Editorial 

Lord Willy Bach is backbench Labour Peer, and until earlier this year was Shadow Justice Minister in the Lords. This piece was originally published on the Labour Lords website.
 
Next All Fools Day, the provisions of Part 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (LASPO) are due to come into force. The joke however, that the Coalition government will be playing on some of our most disadvantaged and vulnerable fellow citizens, many of them disabled, is anything but funny. Rather, it is mean, unfair and cruel; and in some ways, wicked.
 
So from 1st April 2013, Legal Aid will no longer be available for legal advice on matters of social welfare, sometimes called the Law of Everyday Life, in the fields of welfare benefit, employment, debt, immigration, and the majority of housing law. For the many hundreds of thousands who need such advice, and who up to now have been able to access it, there may well be nowhere to turn to. Law Centres, CABs, and other advice agencies who have provided quality advice for very modest remuneration, may go out of business, as this money is an essential part of their limited income. To add insult to injury, where some limited areas of social welfare law remain in scope, the sole way to get legal advice will be to go through a ‘telephone gateway’ system. Face to face advice, so vital to many who need it will just not be an option.
 
The result of all this is that access to justice is to be removed from a very large number of people; often the ones who need it most. The cruellest irony is that this appalling attack on those least able to defend themselves will almost certainly not save any public money. That is why I believe the word “wicked” is appropriate.
 
Labour fought these proposals all the way. In alliance with many Cross Bench peers, as well as a very few Lib Dems and Tories, including the much missed, late Tony Newton,we inflicted 14 defeats on the government, as well as stacking up three draws (with over 200 votes on each side). The government were forced to make a few changes, but the thrust of the policy got through.
 
In the next few weeks and months, Parliament will have to debate and decide on a number of crucial Statutory Instruments that will set out how Part 1 of the Act is to be implemented. These are of huge significance for those who will be so adversely affected by the legislation. It is our duty to scrutinise each and every order with care, and to vote against them when it is appropriate.
 
Over the last few months, I have been tweeting constantly on these matters @FightBach. I have also spoken around the country to meetings often made up of people just as horrified by the proposals. From Manchester to Merton, from Southwark to Ipswich, from Coventry and Nottingham to God’s Own City (or Leicester, as it is called), the response has been united.
 
Ministers think we should move on. Sorry to disappoint them. Part 1 of LASPO remains a disgrace. It demeans our much admired legal system, and makes us a less civilised country. What is the point of a legal aid system if it cannot protect those who need it most? We are duty bound to continue this fight, and I for one look forward to working with people of goodwill from all parties, or none, who are determined that common sense and decency shall prevail.

Lord Bach

  Cases of Interest

Following a long period off sick, Ms Ashton was given a 12 month warning in relation to her attendance during which time the bank withheld her sick pay.

Although the tribunal said that the bank should have made a reasonable adjustment by relaxing the sickness policy and continuing to pay her sick pay, the EAT disagreed saying that the question was whether “using an objective measure” (as opposed to the employer's subjective thought processes), the adjustment was reasonable.

Mr Alam asked, but was refused, permission to leave work early. He did so anyway and, following a disciplinary hearing, was given a 12-month written warning. He said his employers should have made a reasonable adjustment for him because of his depression.

However, the EAT held that employers do not have to make reasonable adjustments if they knew or ought to have known about the employee’s disability but did not know and could not be expected to know that it would have a specific effect on them. In this case, although the DWP ought to have known that he suffered from depression, it could not reasonably have known it would mean that he would have difficulty “in asking for permission when it was required”.

Jonathan Reynolds MP
13 November 2011

Kate Green MP
27 November 2011

Karl Turner MP
11 December 2011

David Rowntree
19 February 2012

Sir Geoffrey Bindman QC
22 January 2012

Joan Ruddock MP
5 February 2012

David Blunkett MP
1 April 2012

Anas Sarwar MP
4 March 2012

Catherine McKinnell MP
13 May 2012

Ian Murray MP
14 April 2012

Lord Hunt
27 May 2012

David Lammy MP
24 June 2012

Lord Tyler
27 May 2012

Valerie Vaz MP
9 June 2012