Legal aid, sentencing and punishment of offenders bill

A rather novel awareness campaign from Scope, around LASPO - if you’ve ever held ambitions to become a peer, now’s your chance.

Lords Help Us

That’s fantastic.  I’ve always wanted to join the aristocracy.  You may now all refer to me as The Most Noble Paul Duke of Bed.

Peasants!

I am now Archbishop Harney.

There’s also a link to one of my client’s stories on the same page- am very chuffed!

This has made my week! I am feeling full of cold and tired, ready for the weekend… I am now Baroness Dickerson!!

Marquess Treloar of Helston, can’t wait to tell me mum and dad….

The Joint Committee on Human Rights has published a report looking at LASPO.

Amongst the findings and recommendations, the Committee say that they are not satisfied that the Bill provides sufficient institutional guarantees of the independence of the proposed Director of Legal Aid Case Work when making decisions about the availability of legal aid to challenge decisions of the Government. This is relevant to Article 6(1) of the ECHR, which includes welfare benefit challenges.

The Bill does not allow for a right of appeal against determinations by the Director to an independent body in all cases, and they are not satisfied that sufficient guarantees exist against arbitrariness in the system for determining eligibility for legal aid. It is therefore recommended that the Bill be amended to require regulations to be made making provision for appeals against decisions of the Director to an independent court or tribunal.

They also note that the Government’s impact assessments accompanying the Bill have been criticised for failing to take into account a likely increase in the number of litigants in person. They hope the Government will make clear their assessment of the likely increase and the associated cost to the public purse arising from the lengthier proceedings likely to result.

They say they are concerned about whether provision in the Bill for funding exceptional cases, where a failure to make the services available to a person would be a breach of their Convention rights or EU rights, is likely to make the right of access to justice practically effective. In many of the areas of law which are no longer in scope under the Bill, a decision on the availability of legal services will be required swiftly if the right of access to justice is to be practically effective, and they are not convinced that the provision in the Bill is a sufficient guarantee that the new legal aid regime will not create a serious risk that its operation will lead to breaches of Convention rights.

The Committee welcomes the Government’s amendment of the Bill at Report stage in the Commons to extend eligibility for legal aid to cases of domestic violence where the victim is of insecure immigration status. More generally, they say that they welcome the retention of legal aid for victims of domestic violence, but are concerned that the Bill as currently drafted will not achieve the Government’s aim of continuing to ensure access to legal aid for victims of domestic violence is practically effective. So it is recommended that the Bill be amended by using the ACPO definition of domestic violence, broadening the forms of evidence which are capable of establishing that domestic violence has taken place, and removing the 12 months time limit on eligibility.

Legislative Scrutiny: Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Paul Treloar1 - 16 December 2011 08:01 PM

Marquess Treloar of Helston, can’t wait to tell me mum and dad….

If you are the Marquess of Helston when are you going to do something about the terrible traffic jams on Air Day? I think we should be told!

I am Viscount Mint of Birkenhead

Lord Birks of Stoke on Trent

Steve_h - 19 December 2011 03:14 PM

I am Viscount Mint of Birkenhead

That took one more reading than it should to get the joke.  I’m not good at subtle first thing in the morning.  If this was facebook I’d be clicking the Like button.

I wish I could post up something humorous about this extravagant excursion of distortion and excuse in the Guardian from Kenneth Clarke, but unfortunately, this is much less of a laughing matter,

Read it and weep.

We are also rethinking the trend of the last decade for voluntary sector advice providers to take on more and more strictly legal work. Instead, backed by a £20m transition fund, we are looking at long-term solutions for the likes of Citizens Advice bureaux. Our aim is to help them focus on their greatest strength – practical, general advice that nips disputes in the bud, avoiding court altogether.

I’m reminded of the US cop scenario: “Sir, in order to save the victim, it was necessary to shoot the victim dead.”

Legal aid is safe where it matters most

First Committee debate takes place in the Lords today, will report back on who says what in due course.

Oh yes, forgot to mention that the erstwhile Chingford bruiser has now become embroiled in opposition to other sections of LASPO.

The arch-Thatcherite Lord Tebbit is among a group of peers campaigning to save access to legal aid for children involved in medical negligence claims.

The former MP for Chingford has been joined by former Conservative social security minister Lord Newton in drafting an amendment that goes against part of a government bill that would cut access to legal aid in order to save money.

Lord Tebbit in fight to save legal aid for children’s medical cases

There’s a good explanation of what’s to be debated today, as well as background on the Parliamentary process of the Committee stage on the Parliament website, for anyone who is interested,

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill: Committee day 1

The claim - “Our proposals protect legal aid where it matters most. It must be available where people’s life, liberty or home is at stake”

Justice Secretary Ken Clarke, writing in The Guardian, 20 December 2011

Cathy Newman of Channel 4 checks it out - Their lordships are revolting. The object of their fury? Ken Clarke’s attempts to slash the legal aid bill. Some Conservative peers say the government’s reforms of the system will hit some of the most vulnerable.

Ministers insist the neediest will still get free or subsidised legal help, but that the £2bn spent annually on legal aid has got to be cut.

Cathy Newman’s verdict - As civil claims will shoulder 80 per cent of the legal aid cuts, the Justice Secretary’s claim that the neediest will be protected is highly questionable.

In fact, 600,000 people will lose their free or subsidised legal help to sort out their benefits, job or family problems.

FactCheck: Do legal aid reforms protect the needy?

Maenwhile, Justice for All report that backbench Liberal Democrat peers made it clear that they expect concessions from government over the legal aid bill, in the first day of committee stage in the House of Lords which saw universal opposition to those aspects of the Bill discussed.

Lord Carlile led the opposition, decrying the ‘air of irritated intransigence’ with which the Ministry of Justice had met attempts by himself and others to discuss details of the Bill. He said he would have liked to have seen signs that government was willing to consider movement on several issues, but instead detected ‘an assumption that we will support the Bill.’ He urged Lord McNally - leading on the Bill for the government and a fellow Liberal Democrat - ‘not merely to assume our support but to earn our support on these benches.’ He was supported in his stance by Lord Lester of Herne Hill, and praised for his courage by Crossbench and Labour members.

Lib Dem Peers pressure government

Lorraine Cooper - 20 December 2011 08:35 AM

Steve_h - 19 December 2011 03:14 PM

I am Viscount Mint of Birkenhead

That took one more reading than it should to get the joke.  I’m not good at subtle first thing in the morning.  If this was facebook I’d be clicking the Like button.

I still haven’t got it.

Gareth Morgan - 21 December 2011 11:28 AM

I still haven’t got it.

Viscount biscuits which were minty

Paul Treloar1 - 21 December 2011 11:36 AM

Gareth Morgan - 21 December 2011 11:28 AM

I still haven’t got it.

Viscount biscuits which were minty

Crumbs!

Sadiq Khan, Labour shadow for justice, has published a response to Ken Clarke’s article in the Guardian.

Reading the first two sentences of Ken Clarke’s article on how access to justice is a fundamental part of a properly functioning democracy, I thought this might be the beginning of a government U-turn on their much criticised legal aid proposals. Unfortunately, as I read on, I realised it wasn’t to be.

What the legal aid bill amounts to is the stripping away of the ability of the poor and the squeezed middle to take action against large public and private corporations when they are wronged through intent or negligence. We, and others, have offered suggestions of other ways to save money but these have been arrogantly dismissed. The ferocity of opposition is such that even Norman Tebbit is concerned with elements of the bill. He, and many others, realise that as a result of this bill, many people could be left with rights but without the means to enforce them.

Ken Clarke’s legal aid plans will not protect those most in need

New report has been published by Sound Off For Justice, titled “Missing Millions” that claims government plans for civil legal aid offer unproven savings as well as incurring unaccounated-for costs.

The Law Society’s new analysis of the detail behind the £350 million worth of savings claimed by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) shows that:

• Most of the claimed savings have so little data or evidence underpinning them that there can be no confidence they will be achieved.
• The MoJ admits that it does not have evidence to support its position in 15 separate statements in the impact assessments published with the Bill.
• The same impact assessments include 30 admissions by the MoJ that it is speculating on the likely effects of its proposals.
• When asked by the Justice Select Committee to assess the cost of the legal aid cuts to other Government departments, the MoJ replied “It is not possible to quantify accurately these wider costs.”
• The MoJ predicts only 4,000 to 10,000 additional requests for family mediation a year after the cuts – despite withdrawing legal aid from 255,000 family law cases, including child contact and financial agreements.
• The number of cases that will lose legal aid has risen from 568,000 in the legal aid green paper last year to 645,000 in the Bill now before Parliament. But the claimed saving to taxpayers has risen by only £1m, from £279m to £280m. No explanation is given for the fact that the cost of the additional cases that will be lost appears to be under £1.50 each.

Missing Millions (pdf file)

38 degrees has launched a campaign calling on Lord McNally to agree to amend legal aid bill so as to bring welfare rights back within scope.

With legal aid bill in Committee this afternoon, good time to send him an email via 38 degrees -

http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/speakout/save-legal-aid

Have come across a research paper by Dr Graham Cookson of Kings College London, that appears to form the basis of the Law Society report referred to above.

Titled Unintended consequences: the cost of the Government’s Legal Aid Reforms, the report has found that the legal aid changes proposed in LASPO will save less than half of the £270 million predicted by the Government.

The report (which was commissioned by The Law Society of England and Wales and published in November 2011) analysed the proposed changes to family, social welfare and clinical negligence law, which together account for 85% of current civil legal aid expenditure.

It identified knock-on costs of £139 million per annum meaning the Government will realise approximately 42% of the predicted savings. These unintended costs will largely be borne by other government departments including a predicted £28 million being shouldered by the NHS each year.

In terms of social welfare law, the report notes:

7.4.3 The total knock-on cost of the changes in social welfare law scope is estimated at approximately £35 million, generating a net saving of 39 percent of that predicted.

7.4.5 The uncertainty in this estimate and the underlying assumptions were explained. Two particular areas are noteworthy: (i) it was not possible to estimate the cost of unfair outcomes resulting from not receiving specialised legal advice, and (ii) the costs of giving up are likely to be an underestimate. The literature on the benefit of receiving advice shows considerable benefits, which is suggestive that the cost of not receiving advice, and in particular of giving up would be great. However, there is no concrete evidence relating to the specific costs of giving up.

Click here for a copy of the full report, a summary paper and a factsheet Unintended consequences: the cost of the Government’s Legal Aid Reforms

Forgot to mention that the Committee debate in the Lords is happening this afternoon, Lord Bach speaking about the Missing Millions report currently. Also likely to be debating proposals for social welfare law, including welfare benefits.

You can watch the Lords debate here Parliament TV

For what it’s worth, i watched the first portion of the Committee debate yesterday, which included an amendment from Lord Bach that would require Government to carry out a pre-commencement impact assessment through an independent review to assess and report on the expected costs and impacts of Part 1 of LASPO on children and young people; people with disabilities, including people with learning, physical, mental and psychological disabilities; women; victims of domestic violence; black and ethnic minorities; government departments; courts and tribunals, including any changes in time and resources; and local authorities.

Further, it should look at any expected impact of Part 1 on the incidence of homelessness; the incidence of ill-health, or suicide; the commission of criminal or anti-social behaviour; and the future provision and availability of services including, but not limited to, law centres and citizens advice bureaux.

Lord Bach stated that this was a necessary step “simply because the Government have failed to get to grips with the serious consequences of their proposed legislation.”

He went onto “concede…that the Government have at least tried to describe what some of the impacts might be. The Government’s impact assessment…states that their cuts threaten:

particularly in higher benefit payments for people who have spent their savings on legal action. Those are pretty extraordinary statements. It sounds a bit like the end of the world, does it not?”

He cited both the Citizens Advice and Law Society reports, as well as the Civil Justice Council, which query the actual costs and savings precicted by government, before finishing by stating that he would expect “a better assessment of the costs in both social and economic terms of the Bill before us. In my view, there is not that analysis. That is disappointing; in fact, I think it is scandalous.”

A number of peers stood up to support the amendment, on a range of issues, including Lord Wigley, Lord Judd (“Government talk a good deal about their desire for partnership with the voluntary sector. I hope that this is a genuine, creative endeavour and not a cynical one”), Lord Pannick, Lord Howarth of Newport (“where you have very real risks to the well-being of individuals and families as well as to access to justice, every effort should be made to continue to identify the hazards and the potential costs of the policy of taking welfare out of scope”), Baroness Massey of Darwen (“Protecting access to social welfare legal aid for all children and young people under the age of 25 would cost around £5.8 million a year….the Prince’s Trust estimates that the weekly cost of youth unemployment is £20 million”), Baroness Lister of Burtersett (“The withdrawal of legal aid from welfare law cases, I suspect, will show a disproportionately adverse impact on women because women are more likely to be claiming many of these benefits and are more likely to be living in poverty than are men”), Baroness Howarth of Breckland, Baroness Turner of Camden, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, Lord Elystan-Morgan (“Clearly, if the exercise involved in Part 1 of this Bill is nothing more than the transfer of financial responsibility from one department to other departments, that is at best hypocrisy and at worst lunacy”), Lord Clinton-Davis, Lord Carlile of Berriew, Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton, Baroness Scotland of Asthal, and Lord Dubs.

In responding to these points, Lord McNally said that “some of the comments about the kind of social tsunami that we are going to face if the Bill is passed need a reality check”, that despite the proposed £350million cuts, the residual legal aid system would be “among the most generous in the world.” and “The idea that somehow this is the end of civilisation as we know it does not stand up”.

He then went on to make a statement, to the effect that the Bill is beginning to: “suffer from what I might call report fatigue, in that almost weekly a report comes out, usually sponsored by very interested parties, which is then quoted around the House. I would be the last to deny the right of groups to commission reports and to use their findings, but it is not necessary for those to be treated as holy writ.” As well as assuring peers that the governement had made reasonable attempts to estimate down-stream costs to other departments, as well as the expected rise in litigants in person, he finished by saying “some of the issues raised were so speculative that no responsible Minister would respond”.

In withdrawing his amendment, Lord Bach said “I cannot understand why the Government have chosen that part of legal aid-the social welfare law part, the law of everyday life, which is a pretty small part of it, in fact-which in its own way works successfully in helping the most underprivileged in our society get basic legal advice on legal problems that affect their daily lives.”

Noting the potential savings from the criminal law elements of legal aid, he finished by responding to Lord McNally’s criticism of the reports by stating “He made a point about how weekly reports come out suggesting that the policy is wrong, and he appeared to criticise that. The fact is that there would not be so much criticism if the Government had done the work they should have done before they tried to legislate in this way.”

Amendment 6

A couple of interesting articles about LASPO in the Lords.

Mark D’Arcy, Parliamentary correspondent for the BBC, expalins that the reason that so many amendments are put forward for debate in Committee stages, before being withdrawn, is because “you need to pick your moment carefully and maximise support - tactics and timing are the key to defeating the government.

Those on the Coalition side who are uncomfortable about the bill are seeking to use the tortuous eight days of committee stage to stage shows of strength to extract concessions from their ministers, rather than to defeat them in an actual vote.”

He goes onto to say that he feels there is “a good chance that peers will substantially rewrite large sections of this bill - and with the end of the Parliamentary year looming, they will be in a good position to make many of their changes stick.

Peers manoeuvre as Legal Aid Bill makes stately progress

Meanwhile, the Telegraph reports that various Conservative peers are preparing to rebel and seek amendments to the Bill, including Lord Tebbit, Lord Newton (former social security minister) and Lord Mackay of Clashfern (former Lord Chancellor).

They go on to quote Lord Phillips of Sudbury as saying the majority of his fellow Liberal Democrat peers would either vote against the government or abstain. He stated “We can reasonably expect major changes to the Bill at the report stage. There is no doubt that if the government doesn’t make major concessions there will be amendments in the House of Lords and the government will lose. I promise you that.”

He added there was “absolute agreement” among critics that social welfare law and domestic violence cases must remain within the scope of legal aid – and that it remains available for appeals.”

Tory big beasts savage Clarke over legal aid cuts

The next Committee debate is scheduled for this afternoon, 16 January, with discussions about Clause 8 kicking things off, which covers the issue of scope and welfare benefits.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill: Committee day three

In yesterday’s debates, there were two initial amendments laid, concerned with the issue of areas of law being removed from the scope of legal aid under Clause 8. This would prevent the Lord Chancellor from restoring any specific areas of law to the legal aid scheme in the future without using primary legislation. Speaking to support the amendment, Baroness Butler-Sloss said:

“I find it absolutely astonishing that the Government should, in Clause 8, have an arrangement whereby they can delete legal aid but they cannot bring it back.”

Lords speaking in favour of the amendment included Lord Goodhart, Baroness Mallalieu, Lord Thomas of Gresford (“The changes might be positive and legal aid granted more widely. It is therefore essential that the Lord Chancellor has the power to add back into the scope of legal aid matters that prove not to be profitable… There are not the alternatives… for dealing with various legal issues and the very important question of access to justice.”), Lord Scott of Foscote, Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws, Lord Carlile of Berrieu (“Why are the Government opposed to addition or reinstatement? The only informed speculation… which I have heard… is that Ministers feel that they would avoid being lobbied by outside interest groups if this were a one-way-only provision. Surely being lobbied is something that we expect and welcome in political life in this country, and Ministers of the Crown and their officials should be robust enough to resist if the lobbying lacks merit.”), Lord Elystan-Morgan, Lord Howarth of Newport, Lord Philips of Sudbury, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Bach.

The amendment was not taken to a vote. The next part of the debate concerned clinical negligence cases, before Amendment 32 was introduced by Baroness Doocey, which specifically covered the issue of welfare benefits advice.

She began by noting the disproportionate impact upon disabled people if benefits advice is removed from scope, as well as highlighting the large volume of successful appeals against ESA refusals. She queried the proposed savings of “just £25 million compared to a total legal aid budget of £2 billion” as well as highlighting the major effect on “large numbers of vulnerable people who need help with appealing when mistakes have been made about their entitlement to benefits” and calling these savings a false economy due to additional demands placed on other services such as the NHS as a result.

Noting that the proposals are taking place at the same time as a dramatic overhaul of the welfare benefits system (with an inevitable associated increase in inaccurate decisions), she finished by saying “I share the Government’s desire to reduce the number of appeals against decisions, but this reduction must not happen because the loss of legal aid prevents disabled people from challenging decisions.”

Lord Wigley spoke supporting the amendment, saying it was “absolutely wrong” to introduce two such major Bills simultaneously, given the combined effect that they may have for disabled people. Lord Newton of Braintree reiterated these points, as well as raising the potential costs of appeal tribunals actually taking longer to resolve. Baroness Lister of Burtersett described suggestions that people could turn to Jobcentre Plus or the benefits advice line as “utterly incongruous when one considers that it is their mistakes that have… given rise to the need for legal advice”, as well as noting the role of advice services in helping people prepare for tribunals.

Baroness Lister highlighted the pressures faced by CABx, Law Centres and so on, in meeting demand, and contrasted the situation now with the 1980’s, when local authorities were expanding welfare rights units, whereas now these are being cut back. She then explored appeals to the Upper Tribunal, noting that the proposed savings from cutting this were £1 million, which in public expenditure terms hardly counts at all. She said:

“In view of the complexity of the relevant law and procedure, the importance of what is at stake for the applicant and others, and the fact that many social security claimants are vulnerable and may be disabled or may not have English as a first language, and therefore are particularly disadvantaged in presenting their cases, it seems possible that, particularly in cases before the higher courts, a lack of legal aid could breach the rights of claimants under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights”.

Lord Philips of Sudbury asked about the position of proper funding for advice agencies, whilst Lord Bach advised him that the CAb advice manual now runs to 7,500 pages. Baroness Howe spoke in support of the amendment, as did Lord Howarth of Newport, Lord Alton of Liverpool, Baroness O’Loan, and Lord Bach who made powerful points about the complexity of the social security system, as well as the high success rates at tribunal for properly represented clients.

Lord MacNally dismissed these concerns, stated that the welfare reform bill is an attempt to simplify the system so concerns over complexity can be ignored and that tribunals are relatively informal venues, so appellants have no need for legal aid advice. Baroness Doocey, in withdrawing her amendment, said “I have listened very carefully to what the Minister has said and I cannot pretend I am not disappointed by the response. There is no doubt that we need to get a higher proportion of benefit decisions right the first time round but I have not seen anything to convince me that this is going to happen any time soon.”

Amendment 32

A further amendment 33 was laid on broader areas of social welfare law, but can’t fit in anymore.

Hansard

I see some common sense has prevailed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jan/25/means-testing-suspects-dropped-from-bill

Matthew Elliott (of the Taxpayers Alliance) has written a blog for the Mail online, in which he criticises the lack of adequacy in the Ministry of Justice impact assessments of current legal aid proposals.

The Impact Assessments in support of the cuts contain 15 separate statements that the MoJ does not have evidence for its predicted savings and 30 admissions that they are based on speculation. This is pretty extraordinary.

Spending needs to be cut, but we can’t have taxpayers’ money wasted on legislation and cuts that aren’t backed by adequate financial forecasting and evidence. When the Government makes savings, they need to be done properly.

Spending cuts at the Ministry of Justice

Will from Justice for All tells me that LASPO will be in Lords Report stage from 6th March onwards. This is when it is anticipated that amendments may be laid on a variety of issues and pushed to a vote, if Lords aren’t satisified with the government response (as we saw with the Welfare Reform Bill (WRB) recently).

More worringly, and similarly to the WRB again, the Guardian report that government may consider using Financial Privilege rules to overturn any successful amendments and force the Bill through.

Thanks for your continued support for Justice for All campaign. As the final stage of the Legal Aid bill in the Lords approaches (it will start 5 March), I just wanted to update you and ask for any help you can give in promoting campaigning activities over the next week or so.

Priority areas for amendment: a group of organisations, convened by the Law Society, have agreed six priority areas and are agreeing a 2-side joint briefing on each. These are summarised below. If you are briefing on these issues, it would be extremely helpful if you could support these. I will distribute these when they are finalised (will be closer to the time, so we can have amendment numbers on them) but do ask me if you want more details sooner.

Immigration - sadly the six above are not the only areas of deep concern about the Bill. Immigration Lawyers Practitioners Association have produced a template letter to support their lobbying around cuts to immigration legal aid. Please do forward to your supporters if appropriate.

Campaign actions: any help in promoting two ‘final pushes’ over the next week or so would be very gratefully received, whether in emails, newsletters, websites, blogs, tweets or Facebook. We’re also planning something on the domestic violence issue for International Women’s Day on 8 March, let me know if you may be able to help with this.

• 1. Pair up with a peer - Over 200 campaigners have already been writing to Lords who share their interests, but we are hoping to ‘pair’ as many Lords as possible for the final Report stage.
• 2. Join the virtual House of Lords - together with Scope, more than two ‘virtual’ House of Lords have been filled by campaigners calling for the retention of legal aid for welfare benefits.

Some more publicity text for both is below.

Also - we are producing a report on the state of the charitable advice sector (CAB, Law Centres & Advice UK members) to influence the Government’s Advice Review on this topic. The Review has made slow progress since it’s announcement last summer and the accompanying £20m Advice Fund was not only insufficient but was not well-directed. We will be launching & campaigning on this in mid-March.

Thanks once again for your help, and please do get in touch if you need any more information.
Gail & Will

Will Horwitz and Gail Emerson,
Campaign Managers
The Justice for All
——
Priority areas:
• Domestic violence. Legal aid for family law will be cut, except in cases of domestic violence. However, the proposed definition and criteria of ‘domestic violence’ contained in the Bill could exclude over half of all victims. The MoJ should adopt cross-government definitions which would truly protect victims.
• Welfare benefits. All welfare benefits advice will be cut from legal aid, hitting disabled people hardest. At least the most complex welfare advice, on appeal and reviews, must remain within legal aid.
• Telephone gateway. The Ministry of Justice are proposing that anyone applying for legal aid must do so by phone initially. This will effectively stop many groups of people getting the help they need (eg: deaf people, people with mental health problems, people who don’t have credit on their pay-as-you-go mobiles). People must be able to access legal aid in a range of ways, including face-to-face.
• Appeals. Those involved in higher court appeals would not automatically get legal aid, even if they are eligible, leaving the potential for vulnerable individuals to face teams of lawyers arguing complex legalistic points. The court should be able to award legal aid to people who meet the financial eligibility limits.
• Exceptional Funding. This scheme allows for legal aid to remains available where international human rights obligations are breached by not providing it. The Director (in charge of the scheme) should have discretion to award legal aid ‘in the interests of justice’ to preserve fairness.
• Powers for further changes: the Bill allows the Minister to exclude further areas of law from legal aid. We believe he should also have the power to bring in areas of law in future.
——
Could you pair up with a peer?

Justice for All is supporting campaigners to tell the Lords why free legal advice is important to them, as peers last chance to vote on the Legal Aid Bill approaches. We are hoping to pair every Lord with a passionate campaigner who can explain the devastating impact the cuts to legal aid will have.

Justice for All will provide detailed briefings and support, but we need you to explain how important free legal advice is in your own words. If you think you can help, please email us with your details and your areas of interest in legal aid (eg: impact on litigants in person; victims domestic violence; welfare recipients) at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Please contact us before the end of February so there is time to pair you up before the Lords have their last chance to oppose the Bill.
——
Join the virtual House of Lords to protect legal aid advice on welfare benefits - a vital lifeline for 78 000 disabled people a year.
http://act.scope.org.uk/ea-action/action?ea.client.id=1677&ea;.campaign.id=13038

Attached is the latest Justice for All briefing, in conjunction with Disability Benefits Consortium, in readiness for next weeks Report Stage of LASPO in the House of Lords.

Amendment 11 would retain legal aid for assistance in challenging official decisions via a review or an appeal. It excludes both representation (which is not currently covered by legal aid in any case) and more general help (with form filling, for example) which falls under legal aid currently but can be dealt with via general advice.

The amendment is thought to be the only one put down by a complete cross-party group - Baroness Doocey (Lib Dem), Lord Newton (Cons), Lord Pannick (Crossbench) and Lord Bach (Lab). The Bishops have also indicated that they will support it. It’s success depends on getting crossbench peers, in particular, to turn up and vote. So please do distribute to peers in any way you can. A paragraph about the amendment is below, to copy into an email if useful. The vote is expected on Wednesday 7 March 2012.

Briefing paragraph - We urge you to vote for Amendment 11 to the Legal Aid Bill tabled by Baroness Doocey, Lord Newton, Lord Pannick and Lord Bach, which will be debated on Wednesday 7th March. The Bill as it stands removes all legal aid for advice on welfare benefit issues, including appealing against official decisions. 58% of those affected - 78,000 people - are disabled. The amendment would retain legal aid for assistance in challenging official decisions via a review or an appeal. We think it is vital, particularly given the dramatic changes underway to the welfare system, and the enormous costs - both human and financial - if wrong government decisions are allowed to go unchallenged. The amendment saves £8.5m on the current legal aid bill, costing only £16.5m in total, in order to support 100,000 people each year, at a cost of only £150 per case. A short briefing is attached, endorsed by over 30 disability charities and legal organisations.

Also, two concessions have already been laid by government - they have accepted that the broad definition of domestic violence used by the Association of Chief Police Officers should be employed in the bill, and said that legal aid should remain automatically available in clinical negligence cases in which negligent treatment or care taking place during pregnancy, or shortly after birth, has resulted in serious neurological injury to the child.

Government announces legal aid concessions