Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Sadiq Khan and Jonathan Djanogly

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

Yes, I am pleased to be able to confirm to the hon. Lady that that is the case.

We think that we have struck the right balance, although some will disagree. However, such disagreement misses the fact that there are two important safeguards to our system, which will provide genuine victims with a route into legal aid even if they do not have the headline forms of evidence. First, when a court has to consider whether domestic violence is a factor in a private family case, it may consider any relevant evidence, including police call-outs or evidence from domestic violence support services, or other types of evidence that have not even been suggested by the Opposition. This is also relevant in regard to the time limits. When a case involves older incidents of domestic violence and a court considers that the matter is still relevant and makes a finding of fact, legal aid funding could still be triggered. There is also the more generic safeguard of the exceptional funding regime.

We continue to believe that the evidential requirements should not be in the Bill. The level of detail required means that those requirements will be much better left to regulations, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, rather than to primary legislation. Given how far we have moved on this topic, and the safeguards that I have outlined today, I invite the House to disagree with Lords amendments 2B and 196B.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

I shall try to keep my comments short, as I know that a number of colleagues wish to speak in the debate. The Bill sustained 11 defeats on Report in the Lords, which is a record for this Parliament, and a further three yesterday. The Government need to show some humility when they have suffered 14 defeats, and I am pleased that we have seen some evidence of that today.

It is still unclear why the Government are so resistant to Lords amendment 1B. They have given different reasons on different days for their opposition to Lord Pannick’s amendment. A statement of legislative purpose is frequently included in legislation of this nature. Lord Pannick’s drafting of the amendment would result in a statement of purpose within the financial limits set out in the Bill. The key question is whether there should be a duty on the Lord Chancellor to take into account citizens’ needs before making arrangements for legal aid provision. The amendment has been drafted with reference to the financial resources available, and would therefore not incur further expense for the Government. The Government cannot have it both ways. They say that the amendment replicates provisions that are already in place, and that it is therefore unnecessary. They also say that it would add to Government expenditure. We will be voting against the Government on Lords amendment 1B.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sadiq Khan]

What my hon. Friend has said echoes some of the powerful speeches that were made last week.

It is worth bearing in mind that the progress that has been achieved is due to work done by Members in all parts of both Houses. We welcome the concessions that have been made today, we welcome the pause, and we approach the amendment in good faith. For reasons that we appreciate, the details could not be fleshed out today, but we assume that there will be an independent assessment of the evidence gathered during the due diligence phase.

We hope that the review will consider the impact on victims’ damages. According to some, they will increase by up to 10% as a result of the Government’s proposals, but others disagree, and we expect the review to look into that.

[Mr Djanogly]

It would, in fact, be a matter for the judges who would apply the 10% increase, rather than for the Government.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Sadiq Khan and Jonathan Djanogly

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

The right hon. Gentleman’s points go more to scope, which is not the subject of this debate, than the telephone service.

Some in the other place raised concerns about the gateway being mandatory and what that means for access by particular categories of vulnerable callers. However, that is precisely why we are applying the gateway in a limited number of areas—debt, discrimination and special educational needs—but not community care, which we have agreed should not be available initially. It is also why we are building in strong safeguards. Not only will there be an exemption for emergency cases, those in detention and under-18s, but even where a case is in scope and not in those groups, face-to-face advice will always be available where deemed to be required. Although those seeking advice in the three areas of law will be required initially to contact the helpline to apply for legal aid, callers eligible for legal aid who cannot give instructions or act on advice given over the telephone will be referred to face-to-face advice. I should also emphasise that, in response to concerns raised in another place, a review of the implementation of the mandatory gateway, including the operation of the gateway in the three areas of law, will be undertaken, and the report of that review will be published.

In all those areas—a duty to provide legal aid, the independence of the exceptional funding scheme and the operation of the gateway—the Government’s priority is to protect access to justice while modernising the service and ensuring that it is affordable. We agree with the need to underline the independence of a funding decision in an individual case. However, we cannot accept measures that would create legal confusion about what services the scheme provides, nor can we agree that it is unreasonable to ask claimants in three areas of law to access the service by the simple expedient of ringing a phone line—a modernisation entirely familiar from other walks of life.

I ask hon. Members to support the Government on all these amendments.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

We have the first set of knives at 5.30 pm, so we will have had less than 26 minutes to discuss the four amendments from the House of Lords in this group, and we will have less than five hours in total to discuss the 11 amendments passed in the other place—the 11 defeats for the Government.

Let me deal first with Lords amendment 1. This 23-word amendment was supported by a number of prestigious Members of the other House, for whom I have a great deal of respect. Some are Cross Benchers, some are members of the Justice Secretary’s party and some are members of my party. Many Government peers voted with Lord Pannick in the other place when he pressed the amendment to a Division, which was won with a majority of 45. The amendment was carefully drafted; indeed, I should point out that none of the technical deficiencies pointed out today was raised by Lord McNally when he responded in the other place.

The speakers in the debate in the other place included the former Leader of the House of Commons and former Cabinet colleague of the Justice Secretary, Lord Newton of Braintree, who sadly recently passed away. His last contribution in Parliament was on this Bill, and he spoke powerfully against many bits of part 1. I would like to echo the tremendous tributes that have been paid to him in the other place recently, as I am sure would all Members of all parties in the Chamber.

The Bill, as drafted, contains no duty on the Lord Chancellor to provide the services that the Bill permits. Lords amendment 1 would ensure that he had to meet the needs of citizens within “the resources available” and the scope of legal aid, as defined by the Bill. It would quite simply be a statement of legislative purpose at the outset of the Bill. The wording in the amendment has been included in legal aid statutes since the first Act in 1949. Even given the understandable budgetary constraints on the Government, a clause such as this would show that the Government recognised that legal aid was regarded as an essential element of access to justice. It would be modest and sensible, and it would not cost the taxpayer anything, but it would enshrine an important constitutional principle in part 1 of the Bill.

In fact, the amendment does not go as far as the House of Lords Constitution Committee wanted to go. Lord McNally stated:

“I also accept that the duty that the amendment would place on the Lord Chancellor would be qualified by the reference to the duty being subject both to the resources available and to the provisions of Part 1.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 March 2012; Vol. 735, c. 1569.]

It is therefore unclear how on earth the Government can claim financial privilege in relation to this amendment, or, more pertinently, why they are so unwilling to accept it. We shall oppose their attempt to overturn Lords amendment 1.

Lords amendment 24 seeks to ensure that the telephone gateway that the Government intend to create will not be mandatory, as proposed in the original Bill. This is important for many vulnerable groups, such as those with mental health issues or communication problems. The other place voted by a majority of 28 to support the amendment tabled by Baroness Grey-Thompson to remove the provision of a mandatory telephone gateway and the delivery of legal aid services exclusively by telephone. It is particularly disappointing that the Government are seeking to overturn this amendment as well. Without it, the Bill will give the Government wide powers to make legal aid services available exclusively by phone or other electronic means. For the avoidance of doubt, we accept that telephone advice might suit many people; we are not against its use. We are, however, against it being the only way of getting initial advice. This goes to the matter of access to justice, and the Government just do not get it.

It has been emphasised many times in our debates on social welfare law that it is often the most vulnerable in society who rely most on the support of social welfare—for example, those with learning difficulties, mental health issues or communication problems. Some in those groups already suffer from chaotic lives and find it hard to communicate complex, multi-faceted, challenging problems. I wonder how many of the Ministers on the Front Bench conduct their surgeries exclusively by telephone. Those people’s problems can be further compounded by having to explain them and seek advice over the telephone. Many do not have a landline, and others cannot afford the cost of using their mobile, with waiting time eating into their scarce credit.

The Government appear to agree with that. In response to a question about the impact assessment from my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), the Minister did not give the entire information. The Government’s own impact assessment highlighted the fact that the disabled, and those whose first language is not English, would find this a particularly hard way of engaging with the legal aid system. I fear that the result will be that many vulnerable people are deterred from seeking support.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Sadiq Khan and Jonathan Djanogly

Tuesday 13th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

I agree with my hon. Friend and can confirm that we are working very closely with the Department for Work and Pensions as part of its wider welfare reform programme to improve the quality and effectiveness of initial decision taking.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

Lord Newton of Braintree, who was the Secretary of State for Social Security in a Conservative Government in the 1980s and early 1990s—in the days when the Conservative party won elections in its own right—said last week that 81% of all cases heard in the first-tier tribunals relating to benefits are to do with disability benefits. In 2009-10 an appellant at the first-tier tribunal who received advice before going to the tribunal was 78% more likely to win their appeal than an unadvised appellant. The advice that citizens advice bureaux, law centres and advice agencies give to their clients is very important. These are not fat-cat lawyers or litigious clients. Will the Government now accept the votes passed in the House of Lords over the past week, which will not only save taxpayers’ money in the medium to long term but will also avoid unnecessary misery and suffering for some of the most vulnerable in our society?

[Mr Djanogly]

I have to say that the Government are disappointed by the position taken in the Lords and we will return to the issue when the Bill comes back to the Commons. We remain of the view that these cases are primarily about financial entitlement and as such do not raise the fundamental issues involved in cases concerning liberty or safety. I can say to the right hon. Gentleman that the user-friendly nature of the tribunal means that appellants can generally present their case without legal assistance.

[Sadiq Khan]

If that is the case, why is the success rate 78% higher for those who do receive advice before they go to appeal? We have said from the outset that we agree that savings need to be made to the legal aid budget. If we were in government, we would be making cuts as well, but our values and connections with ordinary people mean that our priorities would be very different. Figures from the Ministry of Justice say that by the end of this Parliament, criminal legal aid provided largely by well-paid QCs, barristers and solicitors will be cut by 6%, whereas family legal aid will be cut by 29%, but social welfare legal aid, which is delivered by CABs, law centres and small voluntary organisations, at which some of the lowest-paid advisers and lawyers work, will be cut by 53%.

[Sadiq Khan]

Will the Minister explain why the cuts are being made to the most vulnerable instead of to areas where cuts can be made more fairly?

[Mr Djanogly]

We simply are not doing what the right hon. Gentleman suggests. Social welfare law will still receive £50 million in legal aid and we are redirecting the money we spend on legal aid towards helping the most vulnerable. When it comes to advice on benefits, people do not currently receive legal aid for representation. Before people go to appeal they will still be able to receive advice for many such cases from a general advice practitioner such as their local CAB.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Sadiq Khan and Jonathan Djanogly

Tuesday 13th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

I must put the right hon. Gentleman right: we are not ending debt advice or advice in some of the other areas he mentioned. In fact, we will still be spending some £50 million on social welfare advice.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

Fifty-three peers of the 54 who spoke in the House of Lords on Second Reading of the Government’s flagship Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill expressed their worries about the Bill. They came from both sides of the political spectrum and many were among the country’s leading experts. Unlike their Liberal Democrat and Conservative counterparts in the House of Commons, they are not Whips’ fodder and will not be bought off by platitudes or the offer of jobs in government. What plans does the Minister have to address the concerns that they raised, or will there be no change from the Bill that left this House?

[Mr Djanogly]

The right hon. Gentleman mentions the fact that the Bill is currently going through the other place and will shortly head to Committee. Of course, the Government, being a listening Government, and the Ministry of Justice, being a listening Ministry, will take onboard the concerns of noble Members in the other place and act accordingly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Sadiq Khan and Jonathan Djanogly

Tuesday 8th November 2011 Commons Chamber

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

Ultimately, coroners are independent judicial appointments, and as such, complaints must be made through the judicial appointments service. Having said that, I have been in contact with people in Teesside and I shall continue to take an interest in this matter.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

One cannot help but notice the good mood that the Justice Secretary is in today, which I am sure has nothing to do with the spot of bother the Home Secretary is in. May I ask him a question on a similar issue—foreign prisoners? He will be aware that in 2007, the Labour Government negotiated with the EU a prisoner transfer agreement, which comes into force next month, which will mean that no prisoner consent is required, and that the other country must comply with a request for a transfer. The Prime Minister promised the repatriation of thousands of foreign prisoners by personally taking charge of negotiations with individual countries. We all know that he likes to keep his promises, so can the Justice Secretary tell us how many new prisoner transfer agreements have been successfully negotiated with individual countries in the past 18 months, and how many foreign prisoners does he expect to be repatriated this year?

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Sadiq Khan and Jonathan Djanogly

Wednesday 29th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sadiq Khan]

My hon. Friend is right to remind the House that if we are not careful, the country will become an advice desert for the poor and the vulnerable as a result of that policy.

The previous Labour Government always strove to protect social welfare legal aid. Our March 2010 proposals, which have been strangely ignored by this Government, would have generated savings sufficient to protect social welfare legal aid. The Justice Secretary’s changes will have a huge impact on the viability of many law centres, CABs and high street practices up and down the country that do an enormous amount to provide access to justice for some of our most deprived citizens. Do hon. Members know what the irony of that is? It is that this is the time when they need that advice most. A whole swathe of society is losing the ability to exercise its legal rights, with women particularly affected. The Lord Chief Justice has warned that the proposals will damage access to justice, and Citizens Advice has warned that the cuts will leave hundreds of thousands with nowhere to turn for help and has demonstrated the savings to the taxpayer down the line from early intervention: £1 of legal expenditure on housing advice will save the state £2.34, and on benefits advice the saving is £8.80. So there is a moral as well as an economic case for not cutting in this way. As the Justice Secretary knows, the Lord Chief Justice warned that legal aid cuts risked a surge in litigants in person, with all the associated increase in stress and costs.

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

rose—

[Sadiq Khan]

The Minister will have a chance to wind up the debate later, but we now have less than four hours remaining, so I will not give way.

The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) mentioned clause 12, which is of real concern and seeks to loosen the systems that guarantee free access to a solicitor upon arrest, which were established in the 1980s, when the Justice Secretary was in government—although it was a Labour idea—on the back of a number of high-profile miscarriages of justice. However, he has failed to justify to the House why he is seeking the change in clause 12, which we think should be deleted from the Bill. When the Minister winds up, I hope he will say that it will be deleted before we reach our deliberations in Committee.

The Government’s proposals on civil litigation are driven primarily by their zeal to fix the so-called compensation culture. However, by cherry-picking the Jackson report recommendations, the Bill runs the risk of undermining access to justice, which is something that the introduction of no win, no fee sought to guarantee. We will scrutinise those clauses closely.

[Mr Djanogly]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sadiq Khan]

I will not.

The Justice Secretary never had a credible strategy for achieving his rehabilitation revolution. His plans are fatally flawed and always were, and he has demonstrated that he is not on the side of victims. His use of language on rape sentencing, his original 50% sentence reduction proposals and the reduction in the use of remand in custody show that in no sense does he understand that victims and witnesses need to have confidence in the justice system and feel that it is safe in his hands. By taking from judges the ability to remand people in custody in cases they think appropriate, and by abolishing IPPs, he has not explained how he will give judges the tools they need to keep communities safe and to cut crime.