Clause 1 - Grant of rights to representation
Criminal Defence Service Bill [Lords]
10:30 am
Bridget Prentice (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Lewisham East, Labour)
I beg to move amendment No. 1, in clause 1, page 2, leave out line 23.
As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) has recognised, much of our debate will be on Government amendments Nos. 1 and 2, which could be said to go together. It may help the Committee if I explain the Government's position.
The object of amendment No. 1 is to overturn an amendment passed in the House of Lords, because we do not feel that it would be helpful to have judicial oversight, in the way proposed in the other place, of what is essentially an administrative procedure. We accept that there has to be a right of appeal in cases in which a defendant believes that the interests of justice have not been served. As I stated on Second Reading, we make that clear in the supplement to the framework document, and I do not think that anybody would disagree. However, the Government strongly argue, as we have consistently argued, that should a defendant complain about a miscalculation or an error in the administration of a means test, an administrative review of the application would be more appropriate than an appeal.
Concerns expressed in the other place led to the amendment to which I have referred but I believe that the were misplaced. Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 seek to reverse the position and to restore the Bill to its original state. We believe unequivocally that the applicant should have the opportunity to challenge a determination if he is found to be not financially eligible for criminal legal aid. We propose judicial review not as an alternative to appeal but as a further stage after review. The key question, therefore, whether the hearing should be conducted by the Legal Services Commission or whether there should be a full court appeal. We have consistently stated our view that the financial eligibility test is almost entirely a matter of fact, not of judgment. It is an administrative process, not a judicial one. As I stressed on Second Reading, that assessment is shared by senior members of the judiciary.