Blog

House of Lords votes against immigration amendment to Legal Aid Bill by small majority

Campaigning on immigration and legal aid built real support in the House of Lords – but fell short of passing a significant amendment to the Bill earlier this week. So has enough progress has been made to support more efforts in the future…?

Not every battle can be won – but as they go, this was a close one.

This week saw the issue of immigration advice receive justified attention in the House of Lords, in a lively debate followed by a vote on an immigration amendment moved by Labour peer Lord Bach regarding the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. Unfortunately the amendment was rejected by a slim majority of peers, closing the scope for major wins on immigration and legal aid during the passage of the Bill. However the depth of concern expressed by peers during the debate was encouraging, and could potentially support campaigning for specific legal aid concessions on immigration in the future.

So what was the significance of this week’s debate and vote in the Lords? As covered in previous blogs the Bill has been at a critical stage in recent weeks, as it has reached the final stages of its consideration in the House of Lords before returning to the Commons. On the 5th March the ‘Report stage’ of the Bill began - the period when the House of Lords debates and votes on proposed amendments to the Bill put forward by other peers. Amendments that are successfully voted through by the Lords would then need to receive agreement in the House of Commons before the final Bill is agreed.

The complexity of the Bill and the length of its journey through parliament over the past six months has made it difficult for many community organisations to input their perspectives. As highlighted in a meeting organised by MRCF and MRN a year ago, many migrant support groups have been particularly concerned by the proposed cuts to immigration – which would take the vast majority of immigration cases (no matter how complex) out of the scope of legal aid in the future. Migrant community organisations already deal with the desperation of many clients needing help who can currently be referred onto legal aid advice providers, but who would be denied publicly funded support in the future. Although they report that changes to the legal aid system have made getting advice and representation more difficult for their clients than in the past, legal aid funding still ensures that many can access justice who would otherwise be unable to get help.

In recent weeks, however, the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, MRN, the Migrant and Refugee Communities Forum and the Migrants Resource Centre among others have been supporting inputs from community groups and migrant advocates. Actions have centred on building support for tabling and voting through key amendments to the Bill – most notably Lord Bach’s amendment which opposed taking immigration out of the scope of legal aid – during the report stage of the Bill which began on 5th March.

As part of wider lobbying, in recent weeks groups including the Refugee and Migrant Network Sutton, Latin American Women’s Rights Service and the Ukrainian Migrant Network among a number of others, wrote to their local MPs and to key peers, reminding them of the need to have accessible legal advice in this complex area of law. At a recent meeting of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Migration a number of peers and MPs heard directly from migrant support organisations about the impacts of the proposed changes. Read a blog by Esma Dukali from the Al-Hassaniya Moroccan Women’s Association about representing her organisation in Parliament here.

But what was the outcome of all of this? Bad news in the short term, but potentially encouraging for future campaigning. Lord Bach’s amendment was defeated, late on Monday evening, in an extremely close vote at 198 votes to 179. However, the level of cross-party debate – with all peers who spoke expressing concerns about the Bill – was extremely encouraging, and sent a strong message to the government that this blanket removal of most immigration cases from legal aid should be kept under close review.

The Bill will now return to the Commons before it is finally passed, and there will be no further opportunity for further amendments on immigration to be put forward before then. In the future, however, there will be much work to do to build support among MPs over the need to fund specific, and particularly complex, immigration cases out of the public purse. As highlighted by today’s report by Young Legal Aid Lawyers, MPs will inevitably feel the heat as migrants with nowhere to turn arrive at their constituency surgeries asking for help – we can expect that this issue will continue to be of real concern to them with potential for campaigning at a later date.

Thanks to all those who took part in recent advocacy work on immigration and the Bill. We may have lost this latest skirmish, but there will be many more stages in what is likely to be a much longer battle.

Other users went on to read:


Comments

This is equally sad. If the government is looking to exclude immigration from Legal Aid, then it might as well relax the bureaucracy for immigration advice & services in the not-for-profit sector so that well-intended people with expertise in immigration can help others sort out their immigration problems.

I've heard that in fact some solicitors and barristers are even scared to help immigration/human rights clients pro bon because they're unsure about regulation of immigration advice.

The government cannot continue to take and take, it must always relax and give too.

Anonymous ( which one?) in 2011 the UK Govt managed to wrangle the winding up of the Immigration Advisory Service on the pretext that the IAS 'administration' was inefficient!
This was just prior to the Chapti case heard in Birmingham in July 2011. But a verdict on that case wasn't given until December 2011 after the UK took over the Chair at the ECHR hoping to have the ECHR Treaty ammended to the UK Govts wishes.
Sir Nicholos Bratzi , the British Senior Judge at ECHR, visited the UK last week and told a Parliamentary Select Committee he was against the UKs proposal to ammend ECHR Law as the UK was proposing!
As there are 47 other countries signatories to the ECHR ( incl Russia ) Britains proposals could be such that they would render the ECHR totally ineffective thereby negating the work of the architect Sir David Maxwell Fyffe a prosecutor at Nuremburg War Trials after WW2.
This UK Govt under PM D Cameron and Home Secretary have already been told by the Judiciary that they are trying to 'side-step' Parliamentary Scrutiny by not putting their proposals before Parliament. The Coalition Govt is quite aware that a vote in Parliament against ECHR Law, which is also British Law, would in effect be a renounciation of the ECHR Treaty by the UK. The UK would then in fact be the country that founded the ECHR Treaty and the country that broke it! The UKs prestige in the international world would be even lower than it is - Cameron and his racist Tory Govt prestige would evaporate and the UKs democracy be destroyed!

A note on commenting

Due to recent increased commenting activity we have taken the decision to disable commenting on old blogs. As we are a small office it is simply impossible to fight spam and keep removing comments that don’t comply with our house rules on what is now an archive of over 800 pieces.

We have also decided to take a more proactive role in enforcing our blog house rules on the blogs where comments are open. The rules are there for a good reason and we want to make sure we are consistent and apply them across the board. 

This is not in any shape or form meant to stifle debate, but to make sure that it remains civil and on topic.

Thanks and best regards,

--MRN Team

http://www.migrantsrights.org.uk/about/blog-rules

MRN blogging and comments – Policy and House Rules

Your comments

1. Please be civil– we will remove anything that:

  • Is considered likely to provoke, attack or offend others
  • Is racist, sexist, homophobic, sexually explicit, abusive or otherwise objectionable
  • Contains swear words or other language likely to offend
  • Breaks the law, condones or encourage unlawful activity or which could endanger the safety or well-being of others
  • Impersonates someone else
  • advertises products or services

2. Comments that could damage the reputation of a person or organisation, that risk prejudicing on-going or forthcoming court proceedings or that could place MRN in contravention of its legal and/or regulatory obligations will be removed.

3. Please make comments relevant to the subject of the article. We may remove comments that we consider to be spam or which are unrelated to the article content against which they are posted.

4. Please keep the number of comments you make on a topic reasonable. Too many posts from an individual or small group can discourage other readers from joining the conversation.

5. In exceptional cases we may get a high volume of similar comments on a post. In these cases we may close comments for that post, adding a note letting you know that further comments will not be published.

6. By submitting comments to this site, you warrant that such comments are not defamatory nor infringe any law. You agree to indemnify MRN against all legal fees, damages and other expenses that may be incurred by MRN as a result of your breach of the above warranty.