|
Bridget Prentice: Let me respond first on Crown Court cases. Eligibility is not about excluding people from legal aid; it is about bringing people into a contribution regime.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman makes a great deal of high-cost cases, but let me assure him that no one is more aware of high costs than we in the Department. That is why we have taken action to deal with high-cost cases before Lord Carter's review and we shall continue to make savings. We have also taken action to ensure the proper management of cases in the courts, and the judiciary has been very positive and keen to be involved in ensuring that we have much better case management than in the past.
Something is being done, and the high-cost case contract unit of the Legal Services Commission is proving quite successful at controlling costs. It is making savings of about £35 million—that represents about 10 per cent. of cases—which is not an insignificant sum. I therefore agree with the hon. Gentleman in principle about taking control of high-cost cases but would have appreciated it if he had recognised that the Department has already set in train several ways of dealing with the issue.
The hon. Gentleman also says that we should not wait for Lord Carter, but Lord Carter will publish his review within weeks. The idea that we should suddenly do something two or possibly three weeks before Lord Carter publishes the review that we asked him to undertake is, quite frankly, daft. It would send nothing like the right messages to the judiciary, the legal profession or anyone else, particularly Lord Carter.
The Chairman: Order. I notice that the hon. Member for Huntingdon is about to intervene. Before he does so, I should say that I have allowed the debate to go reasonably wide because our proceedings have been well tempered and are not destined to be overlong. As the hon. Gentleman knows, however, there are very good reasons why new clause 1 was not selected, and although I have allowed the Minister to respond in kind, it would be wrong for the debate to stray much further beyond the scope of clause 2. I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman intends to say, but I am sure that he will not tempt the Minister to go beyond the scope of the clause; indeed, I would not allow him to.
Mr. Djanogly: Thank you, Mr. Conway, and I appreciate the leeway that you have allowed us. This is an important and, I believe, relevant issue. If it is daft not to wait for Lord Carter, why is the Committee being held today, rather than in three weeks' time?
Bridget Prentice: I am quite pleased that it is being held now. The Bill was actually meant to have been taken before the general election, but it fell by the wayside. Indeed, let me say in passing—I shall move on very swiftly, Mr. Conway—that we have benefited from the fact that it fell by the wayside, because the Bill before us is a much improved version of the one that was available before.
Column Number: 19
I should also correct something that I said—just to make things absolutely clear. The £35 million savings are savings from the Bill and are quite separate from savings that are already being made under the high-cost case scheme.
On clause 2, it is essential for rights to representation to be granted only where the individual satisfies financial eligibility criteria—that is the other key feature of the Bill, as opposed to the one that we discussed under clause 1. Clause 2 is required to ensure that tax-funded legal aid is restricted to those who genuinely need it and is essential to prevent criminal legal aid from being available to defendants who do not require it.
Mr. Heath rose—
Bridget Prentice: I knew that that would inspire an intervention from the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Heath: I do not want to delay the Minister, but she should be very cautious about saying that something is essential when, only a few years ago, it was essential that quite the reverse should apply.
Bridget Prentice: It is important that I address that. As I said in response to an intervention on that point on Second Reading, the Government did away with all criteria for legal aid about five years ago and made legal aid available to everyone in criminal cases. It must be said that we were not aware of how legal aid would be taken up. We have reviewed the matter and have listened to what people had to say. Clearly, it is right to reflect on what has happened and to decide that some form of means-testing is appropriate.
I have no problem with saying that we considered the matter and that abolishing the criteria did not turn out as we wanted it to, so we have advanced this proposal because we believe that it is a better way to deal with things. I have no problem with having thought about it, listening to what people have said and accepting change where change is necessary.
Many hon. Members have written to me about the case of the footballer El-Hadji Diouf, who was on loan from Liverpool to Bolton. I am reluctant to go too far into the football situation, because I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound) will want to mention Fulham at some point.
Stephen Pound (Ealing, North) (Lab): Will the Minister give way? [Laughter.]
Bridget Prentice: Not at this point.
El-Hadji Diouf was on loan from Liverpool to Bolton when he spat in the face of his opponent, Arjan de Zeeuw. I can pronounce those names more easily that I can the constituency of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, but I am getting there. El-Hadji Diouf was fined two weeks' wages—a total of £80,000, as he was paid £40,000 a week—yet he was eligible for legal aid. That upset a great many people who would not be eligible for legal aid in civil cases. That example illustrates why the Bill is so timely.
Under clause 2, means information will be collected from defendants at the earliest opportunity after they
Column Number: 20
enter the criminal justice system on a consolidated application form covering both the early advice and assistance scheme and the granting of representation. In response to comments made on Second Reading, I want to make it clear that the information should be collected when the defendant is charged, as that is the most appropriate time to collect it.
A number of limited eligibility allowances will be introduced to ensure that the scheme is fair and sensitive to individual circumstances and reflects capacity to pay. Defendants will be able to apply for legal aid under an extended advice and assistance scheme up to and including the first hearing, when a means-tested representation order comes into force. Eligibility for the extended advice and assistance scheme will be determined on merit alone, and applicants will not be tested for means at that point.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Rights to representation: contribution orders
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Djanogly: I have two brief points to make. What assessment, if any, have the Government made of the use of the recovery of defence costs orders? Have they proved to be effective, and if not, why, and how can the matter be addressed? As the Law Society pointed out, the advantage of the recovery of defence costs orders, is that they are made at the end of a case when the overall picture is much clearer.
Secondly, do the Government propose to reimburse acquitted defendants the costs of their defence? Again, as the Law Society points out, there is a discrepancy between reimbursement of acquitted defendants at private rates and payment at legal aid rates. Of course, the implication is that the Crown could end up paying more to defence solicitors at their private rates than it would have done at legal aid rates. In turn, could addressing the problem be disproportionate, undermine the cost-cutting essence of the Bill and breach the Human Rights Act? To what extent have the Government assessed the issue?
Bridget Prentice: Clause 3 is necessary for the making of contribution orders where the financial eligibility criteria are satisfied. It is essential to protect defendants from having to pay the full funding of their cases when costs rise beyond what it would be reasonable to expect people to be able to afford to pay. Cases can end up costing tens of thousands of pounds, and the clause will allow defendants in such cases to be protected from having to meet the full cost. It is also required to enable the future Crown court scheme as well as for dealing with unusually high-cost cases.
We believe that it is prudent for the magistrates courts scheme to be allowed time to bed down before the Crown court scheme is rolled out. A phased roll-out will provide us with the opportunity to learn any lessons that arise from the scheme's implementation in
Column Number: 21
the magistrates courts. In response to the hon. Gentleman's question on the recovery of defence cost orders, the capital contribution takes place at the end of the case. Many defendants will have no or little capital at the time of the charge, but may have income from employment that, if convicted, they could lose. There will be means-testing plus the recovery of defence cost orders, as they address different areas. I should make it clear that when a person is acquitted there will be provision for reimbursement of their costs. On that basis, I ask the Committee to support clause 3.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Consequential amendments
Mr. Heath: I rise to make the most pedantic and pointless intervention that I can. It is purely about the felicity of the drafting. Clause 4(2)(b) refers to ''subsection (4A) of that section''. One assumes that the section implied is section 23 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969. If that is the case, it would be slightly better and clearer drafting if clause 4(2)(a) were to read ''subsection 5A of section 23 of the Children and Young Persons Act'' so that there could be no possibility of any confusion. That is, as I say, the most pedantic point but I prefer consistency in drafting, and later in the same paragraph we phrase matters in an analogous way. I commend the point to the Minister and those who drafted the Bill.
| 
