Fast-track for second reading of legal aid and sentencing bill condemned
Lawyers and MPs have expressed outrage at the government’s attempt to fast track the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill through Parliament.
Following the first reading of the bill on Tuesday 21 June, it was confirmed this week that the second reading will be on Wednesday 29 June.
Parliamentary protocol is that there should be a period of two weekends in between the first and second readings of a bill.
This convention has in recent history been departed from on five occasions in relation to terrorism, economic and Northern Irish legislation.
Law Society president Linda Lee expressed ‘outrage’ at the move.
Lee commented: ‘The government is hell bent on introducing a piece of legislation that will increase crime, weaken social cohesion and cost taxpayers more than it cuts.’
She added: ‘This is a government that is running scared of proper scrutiny and debate. They are fast tracking the bill through parliament to silence the public.’
Lee noted the prime minister David Cameron had gone back on his words to listen to opposition by ignoring Parliamentary convention.
In the 2008-09 Report of the House of Lords Committee on the Constitution, the government at the time said: ‘The government firmly believes that all members of both Houses are entitled to a full explanation of why a piece of legislation is being proposed for fast tracking; and we would expect to be held account for its timetabling.’
Lee said: ‘The Law Society would like the government to explain why it is taking this extraordinary step.’
MPs were also concerned that the bill, which has 120 clauses, makes major changes to the funding and operation of the justice system and has constitutional implications, is being rushed.
Shadow justice minister Andrew Slaughter told the Gazette: ‘Allowing only eight days between publication of the Bill and the main second reading debate breaks the convention that Parliament should have sufficient time to scrutinise a Bill.
'This is no way to run a department or a government.’
He added: ‘We wait to see if the evidence sessions and detailed scrutiny in committee will be similarly constrained.’
Yvonne Fovargue, Labour MP and chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Legal Aid, also objected: ‘There is concern that the bill is being rushed and we are working hard to ensure that a Bill which has major implications for large numbers of our constituents is given sufficient time for scrutiny and full discussion of amendments and implications.’
Legal Action Group director Steve Hynes accused the government of ‘playing fast and lose’ with Parliamentary procedure: ‘This bill is not on the same level as terrorism legislation that has been rushed through in the past, and unlike the terrorism legislation, this is not a bill where there is cross party consensus.’
Carol Storer, director of the Legal Aid Practitioners Group, added: ‘We are appalled at the speed with which they’re trying to push this through.’
Director of JUSTICE, Roger Smith concluded: ‘It’s regrettable, but the bill itself is worse.’
Comments
Dangerous clowns
The last Government reminded me of unfunny stand up comedians, but this lot are rapidly proving that they are dangerous clowns driving a car that either heads towards a cliff edge or executes a sudden squealing u-turn causing one or two of them (Lansley ?) to fall out onto the road in time-honoured clown fashion.
u-turn
You have to be moving forward to do a u-turn :)
Where are the Lib Dems?
More particularly what happened to the Lib Dems promises to stand up for peoples rights? I know the real figures behind legal aid as 'I manage a firm that does this work. Most of my legal aid lawyers - and mainly solicitors - are paid between £25k and £30k a year. As the "fat cat" partner who makes a killing, I reckon on current numbers the max profit that can be made on legal aid family cases is 5%. I am not complaining about that, by the way. However, knock off 12.5% then a further 10% from the current figures and this work makes a loss. I cannot afford to do the work anymore so lots of clients have no representation. This odious government should be ashamed of itself. We expect this from the Tories but presumably now should expect it from their new friends too. Fools.
Bought and paid for
It would seem that the special interest insurance lobby who have bought and paid for this legislation, perhaps have a stipulated timeframe for implementation. Looking ahead to the bigger picture, this timeframe means that for soonest implementation, this Bill must pass through parliament before the summer recess- regardless of opposition. The fact that the bill exists in its current form at all is testament to the fact that the government doesn't listen, we should not then be surprised that the MoJ doesn't want any further opportunity for scrutiny of this ill thought out piece of legislation. This is about one special interest group controlling another, in other words, business as usual in British politics. Such is the accepted norm, however, these people are meddling now purely based on flawed spreadsheet analysis, and there are a great many of the country who will lose access to any form of justice as a direct result. Where is the press coverage? Suppressed no doubt. Lawyers are currently carefully choosing the cases which they take on in the current climate, let alone ones this bill comes into force. Once Alternative Business Structures take hold of the market late 2011 early 2012, the legal landscape will will never be the same again. I fear that the Tories are hell bent on a smash and grab administration, at the end of which Cameron and co can put their feet up and watch the damage they have inflicted.
Insurance hypocrisy
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2008563/Insurance-firms-selling-clients-details-personal-injury-lawyers-1-000.html
The annoyance of the Jackson reform situation is that is being spun to the public along the lines of the high insurance policies because of escalating costs of claims; following these reforms should we expect therefore to see reduced insurance premiums? I sincerely doubt it. The insurance fat cats will pocket the difference and still carry on selling details of would-be claimants to perpetuate the industry they seem hell bent on decimating. Its all so ill thought out and is just pure buffoonery.
Jack Straw
So a former Cabinet Minister and ex Home Secretary no less, in the Government which wanted them, criticises referral fees.
What do we hear from the the Law Society and its publication about this? Nothing whatsoever!
From the SRA? Nothing whatsoever!
From anyone who is a member of the legal profession? Nothing whatsoever!
Could this be because the Council brought them in without the consent of the profession and without proper debate. Can't any of our "representatives" (ha!) defend us or even reply to the anti-solicitor press coverage? Obviously not!
This is not the right forum for this comment but there is nowhere on here for debate to be started-there should be.