House of Commons amendments for 17/4

[nickd]

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!

[nickd]

Amendment listing (check off using House of Lords amendments)


These are matched against the list of Commons proposals contained here

www.dropbox.com/sh/lhvn2zvafuldaqo/DwN-tW-0DV/LASPO%20-%20Motions%20on%20CCLA%20%281%29%20%282%29.pdf

NOTE: 7 to 11 are subject to confirmation but believed to be correct.


(1) Amendment 1 in the House of Lords on March 5th is opposed by the Commons as amendment 1 of clause 1 (a clearer definition of the Lord Chancellor's functions)


(2) Amendment 2 of clause (1) in the House of Lords on March 5th is opposed by the Commons as amendment 2 (access to legal aid for domestic violence victims).

(3) Amendment 3 of clause (4) in the House of Lords on March 5th is opposed by the Commons (director of legal aid casework) but may be substituted by an alternative to 3 & 4 with additional opposition to amendments on 24/31/32 (see next post)


(4) Amendment 11 in the House of Lords on March 7th (welfare benefits up to first tier tribunal) is 168 (schedule 1) in the House of Commons - this is not agreed by the Commons.

(5) Amendment 12 in the House of Lords on March 7th (welfare benefits up to Upper Tribunal & including higher Courts) is 169 (schedule 1) and is opposed in the House of Commons as is 240 but a substitute is offered for Upper Tribunal & higher Court work as in previous post.

(6) Amendment 13 (schedule 1) in the House of Lords on March 7th (expert reports in clinical negligence cases) is 170 (schedule 1) and opposed in the House of Commons.


The following are subject to confirmation but believed to be correct


(7) Amendment 119 in the House of Lords on March 14th (Part 1 clause 27 (2) (access to advice including face to face) is 24 in the House of Commons and is opposed.

(8) Amendment 132AA (newly inserted before Clause 43) in the House of Lords on March 14th (exceptions in respiratory /industrial disease or illness cases) is 31 in the House of Commons and is opposed.


(9) Amendment 132AB (newly inserted before Clause 43) in the House of Lords on March 14th (exceptions in Industrial disease cases where breach of duty by employer) is 32 in the House of Commons and is opposed.

(10) Amendment 3 (schedule 1) in the House of Lords on March 27th (access to legal services for children) is 171 in the House of Commons and is opposed.

(11) Amendment 4 (schedule 1) in the House of Lords on March 27th (access to legal services in clinical negligence cases in instances which took place when the victim was a child) is 172 in the House of Commons and is opposed.

NOTE : Remember that the Government lost on 11 amendments in the House of Commons but they are now - 'in the name of the House of Commons' disagreeing with the Lords on what I make to be 16 amendments with some counter concessions as provided for the House of Commons list issued yesterday. Update on the additional opposed amendments to follow.

[nickd]

Additional to the 11 above (although inclusive as far as 3 is concerned)


Amendments 3 & 4 are opposed but Clarke has moved that they be substituted as follows:

Page 3,

line 22,

leave out subsection (4) and insert—

‘( ) But the Lord Chancellor—

(a) must not give a direction or guidance about the carrying out of those
functions in relation to an individual case, and

(b) must ensure that the Director acts independently of the Lord Chancellor when applying a direction or guidance under subsection (3) in relation to an individual case.’.

Page 3,

line 24,

this section’.
leave out ‘about the carrying out of those functions’ and insert ‘under

Lords Amendment No. 24


Secretary Kenneth Clarke

To move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment.


Lords Amendment No. 31


Secretary Kenneth Clarke

To move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment.


Lords Amendment No. 32


Secretary Kenneth Clarke

To move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment.

[nickd]

Lords Amendment No. 192

Secretary Kenneth Clarke

To move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment.

Secretary Kenneth Clarke

To move amendment (a) to Lords Amendment No. 193, amendment (b)
to Lords

Amendment No. 219 and amendment (c) to Lords Amendment No. 220 in lieu of Lords Amendment No. 192:—

(a)
Line 2, after ‘means’ insert ‘any incident of’.
(b)
Line 2, after ‘means’ insert ‘any incident of’.
(c)
Line 25, after ‘means’ insert ‘any incident of’.

Consideration of Lords Amendments:
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, continued


Lords Amendment No. 194

Secretary Kenneth Clarke

To move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment.

Lords Amendment No. 196

Secretary Kenneth Clarke

To move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment.

[nickd]

For purpose of definition for 192 & onwards which stand in the current bill in the House of Commons as of 29/3/2012: [My emphasis - these being principally connected with violence/abuse/threatening behaviour]

192

Page 120, line 45, at end insert—


““abuse” means any incident or repeated incidents of threatening


behaviour, violence or abuse (whether psychological, physical,


sexual, financial or emotional, and including acts of neglect,


maltreatment, exploitation or acts of omission) between adults who


are or have been intimate partners or family members, regardless of


gender or sexuality;”

193

Page 121, line 1, at end insert—


““domestic violence” means threatening behaviour, violence or abuse


(whether psychological, physical, sexual, financial or emotional)


between individuals who are associated with each other;”

194

Page 121, line 31, at end insert—


“( )

For the purposes of this paragraph, evidence that abuse has occurred


may consist of one or more of the following (without limitation)—


(a) a relevant court conviction or police caution;


(b) a relevant court order (including without notice, ex parte, interim
or final orders), including a non-molestation undertaking or
order, occupation order, forced marriage protection order or


other protective injunction;

(c) evidence of relevant criminal proceedings for an offence
concerning domestic violence or a police report confirming
attendance at an incident resulting from domestic violence;


(d) evidence that a victim has been referred to a multi-agency risk
assessment conference, as a high risk victim of domestic violence,
and a plan has been put in place to protect that victim from
violence by the other party;


(e) a finding of fact in the family courts of domestic violence by the
other party giving rise to the risk of harm to the victim;


(f) a medical report from a doctor at a UK hospital confirming that
the applicant has injuries or a condition consistent with being a
victim of domestic violence;


(g) a letter from a General Medical Council registered general
practitioner confirming that he or she has examined the applicant
and is satisfied that the applicant had injuries or a condition
consistent with those of a victim of domestic violence;


(h) an undertaking given to a court by the alleged perpetrator of the
abuse that he or she will not approach the applicant who is the
victim of the abuse;


(i) a letter from a social services department confirming its
involvement in providing services to the applicant in respect of
allegations of domestic violence;


(j) a letter of support or a report from a domestic violence support
organisation; or


(k) other well-founded documentary evidence of abuse, such as
from a counsellor, midwife, school or witness.”

195

Page 121, leave out lines 46 and 47

196

Page 122, line 10, at end insert—


“( )

For the avoidance of doubt, no time limit shall operate in relation to any


evidence supporting an application for civil legal services under


paragraphs 10 and 11.”