Forum Home → Discussion → Access to justice and advice sector issues → Thread
Legal aid, sentencing and punishment of offenders bill
Legal Aid Practitioners Group and Young Legal Aid Lawyers have produced a briefing covering two issues:
* judicial review; and
* welfare benefits;
in advance of a House of Common debates on 29 November and House of Lords debate on 3 December on LASPO regulations.
On benefits, it says:
Statements were made during the passage of the Bill that legal aid would be available in welfare benefits cases which involve an error of law. However the effect of the Order as drafted is to limit legal advice to situations where an appeal has been drafted and submitted (without the person accessing any legal advice to do so) and the Tribunal has either accepted that it has made an error of law or it is inviting representations.
If legal advice is not available via legal aid for considering whether an error of law has been made, and to help with preparing the appeal, then in practice this Order does not extend the scope of legal aid at all to people in need of advice. This is entirely contrary to the statements made during the passage of the Bill.
Briefing attached below.
File Attachments
- Briefing LASPO Merits Regulations LAPG and YLAL.pdf (File Size: 603KB - Downloads: 2691)
in the Lords yesterday ...
Lord Bach and others asked a series of questions of Justice Minister Lord McNally relating to -
‘... what plans [the government] have to enable people to receive legal advice for social welfare law problems once they are not able to receive legal aid for that advice after 1 April 2013’.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldhansrd/text/121127-0001.htm#12112793000848
.. plus there was a question from Lord Beecham re the telephone gateway to Legal Aid to be introduced next year
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldhansrd/text/121127w0001.htm#121127105000456
The government has been defeated by 201 to 191 in the House of Lords over plans to restrict legal aid in welfare benefit appeals. Peers backed a motion by Labour’s Lord Bach accusing ministers of failing to honour a previous commitment on access to help in welfare cases.
Lord Bach said claimants appealing against a ruling on their welfare benefits would get no legal aid at the start of their case. Former Labour minister Lord Bach said the government had failed to honour an earlier commitment by former Lord Chancellor Kenneth Clarke to allow support in “point of law” cases at the first-tier tribunal level.
He said he was particularly concerned about the impact on disabled people making their initial appeal against a decision by the Department for Work and Pensions on their benefit entitlement. It isn’t clear exactly what will happen next in this process.
For the BBC piece on the vote, see Legal aid: Government defeated in Lords
The Hansard record of the debate and vote is here Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Amendment of Schedule 1) Order 2012
forum member
Welfare rights adviser - Sefton Council, Liverpool
Total Posts: 3137
Joined: 16 June 2010
I watched this, briefly, late last night on the Parliament channel. I was particularly struck by this exchange.
Lord McNally: My Lords, we are almost on the verge of another financial Statement by the Chancellor. I have made it clear that the noble Lord must not lure the House into an idea that following him into the Division Lobby will produce a better offer because it will not.
Lord Bach: Is the noble Lord saying that he will not come back with anything on this matter if this amendment is carried? I think that that is a threat that the House should be very wary of accepting at such a late stage in the debate.
Lord McNally: It is not a threat. I just do not want the House to make a decision on such an idea. This is not the Committee stage of a Bill. The order relates to what is already an Act of Parliament. If we do not bring forward another order in this area, the Act simply will go through. I want the House to be aware of that fact.
It would appear that the government’s defeat is going to prove largely symbolic.
The Guardian has covered the vote now as well, including these interesting snippets (I know, I know, I’ll get my anorak).
Peers backed a rarely-used “fatal motion” to reject a draft order stemming from the controversial Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act.
Voting was 201 to 191 in favour of Bach’s move to scrap the order. Secondary legislation has only been voted down in the Lords three times since 1968.
The last defeat on secondary legislation was in 2007 when peers rejected the then culture secretary Tessa Jowell’s plan for a regional supercasino in Manchester and smaller casinos for 16 other local authorities.
To read the whole article, see Lords defeat part of legal aid cuts
Patrick from the ilegal website says:
“The Government now has to come back after rewording the particular proposed regulation and then re-submit it to the Lords ie get rid of the very narrow interpretation in their current offending version and honour the promise they made during the LASPO debates”
latest on this - yesterday in parliament -
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab): To avoid a 12th defeat in the other place on the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, the Secretary of State’s predecessor promised this House that he would not cut legal aid at first-stage appeal in welfare benefits cases if a point of law were involved. The proposals finally brought forward were so inadequate that two weeks ago their lordships voted them down and told him to come back with something better. Now we hear that the Secretary of State, in a fit of pique, intends to do nothing at all. Why is he breaking a promise to Parliament and to some of the most destitute and vulnerable people in the country?
Chris Grayling: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we have promised to consider the decision by the Lords. I was a little surprised to see the rather unusual step taken in the other place of voting down a statutory instrument that was granting a concession, but we will of course review the issue and decide how to proceed.