Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

My Lords, I apologise, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for missing half this debate because of being engaged in the Welfare Reform Bill like a number of colleagues. Time is limited so I will confine my remarks to what I see as the most pressing elements of the Bill. My interest lies mainly in Part 1, but I would like to welcome a provision contained in Part 3, which abolishes the discredited system of indeterminate sentences. IPPs have been controversial. They effectively introduced life sentences by the back door for a huge range of offences. The Government are right to abolish them, although I am concerned that the new system would introduce a mandatory life sentence for those convicted of a second listed offence, so removing judicial discretion. Unfortunately, the Government seem to be replacing one contentious system with another, which promises to throw up a number of problems. I ask, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, a little earlier, why abolishing IPPs cannot also apply retrospectively. Those serving IPP sentences are languishing in our prisons since little focus is placed on putting them into rehabilitation programmes. Not enough thought seems to have been put into determining a prisoner’s tariff. On average, these prisoners serve 244 days beyond their tariff and it costs roughly £30,000 to keep somebody incarcerated for that period of time. If you multiply that by the 2,229 prisoners who are in that situation, you get a figure of no less than £68 million. The IPP regime has been a rather costly mistake. Turning to Part 1, the cuts to legal aid propagated by this Bill are, I believe, unethical and will have a damaging effect on the make-up of our legal system. What is more, as the report published by the House of Lords Constitution Committee last week made clear, the cuts go against the constitutional right to legal advice. The cuts will create a market for the supply of legal aid driven by cost rather than the needs of the clients. Profits made by legal aid firms are relatively low and any move to fixed fees for all cases will mean suppliers will be encouraged to take on only the least complicated cases. The most vulnerable clients, including those with mental health problems and people with a range of disabilities, may find it impossible to gain access to free legal advice due to the complications often arising in these cases, as described so effectively by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. As we have heard from many noble Lords, legal aid will also be denied to patients injured as a result of medical negligence as well as workers who have suffered illness due, particularly, to asbestos exposure. I was involved with that campaign 20 years ago, as I had a Ferodo factory in my former constituency. At present civil litigation claimants are able to bring cases under the no-win no-fee system, which the Bill seeks to overhaul. Claimants can take out ““after the event”” insurance, ATE, to pay the defendant’s costs if the claim fails, while solicitors counter the risk of claims with success fees which are payable on winning a case. Under the new system, as I understand it, successful claimants will have to pay some costs and ““after the event”” premiums out of their compensation. Without ATE insurance, the risks of bringing a claim will simply be too great, so the right to redress will be lost for those caught up in the most distressing cases involving clinical negligence. These proposals are totally unacceptable and made worse still when we note that the Government failed to carry out a full assessment of how their proposals would affect disabled people. Not even those suffering domestic abuse will be guaranteed free legal advice under this Bill. During earlier stages of the Bill in the House of Commons, the Government refused to recognise that the definition of domestic violence contained in the Bill is too narrow. This will leave vulnerable women without the support that they most certainly need. What is more, if the perpetrators of domestic violence are not entitled to legal aid and so act as litigants in person, they will be able to cross-examine witnesses, which will surely cause unnecessary anxiety. The proposals included in Clause 12, which threaten to limit legal advice in police custody through secondary legislation, are also deeply worrying. This is yet another proposal on which the Government failed to consult and is a move which has been widely criticised. Errors and abuses at the police station can lead to miscarriages of justice, which are exceptionally difficult to resolve. The Bill as it stands allows the Lord Chancellor to replace advice in person in custody with telephone advice. This would be a dangerous step indeed. I strongly oppose the proposals to introduce a mandatory telephone gateway, which would mean that those seeking legal advice for discrimination cases would have to speak by telephone to an adviser, who may not be legally trained, to find out whether they are eligible for legal aid. Many claimants, including those with disabilities and those with caring needs and learning difficulties, may be prevented from accessing the legal aid scheme due to communication problems. That is a real barrier to equal access to justice. The proposals ignore many subtleties that surround abuse and will abandon some of the most destitute and vulnerable people in our society without access to support. I urge the Government to reconsider these aspects of the Bill.