Are cracks appearing in LASPO?

[nickd]

Are cracks appearing in the legal aid reforms?







Could this be a divided house?




Liberal leader Clegg will be speaking to conference tomorrow, a Guardian article says reference will be made to the riots and what may be seen as a crack between the Conservatives and Liberals over the insertion of the word ' punishment' into the Legal Aid, Sentencing & Punishment of Offender's bill.

Have the 'little elves' been at work?

Here's what the article says...

" A wider dispute is raging between Clegg's party and the Conservatives on how to respond to the riots. The Liberal Democrat justice minister, Lord McNally, revealed that Downing Street wanted the word "punishment" inserted into the legal aid and sentencing bill. He said the "little elves that work in No 10 helping the prime minister" had been at work.

He warned Conservative ministers not to turn the legislation into a "Christmas tree bill" loaded with new ideas, adding that this could jeopardise its passage through the Lords.

Downing Street said the word punishment would not be included in the bill, but the proposals set out by Cameron in the wake of the riots would appear. They include withdrawing benefit from parents whose children play truant."

A previous article elsewhere refers to a further division between Liberal and Tory policy...

This isn't the first time Lord McNally has indicated a fall out, he has previously said he's resign if ever the Human Rights Act was to be repealed.

news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_lords/newsid_9062000/9062705.stm

Elsewhere there are other gaps, earlier we heard how Tory MP Anna Soubry, up to now an ardent supporter of the bill has now expressed concern over how it will affect women.


aggbot.com/link.php?id=14856702&r=tw&t=lib

[nickd]

More on McNally







Are they cracks? - or is it more a question of being blissfully unaware


Rather disturbing write up of the legal aid event at the Lib Dem conference where in response to a question on the clear adverse effect of the legal aid proposals on disabled people, Lord McNally appears blissfully unaware of what is going on. There is a strong feeling of I was only obeying orders about all this and a clear need to get the briefings in to him as he appears totally out of touch with the human disaster he will be helping to create and what is actually going on.

"Lord McNally speaks at legal aid fringe
The Liberal Democrat fringe event on legal aid, organised by the Law Society and Justice for All, saw senior Lib Dems Lord McNally and Sir Alan Beith joined on the panel by Nick Fluck from the Law Society and James Sandbach from Citizens Advice representing Justice for All. Journalist Paul Waugh was the chair. It began with a slightly adapted version of this excellent video from Brighton Housing Trust to show the impact these changes would have on ordinary people.

A passionate opening speech from Nick Fluck dug into the history of access to the law and legal aid provision, going back to the Magna Carta and the 1949 Legal Aid act. He highlighted the danger of law practices closing, and emphasised the impact this would have on the poorest. James Sandbach followed by outlining many of the facts around legal aid: that the majority of legal aid spending is on criminal law, left virtually untouched in this bill; that the budget for civil legal aid has actually reduced in real terms over the last decade, and that the £672m spent on 400 high-cost criminal cases, and the £120m spent administering the legal aid bill, put the £350m worth of cuts government is making - affecting 650,000 people - seem unfairly, even ‘criminally’ targeted on the poorest. James ended by quoting from government’s own impact assessment, which says that the cuts risk worsening social cohesion, disproportionately affecting vulnerable groups, and costing other government departments more.

Lord McNally, who as Minister of State for Justice is responsible for steering the legal aid bill through the Lords, gave little in response. He suggested that in the context of £700bn of government spending each year, £350m was an insignificant sum, and said that his job was to try and get the bill through the Lords unchanged, while admitting that he expected it to face close scrutiny. Repeatedly returning to the economic situation, he portrayed the changes as a tough decision, forced upon those in government. He also warned his party not to expect motions passed at their conference to become government policy, speaking in reference to the motion against the cuts passed at the Liberal Democrat Spring conference, and this weekend’s vote calling for free representation and advice for those appealing welfare benefit decisions.

Sir Alan Beith, chair of the Justice Select Committee, was less inhibited, summarising his committee’s report from earlier in the year, which called into question many aspects of the bill, including the cuts to social welfare law legal aid. He recognised the threat to local advice charities, and admitted that the £20m of cabinet office funding announced earlier this year was only a temporary measure. He also suggested that the emergence of a self-funding model for advice - on which many are pinning their hopes - seemed unlikely, and that responsibility should still rest with government for this area.

When the floor was opened for questions the MS Society asked about the disproportionate impact the cuts to welfare benefits legal aid will have on disabled people, about which Lord McNally admitted he wasn’t aware, and promised to read the briefing paper.

The event was a good opportunity to demonstrate to the Minister, again, the impact these changes will have on ordinary people, and to hear the Minister’s views. It is clear that while peers can make changes to improve this bill, government including its Liberal Democrat Ministers will be resisting these throughout."

www.justice-for-all.org.uk/News/Lord-McNally-speaks-at-legal-aid-fringe




Read more: mylegal.org.uk/index.cgi?board=frontline&action=display&thread=481#ixzz1YcV2YiNv

[nickd]

An article appeared in the Daily Mail today over what Clegg was due to say in his key speech at the Liberal conference.

The headlines say...

'WE LET DOWN THE RIOTERS'

Clegg to tell his party, looters 'fell through the roof years ago'


For those of you are interested read the article with the link below, but you'll get the gist by the headlines alone.


But did someone pull the puppet's strings before
the speech went out?







Oh yes, I'm sure there's been a string or two
pulled as Clegg gets reigned in



Compare the Daily Mail headlines with what Clegg said at conference today on the question of the rioters...

" But in every city where trouble broke out, most people did the right thing. So many more people went out to clean up the streets than went out to trash them. In Manchester I met a café owner who boarded up her broken windows and started serving tea and coffee straight away to the people who were helping clear up. And here in Birmingham the community stood together in the face of disorder and tragedy. Our emergency services, our police and our courts all rose to the challenge.

But we have to ensure that the offenders become ex-offenders for good. Three out of four had previous convictions. So we have to push ahead with the Government’s rehabilitation revolution: Punishment that sticks, that changes behaviour. An end to the corrosive cycle of crime. And I want the criminal to look their victims in the eye to see the consequences of their actions, and to put it right. That’s why there will be community payback projects in every city affected. Why we are investing in drug recovery wings in our prisons. Tackling gang culture. Tougher community penalties. Effective justice. Restorative justice. Liberal justice.
But let me say something else: The rioters are not the face of Britain’s young people. The vast majority of our young people are good, decent and doing the best they can. Don’t condemn all of them because of the actions of a few. You know what really struck me? How so many of those who did join in the riots seemed to have nothing to lose. It was about what they could get, here and now. Not what lies in front of them, tomorrow and in the years ahead. As if their own future had little value. Too many of these young people had simply fallen through the cracks........ "

You'd have to compare the Daily Mail article which preceded the speech and then listen to what Clegg said at the conference and the tone he adopted. It certainly wasn't a speech that gave me the impression that he thought the rioters 'had been let down' in any way.

I reckon this highlights McNally's earlier discontent over the insertion of the word 'punishment' into the legal aid bill. Clegg had a chance to show people that despite some of the media spin;- there is a need to look into the social deprivation issues which were, according to many, contributory factors to these riots.

There was a definite change of tone from how this speech was going to go out according to the Daily Mail and how it eventually echoed around a conference full of a fair number of empty seats from what I can gather.

Given the overall context between what Clegg was seemingly going to say and what he ended up saying, there was almost certainly a fair bit of last minute tinkering over the speech, it's probably why Clegg kicked off late.

Call me a cynic, but I'd hazard a guess that Dave and Nick were probably heavily exchanging texts on their blackberries not long after big brother read the words 'WE LET DOWN THE RIOTERS' in his copy of the Daily Mail. Oh yes, I can just imagine Dave telling his puppet to make quite sure the message that the coalition is all about is one of crime and punishment; - not soft social liberalism, oh heaven forbid, that would never do.

Come to think of it, I can think of no other reason why the Daily Mail would devote a two page spread to the Legal Aid, Sentencing & Punishment of Offender's bill.

There's a rift in this bill alright, it's amazing what a bit of string pulling can do................'WE LET OUR RIOTERS DOWN' ......good grief, had Clegg uttered such words he'd now be reeling in pain after six strokes of Flashman's cane for being so utterly stupid in compromising his master's tough stance on crime.

But all is well, the puppet was spared the agony by doing as he was told!




Links

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2039821/Nick-Cleggs-response-riots--50m-summer-schools-disadvantaged-children.html

Read more: mylegal.org.uk/index.cgi?action=display&board=frontline&thread=482&page=1#1132#ixzz1Ycxa2Zr5