Lib Dem peers voice frustration at lack of concessions on legal aid

Lord Carlile, the Lib Dem peer and independent reviewer of anti-terrorism legislation, voiced his frustration in the House of Lords last night at 'absolutely no hint that any concessions will be made' by the government on legal aid.

He warned ministers not to assume that Lib Dem peers would back the bill, but to 'earn our support'.

Speaking on the first day of the legal aid bill's committee stage, Lord Carlile said: 'Noble lords will recall the second reading debate, at which unfortunately I was not able to be present because I was out of the country.

'Since that debate there has been private and public negotiation, lobbying, a great deal of journalism and an expectation that we would move from the position that was expressed from the government front bench at second reading.

'However, I detect absolutely no hint that any concessions will be made. Indeed, I detect an air of irritated intransigence coming from the Ministry of Justice in relation to the bill.'

Lord Carlile said that Lib Dem peers, and no doubt their Conservative counterparts, had been encouraged by the government 'not to cause difficulties, not to intervene too much and not to obstruct the government in getting their bill through. In other words, I have been encouraged to support this coalition government, which I would very much like to do.

'However, I have detected an assumption that Liberal Democrat peers are to support the government's approach to this bill, and I say to my noble friend Lord McNally that it is not sufficient to make us wait to find out later what concessions are to be made on the many representations that have been made.'

He added that he was asking Lib Dem justice minister Lord McNally not to 'assume our support from these benches but to earn our support'.

Lord Carlile was supported by Lib Dem colleague Lord Goodhart, who said the government 'must make it clear that access to justice is essential and that we cannot set up in this country a legal system which does not provide access to justice to those who cannot afford it out of their own pockets'.

Lord Alton, a former Lib Dem MP who sits in the Lords as a cross-bencher, said he was looking for a signal from the government of 'reasonableness, a willingness to re-examine whether or not the propositions that have been put to us by the Bar Council, the Law Society, practising lawyers and people who have represented disadvantaged communities hold up and are up to scrutiny'.

Earlier Conservative peer Lord Faulks backed an amendment moved by Lord Pannick that would have clearly stated that the Lord Chancellor was under a duty to secure access to justice.

Withdrawing the amendment, Lord Pannick said he would return to the issue during the report stage where he warned that if there were no concessions the government 'will face a substantial rebellion on their benches'.

Lord McNally said 'one of the crunch parts of the bill' as it passed through the Lords was whether the government had 'rightly judged' which areas it was withdrawing from the scope of civil legal aid.

He said the Lord Chancellor, Ken Clarke, and the government was 'confident we have made the right decisions, hard as they have been in some cases'.

Lord Howarth, a Labour peer, commented earlier: 'I am struck that the Conservative party demands insistently that the European Union should respect our national identity.

'Intrinsic to our national identity is the common law and access to justice with support through legal aid. And yet the Conservative party seems willing to disrespect that national identity in the measures that it brings forward for us at home.'

The bill returns to the Lords on 10 January 2012.