisations in formulating its proposals on legal aid.

Legal aid will be withdrawn from whole swathes of areas of law and access to justice will be systematically deprived.”

I agree entirely. He does not have an axe to grind. He has been in the profession for a terribly long time and should be respected for his professional opinion.

I could mention many solicitors in my area who have contacted me in recent days to warn me of the dangers of lack of access to justice. They make those points not because they are worried about not buying the next flash car, but because they represent people and they care about those clients. I mean that sincerely.