Lords revolt raises legal aid concessions hopes
Hopes are emerging that the government will amend at least some of its legal aid reforms after peers voiced overwhelming criticism at the bill’s second reading. The Daily Mirror reported last week that justice secretary Kenneth Clarke has ditched the proposal to remove legal aid for clinical negligence claims.
The Ministry of Justice would neither confirm nor deny the story, saying: 'That's not an announcement that we've made and so the bill as it is, stands.'
The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill passed its second reading in the House of Lords after an eight-hour battering on Monday. Only three of the 54 peers who spoke offered support.
Labour’s former legal aid minister Lord Bach told the Gazette that the debate was ‘a good start for those of us who want to see changes made’. There was an ‘overwhelming feeling’ that the government has got it wrong on part 1 of the bill, which introduces the legal aid reforms, he said.
Bach was ‘fairly hopeful’ of some concessions, because criticism of the bill was so widespread. ‘It wasn’t Labour versus the Conservatives, but the whole house against one government minister, and that is very powerful,’ he added.
The debate, coupled with a critical report from the Lords constitution committee, makes a compelling case for amendment, he said. ‘I hope [the government] has gone away to look at what changes can be made,’ said Bach - raising the prospect that if changes are not forthcoming the upper house could reject the entire bill.
During the debate the bill faced an onslaught from peers calling the cuts in scope ‘catastrophic’, a ‘huge assault on access to justice’, and ‘constitutionally wrong’.
They said the bill attacked the rights of the sick, vulnerable, bereaved and injured, and will ‘bring shame on our legal system’, undermine the rule of law and result in a ‘flood of litigants in person’.
Concerns were also raised about the civil costs reforms in part 2 of the bill, with the point made that Lord Justice Jackson’s proposals for reform were predicated on legal aid remaining for clinical negligence claims.
Little time was spent on the sentencing reforms in part 3.
In a forensic attack on the bill, Bach described the government’s proposals as ‘immoral’ and said they would cost ‘much, much more’ than they save.
Defending the bill, justice minister Lord McNally cited the need to cut £2bn from the Ministry of Justice’s £9bn budget. Prisons, probation, legal aid, and staff and court administration had each ‘taken a hit’, he said. ‘There are no soft options and no easy ways in this.’
However, he promised to listen to ‘strong concerns’ - particularly in relation to domestic violence, clinical negligence and advice at the police station. McNally said he hoped the Lords would use the bill’s committee stage for a ‘useful and productive’ examination. ‘We will listen to some very serious points that were made in a very serious way,’ he said.
McNally also criticised an ‘in flux’ legal profession for failing to appreciate the impact of alternative business structures. ‘The world is changing and lots of people receive advice on the net and by telephone,’ he said.
The Law Society’s chief executive Desmond Hudson said of the debate: ‘The Lords delivered an unequivocal message to the government that it is on fundamentally the wrong track. The Society hopes that the House of Lords will continue to undertake full and proper scrutiny of the bill, and that the government will take this opportunity to bring forward much-needed changes.’
The bill will now go to committee where it will face closer scrutiny by the Lords. That is expected to take eight or nine days, starting on 20 December. After the report stage and third reading by the upper house, the bill will return to the Commons.
Comments
Legal Aid Bill
Funny that Lord Bach is on our side now. Time was when he wasn't. Funny how the Conservatives are agin us - there was a time when they seemed to be on our side. It's a good job we're not cynical about politicians.
The boy stood on the burning deck.....
Did Lord McNally really say in the Lords yesterday "I went to the Law Society's prize giving for solicitor firms of the year and I was intrigued by how many of the prize winners now have web pages where people can go (for advice)". Is he perchance related to the judge who once famously said in court "a video recorder. What's a video recorder?"
To Quote the Great Homer Simpson
Oh, so they have the internet on computers now.
Rest of press?
The attack from all sides over 8 hours was utterly devastating-yet only the Gazette and Guardian seem to have picked up on this. Where are the rest of the press? Where is Coalition TV, sorry the BBC?
Pharmaceutical claims and the Consumer Protection Act
The Consumer Protection Act needs to be amended to ensure that Pharmaceutical claims get heard in court regardless of whether Legal Aid has been granted.
My 13yr old son has Fetal Valproate Syndrome and was part of a class action to sue Sanofi for birth defects caused by me taking EPILIM (Sodium Valproate) whilst pregnant. Safety data was not acknowledged by Sanofi and as a result my son and hundreds more children and adults have been disabled for life, will never live independently and the state will pay for his care.
I believe his Human Right to Access to Justice has been violated as the LSC withdrew funding and the government didn't provide funds out of alternative budgets. Funding for a Judicial review was denied and the Lord Chancellor did nothing.
No legal firm could offer No win No fee representation as they cannot get insurers.
My son has not been protected by EU or UK law and is one of those 5% that will not get legal aid and will not be entitled to Judicial Review funding. Is this right?
Will Big Pharma ever be prosecuted for their negligence, the damage they cause and the cost to the state?
The irony is ...
Emma, I have every sympathy.
Ironically although their initial claims were legally aided some of the parents in the pharmaceutical MMR MR litigation are now using no-win no-fee agreements to sue their former legal advisers because according to recent press reports they feel their cases were not advanced while the autism cases were. People complain about legal aid cuts but how would these families obtain access to justice without no-win, no-fee agreements? The focus is very much about legal aid cuts rather than the unfair changes to no-win, no-fee agreements.
The basis of their claim is that their children received one of the two vaccines (Immravax & Pluserix) in the UK used between 1988 and 1992 which contained the Urabe strain of the mumps virus. Urabe containing vaccine's were withdrawn in Canada (after only 6 months) before it was used in the UK and then it was withdrawn in the UK in 1992. Urabe was never used in the US.The evidence is that Urabe mumps vaccine can cause neurological damage. In Britain there has been statutory vaccine damage payment made for neurological injury following vaccination with MMR containing Urabe. At least one case has made the finding that MMR containing Urabe vaccine can cause sensorineural deafness.The data sheet for Immravax (extract from ABPI Data Sheet Compendium 1993-94) contains the following information:“Adverse Reactions:...During post-marketing surveillance, cases of neurological disease, such as meningitis or meningoencephalitis, and unilateral deafness, have been rarely reported. Non bacterial meningitis without sequelae has occurred within 30 days of receipt of vaccines containing Urabe Am9, and mumps virus has sometimes been isolated from the cerebrospinal fluid. The reported frequency estimate of aseptic meningitis is far less than the frequency of the case involvement after wild mumps virus infection, and complete recovery has been usual.”The data sheet for Pluserix (extract from ABPI Data Sheet Compendium 1993-94) contains the following information:“Adverse reactions:...Aseptic meningitis/meningoencepalitis has rarely occurred within 30 days after vaccination and mumps virus, characterised as vaccine-like, has sometimes been isolated from cerebrospinal fluid. Complete recovery has been reported in all cases... Extremely rarely transient polyneuropathy, unilateral nerve deafness or thrombocytopaenic purpura could occur....”
Pharmaceutical Claims
Have you raised the issue with your MP?
If not, write to him/her and arrange an appointment at the surgery MPs hold in their consitutencies.
Write to Kenneth Clarke at the MOJ, and directly to David Cameron, Nick Clegg and George Osborne. Write to the press, particularly The Guardian, Times, Telegraph and Independent.
Your son's case is regrettably typical of those who will be left without access to any justice as a result of the withdrawal of legal aid in clinical negligence claims.
I wish you luck - you will need it.
One Question for Lord McNally
Why is the budget for international development/foreign aid being increased to £8bn a year, when legal aid for those in England and Wales is being removed on a scale never seen before, for a saving of £350m???
international development/foreign aid
Dear Stephen, I am a CON-DEM(ned) politician. I have this real need to provide health, wealth and war to far flung places where oil supplies are plenty and the rulers are undemocratic and use fear to enslave the people. I do not understand people bickering about me increasing the 'state funding' to make sure that we get hold of the oil supply to feed our habits. Even if this means making cuts to really important public services, because at the end of the day, petrol is the master. It is he who must be served over and above the people. People do not realise what sacrifices I personally have to make to ensure my master is with us all every day. I have to force democracy on these savage far flung places and make sure that everyone knows that you can't just do what you please anymore, because the terrorists will come to get you. They are everywhere, in YOUR town, in YOUR country and plotting all the time to get YOU. This is a small price to pay for my master's love. His companies pay me lots of money and they have promised me i can become a director on their boards after my time providing health wealth and war and they will pay me handsomely. I have no fear of the terrorists because after my international aid spending they will rely on our taxpayers for money, look at the example of the libyan islamic fundamentalist group who we now call 'the brave rebels'. This is the way to work, we pay them, we give them military training and give them lots of guns so they can fight our enemies. I'm not really thinking about the future when they may use this against us. But by then I will be sat on my master's lap in the cayman islands feeling very happy with my lot.
Where were you?
Better to send the money to countries that need aid, rather than pouring it into endless wars. Where were you when Legal Aid was being decimated by the Labour Government and when ABSs were established?
Phone advice
Does McNally think that giving advice on the net or the phone is somehow significantly cheaper? We still have to have PII, practising certificates, staff, computer and phone systems - or is he suggesting that any old Tom, Dick or Harry can give legal advice from his shed?
LS Freedom of Speech
Can I ask if there is a policy of the LS removing postings which are critical of their members?
The Law Society Protects Edwin Coe
Will the Solicitors Regulator Authority protect these clowns too?
Let's wait and see.
(Yawn) you have the wrong
(Yawn) you have the wrong website. This is the Law Society Gazette, and this article concerns the implications of the implementation of Jackson's costs proposals - a very important and significant issue which will affect millions of people over the years.
You want to rant about a single issue that affects you and a handful of others and has zero wider significance or importance.
When I said Jackson, I meant
When I said Jackson, I meant Legal Aid cuts (it's been a long day!)
Most clinical negligence cases are funded by CFAs
It helps to check the facts:
House of Commons
31 October 2011 : Column 708
Mr Djanogly: NHS figures for 2010-11 show that 82% of clinical negligence cases, where the funding method is known, were funded by means other than legal aid. That is the current situation.
facts
Glad to see I am not the only clin neg lawyer who believes that Legal Aid no longer necessary. It was in the 80s when no one could see a way to make it work without but that was a long time ago so it should go the way of the walkman.
The only reason Legal Aid is still used is cash flow for law firms. The same firms making abnormal profits on their winning CFAs at present. They have made enough to last without the legal aid flow on clin neg. It never paid just funded dibs. To make money at it you always had to win.
The changes will make profits lower but will not affect access to justice for clin neg victims. There are enough of us out here who no longer use LSC funding anyway and have a business model that can cope without success fees.
The market will mean that no claimant (sensible one anyway) loses any damages. Those lawyers who cannot see a way without success fees and legal aid probably aren't winning enough cases. Simple maths. If you win enough you make profit even without uplift and after funding dibs on lost causes.
perhaps we should be making sure the LSC budget is spent on areas where there aren't huge profit motives to ensure the service remains. e.g. Family, crime. These areas need more funds to make good talented lawyers want to work in it.