Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

My Lords, I have put my name to the amendment, which seeks to restore families with dependent children to the list of those eligible for legal aid and advice in respect of a range of legal issues that can be fundamental to the ability of a family to function. The proposed changes in the Bill, and in other Bills before your Lordships’ House such as the Welfare Reform Bill, which was referred to before the break, will have a disproportionate effect on those families in our society who are the least advantaged, most marginalised and most deprived. The number of those who would benefit from the amendment is necessarily limited by the terms and conditions under which legal aid and advice is available, but they may well be the people who are least able to contemplate the complexities and mysteries of conditional fee agreements, of lawyers, and of the costs of the ATE insurance premium in cases that they may have to fight. We in this country have to make many decisions about how we spend our money. In November last year, the Government affirmed their commitment to spend £200 million on an airstrip in the south Atlantic, for St Helena island, which has 4,000 inhabitants. As we contemplate our reasons for doing that and observe similar expenditure, we should ask ourselves: what would be the consequences of removing access to legal aid from the poorest and most marginalised families in our country? The Minister spoke earlier today of the hard choices faced by government. They are infinitely harder for those upon whom these choices and legislative changes will fall. Some 650,000 of the poorest people will be deprived of the access that they currently have through solicitors, CAB law centres and other advice centres that are estimated to provide services at a cost of between £150 and £200 per case. Justice for All, a coalition of some 4,000 organisations, has estimated that approximately 140,000 children will be affected by the proposed measures as legal aid is withdrawn from the adults who care for them, and that at least 6,000 children will be deprived of legal aid altogether. It is also estimated that 57 per cent of those who will no longer be able to access specialist advice on welfare benefits are disabled—about 78,000 people. Where those disabled people are part of families with dependent children, or where dependent children are living in a family, they will encounter even more marginalisation as a result of the consequential difficulties of access to specialist advice. The Coalition: our Programme for Government stated: "““The Government believes that strong and stable families of all kinds are the bedrock of a strong and stable society””." We know from the recent Save the Children report that 45 per cent of parents living in severe poverty are considering cutting back food to pay energy bills. Many families with very low incomes, lacking job stability because of the area in which they live, facing deprivation on a scale of which most of us have little experience and living in overcrowded accommodation, nevertheless provide a stable and strong base from which to launch their children into the world as active, contributing members of society. When they face legal challenges, they should be supported, because it is the right thing to do and also because if we do not, they may find themselves unable to maintain their family lives and will inevitably become a cost to the state. I want to say a word about private family law. Great concern has been expressed about the fact that private family law cases have been excluded from legal aid provision. Not all cases of family breakdown are susceptible to mediation or even to the type of collaborative law project discussed earlier. There will inevitably be cases where legal aid and advice is required by families. Concerns have been raised about cases in which a child is unlawfully removed from one part of the United Kingdom to another, and about cases in which a spouse has suffered prolonged violence during a relationship or has other problems, such as extreme poverty, illiteracy or even as simple a thing as no one to mind the children. That person may not have the capacity personally to challenge the other in the courts to try to recover the child. If it has to be done before the courts, under the proposed arrangements, it could result in two spouses both personally conducting their cases in court—surely a recipe for all sorts of failure in the delivery of access to justice. Legal aid is not being withdrawn for international child abduction cases. The effect of moving a child from Barnstaple to Belfast may be as difficult as moving a child from Barnstaple to Brittany. In such cases, the safety of the child may be at risk. There is the risk of psychological and emotional damage because of their inability to contact the second parent, or the risk that the parent who looks after the child ensures that the child has a distorted and damaged view of the action of the other parent. To make a blanket provision excluding all private family law cases is neither proportionate nor necessary. The ultimate result will inevitably be a significantly enhanced burden on the individuals concerned and further involvement of the various statutory agencies, which carries its own cost. We discussed benefits just before the dinner break. I therefore do not intend to say any more, other than that benefits are not something extra to a family's income, they are the family's income. They are that which enables the family to function, and there are good financial reasons to continue to provide the current low-cost legal assistance which has been available to date. In cases of employment, as with civil litigation, access to legal aid permits a screening of cases, which facilitates the handling of such cases in a reasonably effective manner. The removal of access to pre-tribunal advice will have consequences similar to those which are being predicted consequential to the removal of legal aid for civil litigation. People will bring actions before tribunals without advice and, because of their lack of knowledge of tribunal procedures and employment law, there will undoubtedly be delays, additional adjournments and a necessity for the tribunal chair to ensure that litigants have equality of access in the absence of appropriate representation, particularly where the respondent is legally represented, as is the case in most employment tribunal applications. The cost of providing this service will inevitably rise. There is a significant risk that the removal of legal advice in such cases could result in an awareness that employees have much reduced opportunities to assert their legal rights, with a consequent lowering of general standards of protection in employment. Those who face serious exploitation or discrimination at work may ultimately end up unemployed and on benefits. That could be the beginning of a downward spiral for many families—a situation in which today they could be successfully protected through the tribunal process. Although housing advice is being retained for those at imminent risk of homelessness, there will nevertheless be situations in which people have serious housing benefit problems or other housing-related issues. One example given by Justice for All involves a woman who had previously attempted suicide and her 11 year-old daughter. They were living together and both were receiving psychiatric help following the suicide attempt. They were subjected to a campaign of harassment by newly arrived neighbours. There was verbal abuse, poison-pen letters, and endless complaints about the puppy which they had happily owned but which had to go because of complaints about noise. Shelter, using legal aid, was able to get them rehoused. People in this situation have been known to feel, as this lady did previously, that their only escape lies in suicide. What would this woman have done had she not been able to go to Shelter for help? Many people in this country are living on the minimum wage, which amounts to less than £200 a week, or on benefits such as jobseeker’s allowance, where the weekly benefit is £53.50 for a person under 25 or £67.50 for a person over 25. I ask noble Lords whether they could live on even £67.50 a week, after housing benefit of course. People in this situation live from day to day and from week to week. Planning ahead is not really possible. Meeting the costs of sudden illness or a reduction in working hours, which is happening to many people across the country, is a burden too far. Pay-day loans and other debt solutions are an unwarranted and disliked solution in such circumstances. They simply tie the borrower into the debt spiral, often with massive rates of interest, and the borrowers know this but they have nowhere else to go. Debt causes stress and illness, and it leads to conflict and tension in families. People who find themselves in intractable difficulties despite their wish to work need help, such as that offered by money advice agencies, to access benefits to which they are entitled, to make a manageable agreement to repay their debts and ultimately to avoid losing their homes. If such advice and help is not available in the early stages, the consequences are almost inevitable. The cost to the public purse of the splitting up of the family is equally predictable in terms of sickness, housing costs, welfare benefits and access to medical services. I want to say a brief word about immigration, which I have also included in the amendment. Trafficked persons and children would have no access to legal aid under the Government’s proposals. Refugees would not have access to advice about cases involving bringing members of their family to safety, and there would be no legal aid for many immigration judicial review cases, thereby reducing the accountability of the UK Border Agency. Clinical negligence we have discussed at length, and I shall say no more other than that the King’s College, London, report is fairly persuasive that the ultimate cost could be £18 million, consequential upon the increased costs of ATE insurance. There are compelling reasons to provide legal aid and advice for those families who would qualify in these circumstances. Acknowledging these issues, the Government have announced £20 million of funding to support people affected by the cuts. However, this is limited to the current financial year. There will be no capacity for sustainability in this measure. CAB research, which has not been challenged, has shown that for every £1 of legal aid advice and expenditure, the state potentially saves £8.80. It is very clear that the attempts to remove access to justice from the most marginalised and deprived of our families will cause immense damage. Families with dependent children face not only the challenge of trying to make money stretch and to remain healthy, but also the challenge of producing the citizens of the future. If those children grow up knowing that their parents have no access to justice, how can they believe that this society cares for its weak and its vulnerable? How many families will splinter under the combined weight of lost jobs, lost expectations, reduced benefits, rising interest rates, and our failure to provide them the access to justice which will enable them to be, in the Government’s words, "““strong and stable families … the bedrock of a strong and stable society””?" I beg to move.