Lords vote down 'cruel' legal aid move

Dying victims of occupational cancers should not be penalised as a consequence as a government's drive to trim £350m of the legal aid bill by 2015, peers have said. An amendment to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill blocking government plans to force asbestos victims to use some of their damages to pay legal bills succeeded this week in the House of Lords. People who become ill after being exposed to asbestos because of their work are not entitled to legal aid if they want to sue for damages and must use conditional fee agreements to pay for their cases. At the moment they do not have to pay for legal costs out of their compensation, but the government had argued that successful claimants should hand over 25 per cent of any payout to cover lawyers' bills. Lib Dem peer Lord Alton told peers that asbestos victims 'need help not hindrance', and the government's argument that making claimants pay costs would persuade them to search for the law firm offering the best deal was 'simply fallacious.' He added: 'Dying asbestos victims have already invested enough and given their pitiable condition it is risible to suggest they will shop around.' Labour's Lord Bach called the government plan concerning industrial disease sufferers 'very unnecessary and rather cruel.' In total, the Lords have so far inflicted nine defeats on the bill.

House of Lords debate, 14 March 2012, Hansard. BBC News Online. Yorkshire Evening Post.