I strongly support Amendments 21 and 46, which have been eloquently spoken to, particularly with regard to children in immigration cases. I would refer to the very moving briefing that I quoted in Committee from Refugee Youth. I shall focus my brief remarks now, however, on Amendments 11 and 12.
Based on the powerful speeches from other noble Lords, on my own experience over many years in the Child Poverty Action Group, and on the case made to us by a range of voluntary organisations, I can only concur with Citizens Advice when it says that the Government's approach will leave benefit claimants out to dry when they challenge decisions over correct entitlement. The consequences of wrong decisions, especially for disability benefit claimants, can be devastating.
The Minister said in Committee that his best point was that welfare benefits are being reformed to be simpler. Simplification has long been the holy grail of the social security system, and I hope that we get slightly closer to that holy grail this time. However, we cannot leave benefit claimants out to dry while we wait to find out whether we have succeeded. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, pulled the rug from under the Minister's feet when he pointed out how important legal aid will be during the transition period.
I will not say everything that I planned to say but move straight to Amendment 12, and I ask for the Minister's patience. In Committee, I asked him a question which he did not answer, so on the basis of better luck this time, I shall ask it again. I said: "““Given that an appeal to the Upper Tribunal has to be on a point of law; given the complexities of that law and how much is at stake in terms of the livelihoods of some of the most disadvantaged members of our society; given that, as Justice points out, even if the Supreme Court had agreed to a case because of its complexity and its importance, legal aid would not be available because the Government say that it is not complex or important enough; and given that the savings are so minuscule that the Ministry of Justice does not even normally record them””—"
I remind noble Lords that the Minister told us that the savings would be £1 million, which in public spending terms is less than peanuts— "““can the Minister explain … why the Government are withdrawing legal aid from this small yet important category of cases, and can he please justify this to the Committee?””.—[Official Report, 16/1/12; col. 396.]"
The Minister did not justify it to the Committee—I suspect because he cannot justify it. If he can, will he please try to do so today? Otherwise, I hope that noble Lords will support Amendment 12 as well as Amendment 11.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 7 March 2012.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
735 c1797 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 16:26:29 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_815602
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_815602
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_815602