An amendment tabled by cross-bencher Lord Pannick sought to
substitute sub-section 1, so that there was an obligation on the
Lord Chancellor not simply to ensure that legal aid is made
available as per part 1 of the bill, but that he/she 'must secure
(within the resources made available and in accordance with this
part) that individuals have access to legal services that
effectively meet their needs'. This amendment partially reflected
the concerns of the Constitution Committee that there is no overall
constitutional principle for provision of access to justice in the
bill. Whilst a number of peers spoke in favour of the amendment,
other expressed concern that the qualification would render it
ineffective. The amendment was withdrawn but Lord Pannick indicated
that he would return to it at the report stage.
An amendment proposed by Lord Thomas of Gresford (Liberal
Democrat), again withdrawn, sought to ensure that the lord
chancellor should secure 'equality between the state and any party
in dispute with the state in the provision of services of advice
and assistance and representation for appeals on any point of law
in the fields of welfare benefits, employment, debt, housing,
immigration, education and asylum'. Although the amendment was
supported by a number of peers, the minister Lord McNally replied
that equality of arms does not mean that both parties must have
identical representation; and if there is an imbalance in
representation which gives rise to an obvious unfairness, the Bill
provides for legal aid to fund representation via the Clause 9
exceptional funding provisions. Lord Thomas indicated that he would
return to the issue at a later date.
Lord Bach (Labour) sought to introduce a new sub-section to
Clause 1 which would prohibit the introduction of a mandatory
telephone gateway for accessing legal aid by creating an obligation
on the Lord Chancellor to ensure that 'a person eligible for legal
aid is able to access it in a range of forms, including...
face-to-face advice'. Several peers spoke in support and
highlighted the difficulties the gateway would present for people
with certain disabilities. The Minister rejected the amendment,
arguing that because the amendment would preclude the possibility
of providing legal aid services only through telephone advice
services, it imposed significant restrictions on future flexibility
in the provision of services.
Lord Bach withdrew the amendment, but noted that he would seek
to return to the issue.