Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord McNally (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 24 January 2012. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill.


Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

My Lords, I hope to end the evening on a reassuring note. We recognise that by virtue of the specific reference to costs, the language of Clause 24(1) is different from that in the equivalent provision at Section 10(7) of the Access to Justice Act 1999. However, we consider that costs are capable of falling within the existing provision on the statutory charge as, "““property recovered or preserved by””," a legally aided person. In any event, I reassure noble Lords that Clause 24 does not represent a change of policy and will not result in any change to current practice. The provisions in Clause 24 reflect existing practice by protecting the interests of the Legal Aid Fund in the same way that those interests are currently protected by the provisions of the Community Legal Service (Costs) Regulations 2000. For example, the provision in those regulations regarding payment of money due to a legally aided person relate to all such money, including any costs awarded. We therefore have no intention of altering the existing position that operates in cases where interparty cost orders are made and a claim is made against the Legal Aid Fund by a supplier. The current position in such cases will remain exactly the same when we implement the relevant provisions of this Bill. Indeed, we recognise that market rate costs payments where interparty costs are ordered represent an important source of income for legal aid providers, and nothing in the Bill is intended to interfere with the present position in respect of such payments. Specifically, legal-aid-only costs will continue to be payable to providers where a supplier recovers interparty costs, to the same extent as at present. So the existing position, including in partial cost order cases, will remain. I also confirm that, in the specific context of interparty costs, we intend to exercise the power in Clause 24 of the Bill so that it is clear that legal-aid-only costs, including in partial cost order cases, remain payable to suppliers. This will make the position clearer than it is at present, given that the entitlement to payment for legal-aid-only costs currently appears only in the LSC contract. I hope that with those assurances, the noble Lord will withdraw this amendment.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
734 c1039-40 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Disability Disclosure of information Compensation Criminal proceedings Appeals Assets Advocacy Criminal injuries compensation Legal profession Employment Finance Fees and charges Legal aid scheme Eligibility Injuries Discrimination Evictions Local government NHS Negligence Social security Sentencing Tribunals Sexual offences Telephone services Travellers Remand in custody Police stations Citizens' advice bureaux Law centres
Legislation
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk