§ 10.38 p.m.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 22nd February and the draft order laid before the House on 8th March be approved [11th and 12th Reports from the Joint Committee].
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move en bloc the three draft orders standing in my name of the Order Paper. I am conscious of the lateness of the hour, so perhaps it may be convenient for the House if I first briefly describe the main terms of the three orders. I shall then be happy subsequently to answer any questions.
§ The Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations provide for the uprating of financial eligibility limits in relation to advice and assistance. The regulations raise the lower weekly disposable income limit from £72 to £75 and the upper limit from £172 to £178. The regulations also revise the bands which determine the level of contribution payable by those who receive advice and assistance.
§ The eligibility limit uprating represents an increase of 3.2 per cent, on the previous year's limits. This is consistent with increases proposed in the level of 1261 income-related social security benefits. More importantly, the uprating ensures that people on low and modest incomes will continue to have access to advice and assistance when they need it.
§ The Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations uprate the financial eligibility limits for civil legal aid. The regulations increase the lower disposable income limit, below which civil legal aid is available without contribution by the assisted person, from £2, 625 to £2, 680 a year; and increases the upper limit, above which civil legal aid is not available, from £8, 571 to £8, 751 a year. The changes represent an increase of 2.1 per cent, on the previous year's eligibility limits. As with advice and assistance, the uprating is consistent with social security benefit increases.
§ The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (Application to Summary Proceedings) Order 1999 extends the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission's remit to include convictions, sentences and findings in summary proceedings from 1st April 1999. I am aware that this has been a matter of discussion within legal circles in Scotland—whether there ought to be the extension to summary proceedings. The law as it stands would limit the review procedures to solemn proceedings. We thought it appropriate, through this order, to extend them to summary proceedings. The advice we have is that this would not unduly burden the legal system and believe it to be totally appropriate at this stage to match the two together.
§ On that basis, I hope your Lordships' House will accept the reasoning behind the order. The present order will also enable summary cases to be referred to the High Court for determination, where there is evidence of a miscarriage of justice. That is a significant innovation in terms of our present procedures. At the moment it is basically left with the Secretary of State or what would be the First Minister. It is always preferable to have a route through the courts rather than a route through the Secretary of State or First Minister in this type of case. I hope that these are wholly acceptable provisions and I commend them to the House.
§ Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 22nd February and the draft order laid before the House on 8th March be approved. [11th and 12th Reports from the Joint Committee]. —(Lord Sewel.)
§ The Earl of Mar and KellieMy Lords, with regard to the two legal aid orders, the uprating of the income levels is to be welcomed. There has to remain a major concern about the range of the legal aid system. Although the definition of "disposable income" is more generous than "gross income", it remains that these uprating enfranchise only one-third of the Scottish population, if that, and leave two-thirds excluded. We are therefore left where we started, with justice difficult to access by medium earners and only available to the well-off and lowest income groups.
I am advised by the Law Society of Scotland that it has concerns—as do I—about eligibility for legal aid and, in particular, the way that the eligibility criteria 1262 affects single women with children on low incomes. The pilot modifications for the recovery of contributions over 10 months must be welcomed. But there are still difficulties for people on low incomes who need to take legal action quickly—for example, to protect themselves from violence. The Scottish Legal Aid Board still needs to take substantial contributions, reputedly up to £1, 200, making the legal process an impossible one in those speedy circumstances.
I move on. With regard to the extension to summary proceedings of the work of the Scottish criminal cases review commission, this extension of activities can certainly be welcomed. The commencement of this commission on 1st April definitely has to be welcomed. There has been an increase in the number of cases in the Scottish jurisdiction where there is some nagging doubt about the safety of convictions. It is worth mentioning, as examples, the cases of Thomas Campbell and Joseph Steele—the so-called Glasgow two—and, indeed, the case of Andrew Smith, which was highlighted in today's Scotsman newspaper. Will the Secretary of State refer these cases and others to the commission, or are the individuals themselves required to refer themselves to the commission?
I appreciate that there has always been a presumption of confidence in the Scottish criminal justice system, but now there are questions and these must be answered. I hope that the Scottish criminal justice system will be restored to full confidence, but only if it really deserves to be so. The order wisely extends the commission's work to cases arising in the sheriff courts. This is a sensible extension. I predict that this kind of work will be sparse, but that would be no reason not to make the extension. One miscarriage is, of course, one too many at any level.
The Earl of CourtownMy Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of this order which helped me to understand it. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, for mentioning the points which have been made by the Law Society of Scotland, with which I entirely agree. While we have no objection to the Scottish criminal cases review commission order, can the Minister tell me what additional resources will be required by the commission to handle summary cases without delaying the handling of solemn cases?
§ Lord SewelMy Lords, I thank the noble Earls who have participated in this brief but, I believe, significant debate. I shall deal with the specific points made by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. I believe he has concerns with regard to the extension of legal aid. The orders before us today do not deal with the extension of legal aid; they deal with the matter of uprating. I recognise that there is a perfectly legitimate argument to be made as regards the extension of legal aid, but that really is a matter for another time and perhaps another place.
As regards the specific cases the noble Earl mentioned, some specific cases are before the Secretary of State at this time. If they cannot be resolved before 1st April—I believe that as regards the specific cases the noble Earl mentioned, it is unlikely that they will be 1263 resolved before 1st April—they will be transferred to the Scottish criminal cases review commission. I anticipate that it would give a degree of priority and urgency to those cases.
As regards the matter raised by the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, of resources and solemn and summary cases, our advice is that the number of summary cases at present falling before the Secretary of State are few indeed. It is a matter of two or three a year. Therefore we do not expect that this will represent a significant drain or charge upon existing resources. We hope that they would easily be able to be dealt with within the existing provision. On that basis, I hope that noble Lords will feel able to support the orders.