Private Hire Vehicle (Carriage of Guide Dogs Etc.) Bill

TOP

I beg to move

The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 requires public hire taxi drivers to carry disabled persons and their guide and other assistant dogs, and to do so at no additional charge to the owner, unless it is appropriate to exempt a driver from the requirement on medical grounds.

A Government-supported private Member's Bill at Westminster, tabled by Neil Gerrard MP, seeks to extend those provisions so that they apply to private hire taxi drivers and operators. In Northern Ireland, the 1995 Act became a transferred matter on devolution. There are, therefore, two ways in which legislation can be dealt with for Northern Ireland. First, we could amend the 1995 Act by means of a Bill, which would mean that the current Westminster Bill would only apply to Great Britain. On the other hand, we could seek, through this motion, to apply the Westminster Bill to Northern Ireland.

Amendments to the 1995 Act would have to be made through primary legislation in the Assembly and could not be completed until 2003-04 at the earliest. That would leave disabled persons in Northern Ireland disadvantaged in comparison with such people in the rest of the United Kingdom, so I am seeking inclusion in the Westminster Bill, which would mean a shorter timescale for implementation.

The position at Westminster is that the Private Hire Vehicles (Carriage of Guide Dogs etc.) Bill has completed its Committee Stage in the House of Commons and is due to receive its Third Reading on 19 July. Today, we have an opportunity to take advantage of the Bill and improve the transport options for disabled people here who depend on guide and other assistant dogs.

The Royal National Institute of the Blind (RNIB) recently contacted officials in my Department to express its wholehearted support for the motion. It conducted a survey recently that found that one in five visually-impaired people use taxis as least once each week, mainly because such door-to-door transport is more convenient for getting around. The RNIB is aware of instances in Northern Ireland of a disabled person with a guide dog being refused a taxi. The Bill addresses such discrimination. As there are approximately 100 guide dogs and other assistance dogs in Northern Ireland, we should not ignore the matter.

The Committee for the Environment discussed the proposal at a meeting on 6 June. I appreciate its prompt consideration of what we are trying to achieve. The Committee gave an enthusiastic welcome to the proposal in a letter dated 10 June 2002, from the Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment, Rev Dr William McCrea.

I am pleased to confirm that, subject to Members' approval today, the Executive endorse this proposal, which will enable the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to be applied to private hire taxis. I commend the motion to the House.

I welcome the motion. In March 2001, the Committee considered a consultation document from the Department of the Environment on introducing legislation to place a duty on licensed public taxi drivers to carry guide dogs and other assistant dogs without charge. In welcoming that proposal, the Committee pressed for the provision to be extended to private taxi drivers.

On 30 May 2002, the Minister of the Environment wrote to me to say that it was proposed to extend to Northern Ireland a Westminster Bill on the carriage of guide dogs and other assistant dogs in private hire taxis. The Committee considered the long-overdue initiative on 6 June 2002 and gave it a genuine welcome.

The Committee considered a further letter from the Department of the Environment last Thursday, when Members were updated on the Department's position. The letter also provided the precise terms of the proposed Northern Ireland amendments to the Westminster Bill.

Some of my Colleagues pressed me on whether a private Member's Bill was the best way to proceed. The Minister assured us that this was the most appropriate way to ensure that legislation would be passed during this session of the Assembly, not solely because it is a private Member's Bill, as often they do not see the light of day, but because it is one that has the support of the Government. If this procedure will speed the enactment of the legislation, I give it an enthusiastic welcome.

I do not accept that any disabled person with a guide dog should be refused travel in a public or private taxi. The matter is of great concern to disabled people. In particular, it affects blind people, and I endorse the Royal National Institute of the Blind's welcome of the urgent enactment of the Bill.

I urge the Minister to recognise that the Committee speaks with one voice in welcoming the initiative. I ask Members to support the motion, and I encourage them to make every effort to ensure that the Bill becomes law soon, so that disabled people here can enjoy the protection to which they are entitled.

I welcome the Bill, and I agree with many of the Chairperson's comments. This Bill is long overdue, and the Committee is delighted to see it. I want to raise some issues with the Minister because, with legislation and its implementation, come responsibilities. The Committee asked officials about the number of disabled people who had complained about being denied access to private hire vehicles. They said that there were very few. I do not know whether there is a lack of communication within the Department, but some "not-so-high" officials agreed that there have been a number of complaints.

Following on from that, what procedures will the Minister put in place to allow people who are disabled, and who have been denied access to a private hire vehicle, to complain? Do they take their complaints to the Department, the taxi firm or their local disability organisation? Also, what type of educational information will the Department issue so that people know the right route to take? Who will be responsible for enforcement if a person is denied access to a taxi - the Department or the taxi firm? Who will then be liable for the penalty - the taxi company or the taxi driver? What penalties will be imposed on taxi drivers if they deny access to people with disabilities?

We also need to know about the health and safety aspect. Black taxis for public hire have a screen between the driver and the passenger in the back. What about the safety of taxi drivers when a guide dog is in a private vehicle? What type of training and help will the RNIB give to ensure that guide dogs are properly trained to be carried in that type of vehicle?

Those are just a few issues that have been raised by constituents and others. I hope that the Minister will take them on board.

I thank the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment for their remarks. I was struck particularly by Dr McCrea's comment that the Committee spoke with one voice. Only those with disabilities can appreciate fully the difficulties they face, so we should with all haste -but not with undue haste - move forward on this matter. Dr McCrea said that some Colleagues pressed him on whether a private Member's Bill was the best way to proceed with this, and I thank him for accepting my assurance.

The Deputy Chairperson raised some very interesting points about protection of people, person, about education, about screens to protect drivers, about the training of guide dogs and about enforcing penalties. Those matters will probably have to be taken up in the Regulations. Those aspects, even when we are looking for accelerated passage for a Bill, are usually covered by Regulations separate from the Bill and go through full consultation with the Committee and others. I do not know whether the Regulations will encapsulate all the points that the Deputy Chairperson raised, but that is probably where they should reside. We will look into that and ensure that all such issues are taken care of.

The first point that the Deputy Chairperson mentioned was the confusion about the number of disabled people denied access.

All I can say is that the Royal National Institute of the Blind, which is the authority that has the most communication and knows what the situation is, is supportive of what we want to do. One in five people use private taxis because they are the best way to get from door to door, and if this is the case, it is up to us to ensure that nothing inhibits that. Even though there were some criticisms, we want those who are impaired in this way to feel that the law is on their side; they should not be seeking comfort in the hope that a taxi driver might allow them to be passengers as a concession. There should be a law, and they should be comforted by it. I see that the Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment endorses what I am saying.

I have covered most of the comments. We look forward to seeing the Regulations, and I hope that we will again speak with one voice. I commend the motion.

Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland
(Assembly Standards) Bill: First Stage

TOP

The Chairperson of the Committee on Standards and Privileges (Mr McClelland):

I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill [NIA 25/01] to extend the powers of the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland to include certain matters concerning the conduct, interests and privileges of Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly and related matters; and for connected purposes.

The Bill will be put on the list of pending business until a date for its Second Stage has been determined.

Draft Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2002: 
Report of Ad Hoc Committee

TOP

I beg to move

At the outset, I thank the various bodies that came to the Committee to provide evidence. Even though the issue is somewhat complex, I intend to be as concise as possible.

I will begin by providing some background to the proposed Order in Council. On 19 February 1998, the Government announced a review into the provision and administration of legal aid in Northern Ireland. The announcement indicated that officials would undertake a review into arrangements for the administration and provision of legal aid in Northern Ireland, introducing recommendations for change where necessary. Officials would also consider, in the Northern Ireland context, the proposed reforms to legal aid in England and Wales.

As a result of that review, a consultation paper, 'Public Benefit and the Public Purse', was published on 14 June 1999. Publication of the consultation paper marked the start of the first substantive public discussion on legal aid for many years. The consultation paper set out the Government's objectives for, and commitment to, the modernisation of legal aid in Northern Ireland.

The objectives set by the Government in the consultation paper are summarised as follows: ensuring appropriate funding arrangements are in place to secure access to the most appropriate means to resolve legal issues for citizens; targeting resources to those in greatest need; ensuring that legal services are affordable and controllable; securing value for money from quality legal services; and establishing the most effective and efficient administrative structure to deliver legal services.

After consultation, the Government published a White Paper, 'The Way Ahead' in September 2000. The Government stated that the approach set out in the White Paper would provide a modern, transparent and accountable administrative structure to deliver quality assured legal services to all the people of Northern Ireland.

The White Paper showed that through the reform programme the Government were determined to take effective control of the public funding allocated for providing legal services and to ensure that the funds available were targeted at meeting the real needs of the most vulnerable.

To assist with its deliberations of the draft Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 the Committee heard evidence from the Lord Chancellor's Department of the Northern Ireland Court Service, the Law Society of Northern Ireland, the General Council of the Bar of Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission.

During the Committee's deliberations on the proposals for reform of the legal aid system in Northern Ireland, members considered a wide variety of issues. I will provide Members with details of the Committee's deliberations and recommendations.

The Committee welcomed the opportunity to consider the proposals for reform of the legal aid system in Northern Ireland and recognised that those proposals would be of major significance for many years. However, given the importance of those proposals, the Committee considered that a full, proper and meaningful consultation would be vital, as the proposals would affect the future of legal aid provision.

The Committee expressed concern about the time allocated to consider the draft Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2002, although it was within the 60 days allowed under section 85 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Due to the wide-ranging and complex areas for consideration, the Committee was of the opinion that there was a need for scrutiny of the draft Order and any subsequent implementation plan.

The Committee recommended that the Secretary of State continue to apprise the Assembly of any amendments to the legislation.

The Committee considered the establishment of a legal services commission. It will be responsible for the administration of the public funding of legal services; making new provision for the public funding of civil legal services; making new provision for the public funding of criminal legal services; providing for the registration of those seeking to provide publicly funded legal services; and making provision for alternative methods of paying for legal services, that is conditional fee arrangements and litigation fund agreements.

I said at the outset that some complexity was involved; I hope that Members can follow.

The Committee agreed with the principle of establishing an impartial legal services commission that would remove the administration of legal aid from the Law Society, a body whose members benefit from the present provision of legal aid.

When scrutinising the legislation, the Committee formed the view that many of the proposed major areas were seen as contingent legislation; they will provide fall-back positions if the proposals do not go according to plan. The Committee had serious reservations about that procedure. The proposal to allow a legal services commission to implement much of the detail without many of the areas being defined clearly in the legislation is a cause for concern.

However, the Committee noted evidence from the Law Society. It stated that

The Committee expressed concern over the lack of detail on the projected establishment of the legal services commission and its running costs. The Committee recommended, therefore, that the Secretary of State should deliver a more detailed and transparent implementation plan in parallel with the draft Order in Council.

I shall now move on to the provision of civil legal services. Under existing legislation, the Law Society administers legal aid to provide advice, assistance and representation to parties in certain civil proceedings, subject to a merits test and, in some cases, a means test. Civil legal aid is available under three schemes at present. The Lord Chancellor's Department has described those schemes and the means test as follows:

It continues:

The draft Order proposes to deliver civil legal services through advice, assistance and representation. Accordingly, the legal services commission will establish and maintain a new fund to provide civil legal services. The Lord Chancellor will pay such sums into the fund as he may determine and may impose conditions on those payments. The fund will be capped.

The legal services commission will prepare a funding code, which will set out the criteria for determining whether civil legal services should be provided in a particular case. That code will also set out the procedures for making applications for funding.

The Committee raised concerns about the level at which the fund will be capped, how that level will be determined and what process will be used to review the cap. Indeed, in the evidence given by the Northern Ireland Association of Citizen's Advice Bureaux (NIACAB), a strong case was made for the retention of ABWOR as an independent service. The Committee noted that, at present, legal aid is payable in respect of time spent in preparing for a tribunal, but not for any representation at a tribunal. The statistical evidence provided by NIACAB displays the value of representation at tribunals. The Committee supported the extension of representation in tribunals, and noted the recent reforms in Scotland that make civil legal aid available in some situations.

The Committee, therefore, recommended that the Secretary of State should ensure that further quantitative and qualitative research into the need for civil legal services be carried out in advance of the application of any cap to the fund, and that he should consider extending funding to support all clients in preparation for and attendance at tribunals.

There is currently a potential unmet need in the civil legal aid sector. NIACAB deals with approximately 200,000 clients a year. However, the organisation estimates that there is an unmet need of an additional 200,000 clients a year. The Committee agreed that any funding set aside by the legal services commission will have to take account of the needs of the community and voluntary sectors. The Committee recommended that the Secretary of State should arrange for further research to be undertaken into the scale of the unmet needs of those sectors and should make appropriate funding arrangements to meet those needs.

The Committee noted the concerns of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which stated that

The Committee supported the view of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and recommended therefore that the Secretary of State revise the schedule to the draft Bill and that he make the appropriate amendment.

The legal services commission will prepare a funding code that will set out the criteria for determining whether civil legal services should be provided in any given case. The code will also set out the procedures for making funding applications. The Committee considered the proposed funding code and the set of procedures that will apply to it. Committee members and some witnesses expressed concern about the prioritisation of cases that will be covered by the fund. The Committee would welcome prior consultation on any proposals for the prioritisation of clients in that regard. The Committee recommended that the Secretary of State publish the criteria to be used for prioritising clients who seek assistance from the civil legal aid fund.

Under current legislation, criminal legal aid is available to individuals who are charged with an offence, appear before a court or are brought before a court to be dealt with, subject to the applicant's satisfying the court that he has insufficient means to fund his or her defence and that it is in the interest of justice that he or she should receive legal aid. The draft Order proposes to replace that scheme. Accordingly, the legal services commission will establish and maintain a fund to provide criminal legal services. The Lord Chancellor will pay such sums into the fund as he may determine, and he may impose conditions on those payments. Unlike the civil fund, the criminal fund will not be capped.

The General Council of the Bar of Northern Ireland stated in its evidence to the Committee that the level of representation for the client should be determined by the court and not by the commission. It maintained that only the court can take an informed and objective view of the level of representation required in the light of the issues, substance, seriousness and complexity of an individual case. The Committee concurred with the General Council of the Bar of Northern Ireland in its view that article 30 of the draft Order is wholly restrictive of access to justice. It recommended that the Secretary of State maintain the existing situation whereby the level of representation is administered by the court.

The legal services commission will be required to prepare a criminal defence service code of conduct. It applies to employees of the commission such as salary defenders and employees of any body established and maintained by the commission in the provision of criminal defence services. The code is to be prepared or revised only in consultation with the Law Society of Northern Ireland and the General Council of the Bar of Northern Ireland and such other bodies or persons as the legal services commission considers appropriate. It must be approved by both Houses of Parliament.

The Lord Chancellor may, by Regulation, establish a registration scheme and code of practice. Only firms and individuals that are registered, comply with the code of practice and satisfy quality mechanisms and monitoring will be entitled to provide publicly funded legal services.

The Committee noted evidence from the Law Society of Northern Ireland in which it stated:

The Committee supports that view; however, it requested further details on the quality standards that will be imposed and on how they will be applied to firms and individuals. The Committee recommended that the Secretary of State publish the draft criminal defence service code of conduct and any details on the registration scheme and code of practice before laying the legislation.

The draft Order proposes a statutory basis for conditional fee agreements. They are also known as "no win, no fee" agreements and are intended to allow lawyers and clients to share the risks and possible gains of litigation. The draft Order provides that enforceable conditional fee agreements can be entered into between lawyers and their clients. They cannot be employed in criminal or family proceedings. The legal services commission would not be involved in conditional fee agreements; they are entirely private agreements between lawyers and clients. The Lord Chancellor, in consultation with the Law Society of Northern Ireland, the General Council of the Bar of Northern Ireland and others may, by regulation, define the proceedings in which such fees are to be permitted and prescribe their maximum size.

The Committee considered evidence from the Law Society and the General Council of the Bar of Northern Ireland. The latter stated:

The Committee accepted the need for further research into conditional fee arrangements. It therefore recommended that the Secretary of State arrange for further research into that in advance of their proposed introduction.

The draft Order also provides a statutory basis for litigation funding agreements. They are made between an individual and those who represent a privately established fund - not with the lawyer taking the case, as occurs with conditional fee agreements.

The Lord Chancellor is empowered to make remuneration Orders setting out a range of fees, or mechanisms for calculating fees that the proposed legal services commission will implement and observe when funding criminal legal services and civil legal services. Remuneration Orders could set all-inclusive standard fees, the scales of fees, hourly rates, the rates for preparation and travelling time, and the methods for determining fees in exceptional cases.

The Committee considered a written submission from the Law Society of Northern Ireland which criticised proposals for privately funded litigation arrangements. It made proposals for a publicly funded contingency legal aid fund, which could be administered on a not-for-profit basis. The Committee recognised that there may be some merit in that proposal and urged that it be given further consideration. The Committee recommended that the Secretary of State arrange for further research into the feasibility of establishing a contingency legal aid fund.

Members will be glad to hear me conclude. I can confirm that the Committee recognised that reform of the legal aid system is welcome and overdue. However, it adjudged that the provision of a short consultation period on a draft Order in Council in an important, complex area is wholly inappropriate. The Committee noted that large sections of the Order are, at best, aspirational, and, at worst, lacking in any degree of detail. The absence of a time-bound implementation plan, and heavy reliance on the proposed new legal services commission for the delivery of many facets of the new system, caused the Committee concern.

The Committee would welcome further and extensive consultation with all interested parties before the laying of the Order in Council. Apart from the complexities that I have outlined, it was a piece of cake.

This is a good report, rightly and constructively critical of the proposed legislation. I declared to the Committee my interest as a member of the Northern Ireland Bar, and I do so again at the commencement of this address to the Assembly.

The report is balanced and critical, and it is made by people who are not intimately involved in the provision of legal services. They have brought their common sense to the scrutiny of the legislation, as they have judgement that is critical without being destructive. There is a need for a reform of the legal aid system in Northern Ireland. However, the Order is not the way to reform it.

The draft Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order would be more appropriately named the prevention of access to justice (Northern Ireland) Order. If it is passed into law, many people will be prevented from achieving justice and accessing legal services in Northern Ireland - and I say that without fear of contradiction or the accusation of exaggeration, such is the deficiency of the draft Order.

As I have said, there is a need for reform. The Government, in their consideration, purported to consult with those involved in the provision of legal services. They also had access to the report of the inquiry chaired by Judge David Smyth. That report examined the provision of legal services in Northern Ireland and identified the changes that would have brought significant and helpful reform to the current system.

Over the years, legal aid has been progressively eroded so that ordinary folk do not have access to it. In Northern Ireland, you must be either very rich or very poor to be confident of having access to legal services. For many years, the Government have been cutting back on the threshold that allows ordinary people to have sufficient access to legal aid. You may say that that is too bad and that people should pay for the service. In effect they do pay through their taxes, but they also can, and do, pay for that service by way of contribution, and that is also fair. The Government have created a situation where many ordinary people whose income is not excessive, but does not verge on the poverty threshold, do not have an opportunity to access legal services. That is fundamentally wrong, and the Assembly should oppose it. We can have the best courts and the best legal system in the world, but if they cannot be accessed through legal practitioners, there is no point in having that "Rolls Royce" system of justice.

We must look at the system afresh. We have to frame a new system that takes account of the nature of legal services in Northern Ireland, which is quite different from that in England, Wales and Scotland. Some 90% of legal practitioners here are small businesses with three or fewer members. They are run throughout Northern Ireland, and most people can go to a local solicitor if they wish. However, it is difficult and expensive to embark on litigation because not only do you have to provide the payment for the lawyer of your choice but, in the event of your failure, you also have to pay for the other side's lawyer. You have to tread warily. Therefore, it is important to have a system that is accessible.

The Bar Council in Northern Ireland is also much more accessible than that of England, which tends to be much more élite and removed from the ordinary punter. The system in Northern Ireland provides much greater accessibility; that is good and should be preserved. The Law Society and the Bar Council have told the Government to preserve what is good and not to impose an English solution on an Irish problem. The Government said that they would not impose a solution. However, the Order shows that the English system is being superimposed upon the system here. If devolution means anything, the Westminster Government should listen to what the Assembly says about the local system. The Order's proposals do not suit local circumstances.

The "no win, no fee" approach, which is envisaged in that system, would create a new legal culture that I and many others believe would damage the system here. Lawyers would start to cherry-pick cases. They would simply select good cases that they know they would win and would abandon those that they believe would not be successful. That would mean that those with marginal cases, who deserve a chance, would not be given an opportunity. Those who win their cases would pay more to their legal representatives. That is fundamentally wrong.

The Law Society and the Bar Council of Northern Ireland agree that that is wrong. The Assembly should listen to them. The Bar Council proposes a contingent legal aid fund, and that should be considered. The report asks for further research on that. The Ad Hoc Committee wants a local solution to a local problem. The Bar Council and the Law Society have shown us a direction that the Assembly should examine further. A new system is needed - not one based on profits, but one that preserves the basic integrity of the legal service.

Our legal aid bill is not high; it is not as high as in England and Wales. It is on a par, roughly, with the service in Scotland. Legal aid can be kept at a level that does not place an unfair burden on taxpayers in Northern Ireland. The Smyth Report showed that. It examined it carefully, compared it to what happens in other parts of the United Kingdom and came to that conclusion. That is a fact. The Government are undermining a fairly successful system that gives taxpayers good value for their money by trying to introduce a system that can only be described as "justice on the cheap". It will not work. It will cut corners, and it will do a grave disservice to society.

There is a grave danger in permitting the legal services commission effectively to determine the appointment of defence counsel in criminal trials. That will adversely impact on our criminal justice system. I believe, as do the professional bodies and any right-thinking people, that the court should be the arbiter in determining counsel for those involved in criminal trials.

It is wrong for the new body to have that responsibility. A judge is in the right position to make a judgement. He is independent, experienced and skilled and knows the nature of the trial and the criminal offences of which a person is accused. In those circumstances, it is fundamentally wrong and an erosion of human rights not to allow the court to determine that.

The appeal system under article 31 of the Order is, in many ways, so cumbersome and bureaucratic that it will undoubtedly be of no practical use and will further erode the rights of the accused.

Members of this House seek to promote the interests of the people of Northern Ireland. The Government, on justice issues, have been blind to those interests. We have witnessed the Government's contemptuous rejection of the 'Report on the Proposal for a Draft Injuries Compensation (Northern Ireland) Order 2001', which was unanimously approved by the Assembly. The Government seem to be totally insensitive to the concerns and needs of the people here as expressed by this House.

I hope that the Government will take more careful note of this report, because this House cares about the fundamental interests and welfare of the people of Northern Ireland, irrespective of their religion or political opinion. The Government should, for once, listen to the views of the people here.

Reform is good, but this Order does not constitute reform, and, therefore, it is not good.

I have a particular interest in this because I regularly deal with people who need legal and advice services and am aware of the particular difficulties.

I concur with Alban Maginness. We both sat on the Ad Hoc Committee on Criminal Injuries Compensation and did much work on that report, as the members of the Ad Hoc Committee on the proposed Draft Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 now have. It was with contempt and arrogance that the Government dismissed the report of the Ad Hoc Committee on which I sat, and it seems that this report will receive similar treatment. It is an almost immaterial exercise.

Because our circumstances are entirely different, we want to introduce something here that is different from what England and Wales have. We also want to work on behalf of the people who are most in need, and their situations can be very different from those of people in England and Wales.

The report says that reform is overdue. People often imagine, falsely, that Government reviews will improve things. Unless care is taken, reviews can do more harm than good. Sometimes Government officials push for changes that are contrary to a Bill's perceived aim and which do not benefit the public. As Alban Maginness said, under the draft Access to Justice Order, which is designed to give access to legal aid, the opposite will happen. Legal aid has been eroded, but many still need it, especially working families and small business owners who cannot defend their position because they cannot risk incurring the costs.

The proposed introduction of a new legal aid scheme by an Order in Council is neither satisfactory nor democratic. Moreover, the consultation process was unsatisfactory. The decisions paper lacked sufficient detail to enable a meaningful assessment. Once the draft Order was made available, inadequate time was given for scrutiny. Although I welcome the Committee's recommendation for ongoing scrutiny of the Order and the subsequent implementation plan, I will be interested to note the response of the Northern Ireland Office to that proposal.

As is often the case, the draft Order does not deal with the specific circumstances of the Six Counties; it is identical in every material respect to the legislation in England and Wales. The major difference is that the British legislation received full parliamentary scrutiny. The key problems of cost and access to justice that were identified in England and Wales have not been recognised in the Six Counties.

A main proposal of the Order is to transfer administrative responsibility from the Law Society of Northern Ireland to a new body to be called the Legal Services Commission. There is nothing to suggest that that model is the most appropriate one. According to the Law Society, the new body will impose a much higher burden on public funds than does the present scheme. Although the Bar welcomes the proposed Legal Services Commission, it does not accept that its powers, duties and responsibilities will meet the demands or the needs relating to access to justice.

Part III of the Order contains the mechanism that led to the unregulated operation in England of claims management companies such as Claims Direct and the exploitation of litigants, et cetera. There has been widespread concern about the operation of part III of the provisions in England and Wales. The British Government's solution to the issue of legal aid is primarily driven by cost consideration, as was the case with criminal injuries compensation.

It is our contention that legal aid provision was severely underfunded and that restricted access to legal services arose because of the continual lowering of the threshold below which an applicant could quality for it.

I am also concerned about the lack of independence of the Legal Services Commission, given its relationship with the Lord Chancellor. I welcome the Committee's proposal that the commission be impartial. In short, I am disappointed that the British Government are imposing a solution for a problem that we believe does not exist.

At the outset, I express my thanks to the Committee Clerks and to those who assisted the Committee in drawing up the report.

There has been no meaningful consultation. I agree with Alban Maginness that, although the Committee scrutinised the provisions of the Order and heard evidence from experts, its findings will be ignored, as has happened in respect of meaningful consultation on other pieces of legislation.

That is an indictment of the Government's attitude to consultation because it pours contempt on the meaning of consultation; on this place; and on the Government's attitude to the people whom we represent.

It is also important to note that not only have the Government shown contempt in the way in which they consulted with the House but they have also shown contempt for the professional bodies with which they should consult and contempt for those people who represent the organisations that use the justice system on a daily basis. After the Committee ordered the publication of the report, it received more information that, unfortunately, could not be included. However, that information must be put on record because it deals with issues that were pertinent to the Committee's inquiry.

The Committee received a letter from the chief executive of the Law Society of Northern Ireland, Mr John Bailie, which outlines the activities that Government were engaged in during the consultation process. Not only did the Parliamentary Secretary in the Lord Chancellor's Department give the society an undertaking that a decisions paper would be forwarded to it, but he gave it a commitment on how the consultation process would run, with a view to considering the elements of the decision.

In his letter, Mr Bailie outlines what Mr Lock of the Lord Chancellor's Department said with regard to his commitments, and it is important that his remarks are placed on record. Mr Lock said:

He also said:

Mr Bailie informed the Committee in writing that, with the exception of the working group chaired by Judge Smyth, none of Mr Lock's commitments were realised. If that is the way in which consultation is conducted with professional bodies that could influence the improvement of the legislation, I fear that the Government will ignore the Committee's report. Mr Bailie also stated that

Those remarks show the Government's attitude to real and meaningful consultation.

Members must address the probable outcome if the draft legislation were endorsed by the House and by Westminster. Given that the draft legislation is vague, we would introduce bad law. It is vague on the big issues; on its purpose and intentions; on what it seeks to reform; on the make-up of the commission that it seeks to establish and the role that it should have; on the capping system that it wishes to implement; and on the code of conduct required to make it effectual. We must send a clear message to Government that, if they are vague on such big issues, they should go back to the drawing board and formulate draft legislation that addresses the access to justice issues that they claim to want to address. The draft legislation would also be bad law because it would hand the Government a blank cheque with which to run the legal system as they wish.

First, we may hear the cry across Ulster "Oh no, not another quango!" with regard to the proposed commission. Another quango is exactly what would be established. Who will carry out that work? The head of that quango would have to be vested with such powers and skills as to overcome the competing sides; I do not believe that such a person exists. The Government have completely failed to come to terms with the underlying issue of alleged abuse of legal aid. By ignoring that abuse, the Government are not properly addressing what they ought to. In recommendation 2 we require that

That could not be any more important for the Government to consider.

There are important issues regarding the need for legal aid. The information that the Committee was given to work with was equivalent to a grope in the dark. It was sparse, and a lot of it was based on anecdotal evidence. Thus, recommendation 3 reads:

Next, we recommended

We must know exactly what the Government mean by "capping" and the level at which they intend to set it. We also need to know the formula that they intend to devise to address that. They could not produce a formula for us; they merely said that it was a moveable feast for which they must have a certain amount of money because the legal system changes each year. That is not good enough. One could not organise and run any Department in that way, and the legal system should not be run in that vague and unaccountable manner.

Funding must be provided for continued attendance and representation at tribunals. The table on page 114 of the report illustrates that

Proper representation gets a true and just result; it is important that we facilitate that representation. Other Members have expressed the fear that representation would be denied to those in need; I agree.

We must address the level of need fairly. None of the information given us by the Northern Ireland Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux - or any of the other organisations that presented evidence - could quantify the extent of that need. They guessed that it is currently 200,000 cases a year, but it could be as many as 400,000 cases each year. However, that was only a stab in the dark, and adequate research must be carried out to ascertain the level of need. We cannot make legislation, and we cannot recommend, or, indeed, fairly criticise legislation if we are unaware of the facts. As stated in recommendation 7, we need clarity on the criteria used to prioritise cases.

I refer Members to some of the Northern Ireland Court Service's answers on the code of conduct. During their evidence sessions, I asked Mr Hunter of the Northern Ireland Court Service:

Mr Hunter replied:

When asked if there were a timescale for the implementation of the code of practice, Mr Hunter went on to say:

It is important that that is at the top of the agenda, because the public will then have the confidence to gauge whether the reform will work for the efficiency and effectiveness of a better system.

I take some exception to Alban Maginness's comments. He said that the right of access to legal aid is being eroded. If the public takes a look at the yearly legal aid bill, they will treat it with great scepticism, as millions of pounds are being spent, and claimed, on legal aid. The profession must be funded, and civil aid has risen by 176% in the past 10 years while criminal aid has risen from £6 million in 1990 to £25 million in this financial year. People will say that that is a heck of a lot of money. To assume that people are not being provided with access to justice is wrong.

There is abuse in the system, and that should be addressed. If it takes £25 million or £55 million to run a fair and transparent legal aid system, the money should be spent. However, we should not say that people cannot access the justice system.

It is also wrong to say that lawyers will cherry-pick cases - some probably will, but many do, and would, give of their time if proper resources were provided to help people in real need. Alban Maginness is more entitled to criticise a profession from which he comes than I am. However, we must not tar the entire profession with the same brush.

If the House backs the draft Order, we are endorsing a blank cheque based on the exchequer of uncertainty. We must say to the Government, "This is bad law; take it away and consider the issues we have addressed, and attend to the vagaries so as to allow us to have a draft Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order that is appropriate to the needs of the people of Northern Ireland".

I took a considerable time to introduce the motion, so I do not propose to take anything like as much time now.

I thank those who contributed to the debate. A general trend that ran through the comments reflects the Ad Hoc Committee's deliberations and the questions that were posed to witnesses. Mr Alban Maginness described our approach to the draft Order as critical, but not destructive. That accurately summarised the Committee's attitude.

The essential affordability of legal services was referred to and was a continuum throughout the consultation process - such as it was. There is no doubt that the Committee's overriding concern, which I hope and suspect is shared by the House, was the lack of a comprehensive consultation period. Mr Paisley Jnr spoke about the Parliamentary Secretary in the Lord Chancellor's Department who said:

Now will be the testing time to see whether that is the case. We await the Government's response to our representations.

There was a consensus in the Committee on the "no win, no fee" tenet and what it means to the level of representation.

The useful figures that the Committee received from the Northern Ireland Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux show that the success rate for those who have representation at tribunals is double that of those who do not. That is a clear demonstration of the advantage of having representation. All those issues have been addressed in the report.

I thank Members for their contributions, and I hope that the report will receive unanimous support.

Adjourned at 6.01 pm.