Post by nickd on Apr 13, 2012 19:19:55 GMT 1
The House of Commons now gets to consider the amendments proposed by the House of Lords when they debate this in their 'considerations' on the 17th April. The long and short of it is that a certain someone....
As if you couldn't guess - Ken Clarke is disagreeing with many of the amendments proposed by the House of Lords. He's obviously in a bad mood following today's revelation that the Prison population has shot up by a stonking 1,994 prisoners a year. This won't bode well for our Ken who now how has to tell everyone why the figures have gone up rather than down. Anyway, back to these amendments - designed to confuse us with time running short, we will attempt to unravel them. It looks like there's a concession on welfare benefits in the Upper Tribunals & higher courts by proposing a new amendment to replace Lord Bach's amendment number 12 on March 7th (now before the House of Commons as 169 & 240 replaced by Clarke's concession..)
Here are the latest 'considerations'..
www.dropbox.com/sh/lhvn2zvafuldaqo/DwN-tW-0DV/LASPO%20-%20Motions%20on%20CCLA%20%281%29%20%282%29.pdf
So here we go, this post covers the ones relating to benefits; the following covers the other 9 of the 11 which Government lost in the House of Lords. But, bear in mind that the House of Commons - well Ken Clarke - is opposing a greater number, 16 by my count..
As voted in by House of Lords
There were two key amendments voted in on the 7th March in the House of Lords relating to welfare benefits - these being as listed (4) & (5) from the article relating to the 11 amendments which government was defeated: the link to the article is here..
Read more: mylegal.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=frontline&action=display&thread=626#ixzz1rx29Yuty
Where we refer to 'listing' this means as it applies to the 11 amendments on the above link which Government lost when the House of Lords voted them in.
The amendment listed as (4) was number 11 on the 7th March as moved by Baroness Doocey (this is 168 in the current bill)
Amendment 11: Schedule 1, page 125, line 5, at end insert-
This was inserted into the House of Lords amendments as:
Schedule 1
168 Page 115, line 5, at end insert—
“Social welfare law
(1) Civil legal services provided in respect of a social welfare decision
relating to a benefit, allowance, payment, credit or pension under—
(a) the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992;
(b) the Jobseekers Act 1995;
(c) the State Pension Credit Act 2002;
(d) the Tax Credits Act 2002;
(e) the Welfare Reform Act 2007;
(f) the Welfare Reform Act 2012; or
(g) any other enactment relating to social security.
(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1), “civil legal services” includes
independent advice and assistance for a review, or appeal to a first-tier
tribunal, of such a decision.”
It now moves to the House of Commons who say..
As proposed into the House of Commons
Lords Amendment No. 168
Secretary Kenneth Clarke
"To move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment."
So the House of Commons are disagreeing with legal aid for welfare benefit work up to First - Tier Tribunal level
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The amendment listed as (5) was number 12 on the 7th March as moved by Lord Bach (this is 169 in the current bill)...
Amendment 12
Moved by Lord Bach
12: Schedule 1, page 125, line 5, at end insert-
"Social welfare law (No. 2)
This was inserted into the House of Lords amendments as:
169 Page 115, line 5, at end insert—
“Social welfare law (No. 2)
(1) Civil legal services provided in respect of a social welfare decision
relating to a benefit, allowance, payment, credit or pension under—
(a) the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992;
(b) the Jobseekers Act 1995;
(c) the State Pension Credit Act 2002;
(d) the Tax Credits Act 2002;
(e) the Welfare Reform Act 2007;
(f) the Welfare Reform Act 2012; or
(g) any other enactment relating to social security.
(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1), “civil legal services” includes—
(a) independent advice or assistance for an appeal to a second-tier
tribunal; and
(b) independent advice, assistance and representation at a higher
court of such a decision.”
As moved into the House of Commons who say
Secretary Kenneth Clarke
Lords Amendment no. 169
To move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment.
Lords Amendment No. 240
Secretary Kenneth Clarke
To move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment.
Secretary Kenneth Clarke
So, this means that legal aid for Upper Tribunal work in the form of 169 and also amendment 240 is opposed. However, a concession is proposed in the House of Commons which is made in lieu of amendments 169 and 240..
To move the following Amendments to the Bill in lieu of Lords Amendments Nos. 169 and 240:—
Page 119,line 2, at end insert—
‘Appeals relating to welfare benefits
6A (1) Civil legal services provided in relation to an appeal on a point of law to the
Upper Tribunal, the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court relating to a benefit, allowance, payment, credit or pension under—
(a) a social security enactment,
(b) the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979, or
(c) Part 4 of the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008.
Exclusions
(2) Sub-paragraph (1) is subject to—
(a) the exclusions in Part 2 of this Schedule, with the exception of
paragraphs 1 and 15 of that Part, and
(b) the exclusion in Part 3 of this Schedule.
Definitions
(3) In this paragraph “social security enactment” means—
(a) the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992,
(b) the Jobseekers Act 1995,
(c) the State Pension Credit Act 2002,
(d) the Tax Credits Act 2002,
(e) the Welfare Reform Act 2007,
(f) the Welfare Reform Act 2012, or
(g) any other enactment relating to social security.’.
Page 137,line 30,at end insert—
‘(a) a social security enactment,
(b) the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979, or
(c) Part 4 of the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008.
(2) In this paragraph “social security enactment” means—’.
The House of Commons also oppose amendment 240 in the current bill. The effect of which is...
"240 - Page 137, line 29, leave out paragraph 15"
Which looks like a welcome concession for Upper Tribunal & higher Court work as it will allow the setting of precedent. However, let's not go thinking this is anywhere near enough. What we want is legal aid to prevent cases having to go the higher courts. Anyone who does welfare benefit work or is helped by welfare benefit specialists needs to press for 168 & 169 (and not accept the substitute which disagrees with 169 & 240) to be retained as well as asking for face to face advice at first point of contact to remain within the civil legal aid scheme.
In other words keep badgering your MP's right over the weekend, this includes all Conservatives, all Labour, all Liberals & yes, Independents too!