12/05/2013 Sunday Politics West Midlands

the rising cost of the law. The government has drawn a radical

changes to the criminal legal aid system, but has it put a price tag

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 1865 seconds

I'm Patrick Burns, and today I'm joined by two MPs whose reputations

precede them. They're passionate, if not bloody-minded, advocates of

their constituencies. Tristram Hunt, the Labour MP for Stoke-on-Trent

Central, Shadow Education Minister, won praise even from the Chancellor

for his campaign to exempt the ceramics industry from a new energy

tax. Karen Lumley, the Conservative MP for Redditch, is fighting to keep

services at the Alexandra Hospital. But what will be the issues they'll

be fighting over during this new session of Parliament? Among the

legislative proposals outlined in the Queen's Speech, not one, but two

bills designed to keep the High-Speed Rail project firmly on

track. My government will continue to

invest in infrastructure to deliver jobs and growth for the economy.

Legislation will be introduced to enable the building of the HS2

railway line, providing further opportunities for economic growth in

many of Britain's cities. Karen, your constituents and others may be

rather puzzled about how it can be that the government you support can

put a squeeze on local hospital services in places like

Staffordshire on the one hand, and on the other, put billions towards

high-speed rail. We need to rebalance the economy, getting jobs

into the West Midlands. I think HS2 is a brilliant scheme which will do

that and also open at Birmingham airport as well. It's only 40

minutes from London to Birmingham, it takes me longer to get to Gatwick

from London than that. So I think it's a great scheme, I just wish it

was arriving tomorrow. We deserve economic growth, not just the south

of England. And you of course are campaigning for Stoke-on-Trent to

get its own dedicated high-speed rail station. I you not in danger of

putting your constituency interests ahead of the country as a whole?

We're fighting very hard for a stop in Stoke. We think it's absolutely

vital that Staffordshire and North Staffordshire share in the riches of

a high-speed option. It doesn't mean every single train has to stop in

Stoke-on-Trent, although they are welcome too. We obviously understand

the thing about high speed is that it goes fast from centre to centre,

but it is crazy for a city like Stoke-on-Trent not to share in what

we hope will be the wealth from it. If we don't get a stop, we fear will

actually see a diminishing of services on our existing West Coast

mainline. The business case, we keep hearing, has been managed down and

down all the time, less bang for your buck. I don't necessarily

agree. With cross-party agreement, we all agree there should be

high-speed railway. I think HS2 should come sooner rather than

later. I do share his concerns that once the train gets to Birmingham,

does my train service to Redditch get better or worse? But I also

understand that we need to bring jobs to the Midlands. My people in

Redditch expect me to do that. there enough Parliamentary time to

get this through Parliament by 2015, do you think? Well, knowing how

hopeless this government isn't managing business in Westminster,

I'm not sure. I hope so. But why do we begin it from Manchester going

south, rather than South to North? Coming up: The lawyer's lament. As

the government plans radical changes to the criminal legal aid system, we

investigate what impact they'd have in the courts, here in our part of

the country. Is Lady Justice about to become a model of efficiency? Or

is she just being put up for sale? That's our main discussion point

coming up a little later. But let's talk first about the

estimated 16,000 uninsured drivers on the roads in Staffordshire alone.

They cost every law-abiding motorist an extra �30 a year in their

insurance premiums. Stoke, Burton-on-Trent and Tamworth are all

hotspots, so now the county's police commissioner is launching a

crack-down, as Liz Copper explains. This is the image Staffordshire

police is hoping will deter the uninsured drivers of the future. The

penalty of a car crushed, a �200 fine and six points on their

licence. The force has invested in new technology as part of a

three-year campaign. Technology works by looking all the time the

number plates to read and compare the number plate against various

databases, such as whether the vehicles are stolen or have

insurance, tax, or whether we believe it is connected to crime.

Sometimes spotting an uninsured driver can provide the police with

links to other crimes, like finding the Birmingham gang convicted last

month of planning to bomb a protest. They were stopped by a traffic

officer on the motorway - and found with a boot-full of weapons. And if

it's a success, the hope is the insurance companies might be

persuaded to pass on the benefits. We will clamp down on insurance

dodgers, and if that's the case, people in Staffordshire should get

the results. They should get cheaper premiums and they should get much

more safer roads. Matthew Ellis says it is obvious policing. The kind the

public want, with penalties for those who break the law and rewards

for those who stay within it. That would be one premium I think most

motorists would welcome. It seems that the Conservative police and

crime commissioner in Staffordshire is making a positive impact on an

important subject. Yes, I think this is a good idea. The inspiration

comes from a policeman in Liverpool who came to London to be head of the

Met police. The idea was, if you go for uninsured drivers, you tend to

find a range of other criminal activities surrounding them. So it

cracks down on crime and it also makes sure the insurance people pass

on the lower costs to drivers. That's where we have to watch the

crime commission. If he can to live a lower insurance premiums, that

will be great. Do you think the penalty is about right? �200, six

points of the licence? I don't think it's too lenient. The damage you can

cause to our family in an accident, other peoples property, if you are

uninsured, it is very to do this. I think �200 is likely on the low

side. We saw the role of technology in there. There is an answer in

terms of technology, but is there enough to roll it out to make an

appreciable difference? He is carrying on an initiative which has

to be good for every driver on the road. It is irresponsible not to

have insurance, although I do also say that young people today struggle

massively to actually afford insurance. I remember buying my son

his first car, the insurance was three times the cost of the car. So

we need to look at how insurance companies charge lung -- charge

young people to drive them. There may be other ways to get young

people into cars. I'd like to look at other initiatives as well as just

this one. We have to climb down on this issue of selling on insurance

details. -- clamp down. There is a great, murky area in the insurance

legal world which affects children you want to get their first car.

Talking of grey areas, this is a clear area of zero tolerance

approach. Do you think that has been quiet tolerance in the past? Maybe

this is a case where the Commissioner is introducing a new

toughness to the proceedings? police to monitor this in my area

quite closely. I think he is come out with a fine and the points. The

points will be more worrying for younger people, because if you get

more than six points and you've only had your licence for a short time,

your licence could be revoked. So actually, it will affect younger

people more in that way. It's a self-perpetuating problem. If it --

if an area is known for being a black spot, then it becomes harder

to get insurance. So the entire community suffers. I was staggered

at the total cost of this problem. �400 million. It is staggering.

and wouldn't it be great if we could pass on that reduction to younger

people. I'm sure when these people are caught, the proportion of young

people to old people will be significant. There is now clear line

of accountability. If those rates are lower in three years, we will

see! What is the collective noun for

lawyers? There are several: an "eloquence", a "huddle" or even a

"disputation". There was certainly a disputation here last week over

Government plans for the criminal legal aid system. It wants lawyers

to reduce their charges substantially, to help cut the legal

aid bill of well over �1 billion. Many lawyers believe there's far

more at stake here than just the money. Our political reporter

Elizabeth Glinka has been to Birmingham City University's law

school to cross examine some What price justice? At the moment,

legal aid for criminal cases costs the taxpayer over a billion pounds a

year - the government wants that to come down and is consulting on plans

to restructure the system. Cutting the number of firms allowed to

represent criminals from 1,600 to 400.

Instead of choosing your solicitor as you do at the moment, you'd have

one assigned to you from a government approved list. From a

firm which has agreed to be paid at least 17.5% less than they charge at

the moment. Client choice goes out the window. The proposals treat a

firm's reputation as if it's nothing, whereas in reality, it is

everything. The incentive is there for the solicitor to do a good job,

because when they do a good job, they come back, and other clients

are referred to us. So rich lawyers might be a little less rich - but

what if you want your day in court like these Birmingham students?

Well, under the changes, your lawyer will be paid exactly the same

whether they take your case to trail or advise you to plead guilty.

obvious fear is they would be putting pressure potentially on the

clients to plead guilty so they can get on with their next guilty plea,

and they don't have to waste the time doing a trial. The consultation

on the plans ends on the 4th of June, and the scheme could be up and

running as early as next year. Under the changes, there would be a

maximum of 36 firms awarded contracts across the Midlands. Just

to put that into some kind of perspective there are currently 55

practising in Birmingham alone. Which could mean law firms going out

of business. A worrying trend for the next generation. At the end of

the day, wherein there is to get a job. Obviously it is about justice

and all the ideals and everything that comes with it, but if you can't

put food on the table, what's the point? By saying you should just be

allowed to cut people's pay, you will get less people wanting to do

it. If there is no passion in it, you will not get great results.

Access to justice should be paramount over cuts when people

really need help. So while the government is sensible to look at

cuts, to do it as extensively as this in this case is just bizarre.

The government says fewer firms will mean better value for the taxpayer -

the lawyers fear the quality of justice will suffer.

"Access to justice is paramount," said one of those students. But at

what cost to the public purse? Elizabeth Glinka reporting.

We're also joined by Professor Andrew Sanders, Head of the

University of Birmingham Law School, one of the co-signatories of a

recent letter to The Times setting out serious misgivings about the

Government's proposals. Could you briefly summarise what business

givings are? We're very worried about the fact that these proposals

eliminate choice for suspects and defendants in criminal cases. They

reduced the number of firms that will be able to offer these legal

services. Our concern isn't directly with the price that lawyers charge,

our concern is that the costs will increase pressure to reduce the

quality of service that they give to clients. But the taxpayer has an

interest in the price of this. Over �1 billion stash is there not a case

for bringing a bit of market business efficiency into the

proceedings? There is a case for bringing more efficiency if the

business is proven to be inefficient. I read the consultation

paper and I don't see any evidence of inefficiency at the moment. Even

at the moment, there are pressures on lawyers to get clients to plead

ill -- plead guilty when it is not always in their interests.

really saying someone will fill pressured to plead guilty when they

are quite credibly not guilty? is clear evidence from research that

this sometimes happens. I'm not saying it happens a lot, and

sometimes it is not always clear whether someone is guilty or not.

Defendants in many cases need very, very good advice from lawyers who

are prepared to put the working to ascertaining whether or not are

guilty. Under these new proposals, if a client is not convinced their

lawyer is doing that work, they will not be able to change their lawyer.

Karen, there is the case for the prosecution. For the defence now,

how do you plead in terms of the accusations against the government?

You are converting some of the finest principles of justice in this

country and selling them cheap. don't accept that. We spend over �1

billion worth of taxpayers money on this service and I think we are in

very difficult times. But what price the denigration of Justice? It is

not about that, it's about getting the best value for the taxpayer. I

don't see anything wrong with going to competitive tender. We do that in

other areas. We all agree that a lot of money is spent and it goes to

lawyers. It doesn't go to the victims of the crimes. When people

need a good lawyer, they should get one. But we have to look at how this

money is spent. 11,000 prison cases get legal aid. Is that right? Should

there be a legal aid system in prisons for complaints? That is one

part of that. I think we need to save some money and put some victims

first to make sure they get a fair deal when they get to court. I got

parliament was absolutely stuffed with lawyers, so what do you make of

this breakdown? Well, I'm not a lawyer! Proper representation was

part of the welfare settlement in the post-war years and it is a vital

part of British justice. The concern is the plurality of provision, the

civil Society of the legal system, is under threat from this. We see

this from a government which likes to give contracts to big countries

-- companies which then always deliver. We've seen that with the

work programme, which concerned about the rehabilitation programme.

Are you actually going to get the savings? The evidence seems to me

unclear at the moment. So we will look at this consultation very, very

closely. But is actually going to deliver savings while justice?

is the evidence that there is any inefficiency at the moment?

money we are spending cannot carry on in that way. Then raise the money

from other sources. What other sources? Well, higher rate

taxpayers. That every thousand pounds a high tax here gives, they

get �2000 in tax breaks. I've been holding back on one further

collective noun for lawyers. It is greed! Would you not accept that

lawyers are fairly low down in the pecking order of public sympathy in

terms of raising concerns on behalf of law firms? Well, I'm not a

lawyer, I'm illegal person. I care that suspects and defendants get

justice. You referred to victims, many of the suspects are victims

themselves because they are not guilty and they are found not

guilty. So to put defendants on the other side from victims is to make a

huge error. We are innocent until proven guilty and suspects need a

good service. Is this in practice really just the start of a

negotiation? Saying, here is a big stick, we will hit you with this if

you don't lower your charges. is about getting value for the

taxpayer from solicitors. We are in a difficult financial situation and

we need to be as efficient as possible. But there are fundamental

principles about access to justice and also the civil society. Thank

you all very much, in particular you Andrew for being here with us today.

Now for our regular round-up of the political week in the Midlands in 60

seconds, brought to us this week by BBC Coventry and Warwickshire's

Sandwell College is in talks about taking over the Public Arts Centre

in West Bromwich and turning it into a sixth form college. The building

cost �72 million but had increased visitor numbers this year.

When is a town centre not a town centre? Nuneaton's traders fear it

is when no one comes to shop. They want more help to drive up business.

But all hail the Jaguar F type, as the first ones destined for export

rolled off the new production line at Castle Bromwich. It's already

provided work for more than 50 West Midlands firms.

And foreign money is continuing to flow into Birmingham. Figures show

investment from abroad has risen by more than half in the past year.

And the city also has a new car sharing scheme. Clearly, we have a

good manufacturing base. But were also seeing investment for digital

Drivers rent the vehicles by the minute. There are 250 across

Birmingham which can be left in central council parking spaces for

nothing. Let's hear from the transport select committee. Do you

think they will catch on? They did in London as well, you run them for

an hour or something. I think it's a really good idea for moving around

the city and not having to pay all these insurance premiums that we've

been talking about! Birmingham is the second city to doing this. Do

you think Stoke will be on the list? It's easier to find your way around

Stoke than Birmingham. The trouble with Birmingham is on the cars, it's

the roadworks. So you might take one of these cars but whether you're

then able to deposit it at the end! We've got lots of roundabouts in

Redditch! It does raise of course the serious pressure congestion puts

on our economy. We have to think of ways to get around it. I took the

tram today and I understand it's going to be extended. I think that's

brilliant. And the new station in Birmingham is making it more easier

for people to access Birmingham. That has to be good news for all of

us. The other point is it is energy efficient. We need to wean ourselves

as a nation away from fossil fuels. Also, what we must be clear about is

this infrastructure and investment in transport provides the

apprenticeships we need. My thanks to Karen and Tristram.

Next week we'll be joined by Chris Kelly, the Conservative MP for

Dudley South. And for Labour, by the former Shropshire MP Bruce, now

Lord, Grocott. And Shropshire's Council Leader Keith Barrow will be

taking questions in BBC Radio Shropshire's hot seat from ten

o'clock on Wednesday morning, including, no doubt, how his