Schedule 1 — Civil legal services

Part of Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill – in the House of Commons at 9:30 pm on 31 October 2011.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Robert Buckland Robert Buckland Conservative, South Swindon 9:30, 31 October 2011

I pay tribute to Karl Turner, who speaks from professional and personal experience on these matters. I am profoundly grateful to him for his candour and passion. I am also grateful to Mr Llwyd, a fellow practitioner from Wales, who has considerable experience of these matters.

I rise to reinforce some of the points that have been made about some aspects of the proposed reforms. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will accept that it is difficult to define an exceptional case. By the very nature of the category that the Legal Services Commission uses to deal with exceptional cases, they are indefinable. I accept that he will therefore find it difficult to assure us categorically that all cases that cause proper concern—particularly the complex cases involving young children who have had difficulties at birth—will be covered by the Government’s proposals.

We are right to raise these concerns. Clinical negligence cases are somewhat unusual in that the expenditure is incurred at the beginning. The firms of solicitors dealing with such cases are often not the big firms that live in the City of London, but the firms of partners who have developed a degree of experience in such cases and who understand how to relate to the families of people who have suffered from alleged clinical negligence. However, such firms do not necessarily have the resources to enable them to spend lots of money on the preliminary medical investigations that are essential in preparing the ground in such cases. I support the remarks made by my hon. Friend Guy Opperman, who, in his excellent speech, raised the possibility of producing a joint report, at the beginning of each case, for the NHS—the defendant—and the claimant. That is a good point to make, but we are not in that position yet; we are still in an adversarial position. My deep worry is that a lot of cases will go without the necessary representation or help because those firms do not have the resources to dip into their pockets and to pay the thousands of pounds that are needed to prepare a case for making a claim.

I speak from experience, having served as a member of a funding review panel for some 10 years, and having dealt with appeals made by solicitors against the refusal or revocation of legal aid certificates in cases of clinical negligence. It would be wrong to say that a carte blanche exists at the moment. Even now, it is not easy for solicitors to satisfy the Legal Services Commission. I want to ask the Government to think carefully about the observations made by Members on both sides of the House, and to hesitate before seeking to implement the full thrust of these proposals.

There are several ways of dealing with this question. The first would be the full retention of legal aid for such cases. Another would be its retention for those aged 18 or under who are making claims against the NHS for clinical negligence. A further option would be to allow the provision of legal funding for initial advice and assistance in the preparation of reports before the commencement of any proceedings. Such an option would not cover representation, but it would deal with the preliminary stages. I ask the Government to consider those alternatives very carefully. I know that this matter will be hotly debated in another place, where I am sure that full account will be taken not only of what we have said here tonight but of any observations that are made there.

Annotations

Darren Rhodes
Posted on 2 Nov 2011 11:16 am (Report this annotation)

Robert Buckland said, "...raised the possibility of producing a joint report, at the beginning of each case, for the NHS— the defendant— and the claimant. That is a good point to make, but we are not in that position yet; we are still in an adversarial position."

There has been a recent extra-judicial speech by Lord Neuberger where he explains that the Woolf reforms, with respect to expert witnesses, have made parts of the litigation process more inquisitorial at the expense of being adversarial.

See speech 5th October 2011 (pdf, 8 pages).

In other words, if there is a necessity for expert opinion, the duty of the expert is to the Court; rather than to the party who has engaged him. This is an inquisitorial, rather than adversarial, position.