Peers warn against medical negligence legal aid cuts

The government has been urged to rethink plans to scrap legal aid in medical negligence cases.

Proposals contained in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill would remove the provision of legal aid for people suing for clinical negligence.

But peers from all sides of the House criticised the government's position, as they debated the bill for a third day in committee on 16 January 2012, warning that the move could deny vulnerable people who have been injured through NHS negligence access to justice.

Several amendments were tabled to force the government to make some concessions in this area, particularly for cases involving children.

The Conservative's Baroness Eaton told peers how her own child's cancer was missed by doctors.

She said her family did not take legal action because the stress of doing was "too great for us to cope with".

But she added: "We were an emotionally strong family in the fortunate situation of being both able to be strong for each other but also to afford the additional costs that occur to families in such a situation."

Lady Eaton warned that other families were often not as lucky - particularly those with more than one child.

Urging the government to reconsider its position, she added: "A civilised society should provide a safety net for the most vulnerable."

Plaid Cymru peer Lord Wigley said the state should ensure that individuals have the means to hold it to account.

Liberal Democrat Lord Thomas of Gresford wanted the government to consider at what level legal aid could be granted.

"If it is a case which so often happens that people's lives are altered for good, and members of their family's lives are altered for good, surely a humane society should provide legal aid to cover the cost of litigation in those circumstances." he said.

Labour's Lord Beecham supported calls for the retention of legal aid in clinical negligence cases, arguing it was wrong to "dismantle the machinery" that provided access to justice in this area.

Advocate General Lord Wallace of Tankerness argued for the government that there were "viable alternatives" to legal aid in clinical negligence cases, which was why ministers had taken the decision to remove it.

He pointed to figures from the NHS litigation authority which showed that 82% of cases in 2010-11, where the funding method was known, were paid for by "means other than legal aid".

But the minister assured peers he would "reflect seriously" on their concerns.

The amendments were withdrawn but the issue is likely to be raised again during report stage of the bill.