Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Stephen Timms and Jonathan Djanogly
Tuesday 3rd July 2012

(12 years, 7 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jonathan Djanogly Portrait Mr Djanogly
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Any delay arises from the non-implementation of part 3 of the 2007 Act, and the cause of our delay is the same reason why the Labour Government delayed—their legislation does not work. We have acted in the interim by putting guidelines in place, and we are now consulting on upgrading legislation in a measured and balanced way. We will consider the many interests that exist and the balance that we have to achieve.

Stephen Timms Portrait Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

12. What assessment he has made of the availability of legal advice to people on low incomes who will be affected by the Government’s proposed welfare reforms.

Jonathan Djanogly Portrait The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

During the development of the legal aid reforms, the Ministry of Justice conducted detailed assessments of the availability of legal advice funded by legal aid or provided by the not-for-profit advice sector. With regard to welfare reform, the Department for Work and Pensions is developing a strategy for working with the voluntary sector, including welfare advice services, to ensure that people on low incomes have access to the support that they need to understand their rights and entitlements following the move to universal credit.

Stephen Timms Portrait Stephen Timms
- Hansard - -

During ping-pong on the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, Ministers accepted that legal aid should still be available for an appeal to the first-tier tribunal if a point of law is at stake. How will someone establish whether a point of law is at stake, and when will the provision take effect?

Jonathan Djanogly Portrait Mr Djanogly
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I confirm that we are giving serious thought to the issue and considering the exact scope of the concession, as well as how such work will be delivered in future, because the operational aspects are just as important. Once we have considered that in full, we will make an announcement.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Stephen Timms and Jonathan Djanogly
Tuesday 31st January 2012

(13 years ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Timms Portrait Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

5. What assessment he has made of the availability of free legal advice.

Jonathan Djanogly Portrait The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The Ministry of Justice is responsible for legally-aided advice services through its relationship with the Legal Services Commission. This is publicly funded legal advice, rather than “free” legal advice. “Free”, or pro bono, legal advice is not within the scope of the Ministry’s ambit. Legally aided lawyers do not act for free; they act for money and are paid for by the taxpayer, so it is important that we get value for money for the taxpayer.

Stephen Timms Portrait Stephen Timms
- Hansard - -

I am grateful to the Minister for his visit last year to the excellent advice service at Community Links that is used by my constituents. Is he aware that funding cuts mean that that service will stop providing all welfare benefits advice next year, shortly before the massive upheaval that will follow the introduction of universal credit? Is not that a recipe for disaster?

Jonathan Djanogly Portrait Mr Djanogly
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The legal aid scope changes will not come in until April 2013, but that is indeed something that is on the horizon. I have visited the right hon. Gentleman’s local law centre, and it is a very good organisation. As I said to him the last time he asked about this issue, changes are going to have to take place, and that is why we are looking to put in place transitional arrangements.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Stephen Timms and Jonathan Djanogly
Tuesday 11th January 2011

(14 years, 1 month ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Timms Portrait Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

9. What plans he has for the future funding of welfare advice services currently funded from legal aid.

Jonathan Djanogly Portrait The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

While cost considerations are at the forefront of our review of legal aid, we remain committed to ensuring that legal aid is available to those who need it most in cases where legal aid, legal advice or representation is justified. Accordingly, we propose that specialist legal aid be retained in the highest priority cases of welfare advice, such as those involving debt, housing—for example, where someone’s home is at immediate risk, or homelessness or serious disrepair is involved—and community care. The funding of welfare advice services is a cross-Government issue, and it is being considered as such.

Stephen Timms Portrait Stephen Timms
- Hansard - -

The Government want voluntary sector welfare advice to replace legal aid, but much of the funding for voluntary sector local advice services comes from legal aid, which is about to be withdrawn. That includes a quarter of the funding for local citizens advice bureaux across the country. I was encouraged by what the Minister said about avoiding a gap. Does he accept that there will have to be new funding from somewhere to replace the funding for advice services that is being withdrawn? In looking, rightly, for cost-effective ways to deliver advice, does he recognise the evidence from the Legal Action Group that those most in need of help are the least likely to use telephone advice services?

Jonathan Djanogly Portrait Mr Djanogly
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The right hon. Gentleman asks a pertinent question. Having spent a lot of time discussing this matter over recent weeks with the not-for-profit sector, I can tell him that very little is known about it in that sector. Even the head offices of voluntary organisations may not know what the funding is for their own local organisations. The core funding for legal help, for instance, typically comes not from the Ministry of Justice, but from the local authority. We have to make up for a decade of people overlooking the need to co-ordinate funding, by seeing what the funding streams are and ensuring that they work in the way that they should. That will involve ensuring that there is no duplication. There is currently a lot of duplication in the system.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Stephen Timms and Jonathan Djanogly
Tuesday 23rd November 2010

(14 years, 3 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jonathan Djanogly Portrait Mr Djanogly
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My hon. Friend is right to point out that changes in one area can have knock-on implications in another area. It is important to point out that that is precisely why we put out the legal aid consultation document on the same day as Sir Rupert Jackson’s proposals on no win, no fee agreements. The two can be weighed up together and the consultation will therefore take a holistic approach.

Stephen Timms Portrait Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

On legal aid, the Minister has spoken today about working with voluntary sector organisations. Community Links’ welfare advice service in my area has seen 9,000 people so far this year. It is very cost-effective and has been paid for until now by legal aid. Under the Minister’s proposals, it will not be in the future. How will that work be supported by the Government in the period ahead?

Jonathan Djanogly Portrait Mr Djanogly
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

People have the option of getting conditional fee agreements, also known as no win, no fee agreements. They can go to a lawyer and that lawyer will take a view on the chances of success. The question that must be asked—we will be very interested to hear the responses to it during the consultation—is whether, if the private sector is not prepared to take on the risk, the public sector should be prepared to do so and what proportion of that risk it will be prepared to take on.