Will the Lib Dems save legal aid?

By Claire Spencer / @thedancingflea

At their annual conference this week, the Liberal Democrats moved to condemn the government’s welfare reform plans, and called on them to retain legal aid for people appealing welfare decisions. Rightly so. The idea that the government could make the wrong decision on a person’s eligibility for benefits, and leave them unable to resolve that issue through the courts, is both absurd and unfair.

Nor does it end there – the catalogue of injustices that will result from the changes to legal aid proposed in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill (LASPO) are there for anyone to read. Victims of domestic violence forced to represent themselves in court. Accident victims left uncompensated. Suspects unable to access legal representation before questioning. All of which will make Britain a worse place to live for the most vulnerable in our society – at a higher price than we are paying now.

The potential for restricted access to legal representation should be particularly troubling to the Lib Dems. ‘Clause 12’ will allow for the introduction of means testing for legal advice for those held in a police station. Furthermore, a new ‘Director of Legal Aid’ would be able to decide who deserves legal aid, and who doesn’t. And there would be no right of appeal. Jonathan Djanogly claims that the government has no intention of enforcing the clause, but as Louise Restell ably demonstrates, that just isn’t acceptable:

“Why? So that the next time there are riots they can bring it into force and summarily bang up anyone who stole a couple of TVs? Or the next time there’s a terrorist outrage on our soil they can ‘extract confessions’ from anyone who fits the profile of an extremist?”

Angry, but given the eagerness to bypass justice in dealing with those who were involved in the recent riots, it isn’t hard to imagine. And many Lib Dems are clearly (and I have no doubt genuinely) concerned about LASPO in its entirety. Alastair Webster QC, Chair of the Liberal Democrats Lawyers’ Association said it was no less than a “litmus test of whether there’s any point in being in the coalition”.

But reality is yet to match those words. The last motion passed that condemned the legal aid changes (at their Spring Conference), has been comprehensively ignored – including, seemingly, by their own parliamentary party. The Public Bill Committee, including Lib Dem MPs, rejected Labour amendments to return three key areas to the scope of legal aid: welfare benefits, clinical negligence and housing. At the time, Lib Dem committee member Tom Brake defended his vote, saying:

“we are in the coalition and raising the matter directly with the minister may be more effective at securing changes in legislation than supporting an opposition amendment.”

Compromise and partnership working may be the name of the game in coalition, but I’m not sure it works when one party are doing all the compromising. Where was the partnership and compromise when the Bill was being written, when it was distributed at the eleventh hour? Did the Lib Dems have LASPO in mind when they agreed:

“We will carry out a fundamental review of Legal Aid to make it work more efficiently.”

I doubt it.

Labour’s record on legal aid has not been brilliant – but the diligence of MPs like Andy Slaughter, who has worked tirelessly to produce amendments to LASPO, suggests that the perspective of opposition and fresh blood has changed our approach for the better. May it continue throughout our next spell in government. Our MPs and Peers can oppose constructively by tabling amendments and campaigning – and ultimately, they turn up to vote against the Bill if it remains so deeply unsatisfactory.

But the right outcome is completely reliant on the Lib Dems doing the right thing – voting in line with their values and beliefs, voting against their coalition partners, voting with Labour. Experience of the correlation between Lib Dem values and votes tells us that LASPO will pass, and people will suffer. Hope tells us that things could be different.