All Party Group on Public Legal Education: Inaugural Meeting/AGM.

Feb 23rd. 4-5pm, Committee Room 18.

In Attendance: Tom Tugendhat MP, Christina Rees MP, Alex Chalk MP Sir Edward
Garnier MP, Christina Rees MP, Dominic Grieve MP, Jonathan Djanogly MP, Lord Low.
Andy Slaughter MP.
Apologies: Nic Dakin MP, Lord Bach, Yvonne Fovargue MP,
Also attending were: James Sandbach (LAG), Rebecca Wilkinson (Law Society), Ruth
Daniel (A2JF), Ruth Dwight (Citizenship Foundation), Matthew Smerdon (LEF), James
Kenrick (Youth Access), Nimrod Ben-Cnaan (LCN), Julie Bishop (LCN), Steve Hynes
(LAG), Polly Goodwin (Office of Lord Low), Janet Walker (Office of Tom Tugendhat).
The following were elected as officers of the Group.

Chair: Tom Tugendhat MP

Vice-Chair (Lords): Lord Low
Vice-Chair (Commons): Yvonne Fovargue MP
Treasurer: Andy Slaughter MP
Secretary: Alex Chalk MP

The stated purpose of the group is To educate the public about the legal system, to
increase understanding in Parliament of public legal education, to provide a forum for
parliamentarians to work with organisations in the field to ensure a supportive policy
environment that enables public legal education to flourish and encourage initiatives
which improve legal capability.
Following introductions, Tom welcomed everyone to the first meeting of the APPG, and
noted that the establishment of the group had been encouraged by Robert Buckland, the
Solicitor General. James Sandbach (Secretariat) then introduced the stakeholder board
and sketched out some of the background issues, the build up of PLE initiatives and
research over the past decade and how a forward looking agenda for PLE might be
assisted at parliamentary level, bearing mind the need to avoid duplication with work that
other parliamentary groups may be doing (eg the APPG on Debt and Personal Finance).
Jonathan Djanogly asked that the group should tie in with the Ministry of Justice Litigants
in Person strategy (LIPS) which is working to achieve better public understanding and
navigation of court processes; it was noted that the Civil Justice Council which has been
leading co-ordination of the LIPS strategy work has secured agreement for new strategic
priorities in addressing the access to justice needs of those without means; PLE is one
of three Delivery Priorities in that further strategy.
Tom then invited contributions from stakeholders and practitioners for their thoughts on
what key areas the APPG should work on. On schools Ruth Dwight highlighted
Citizenship in the curricula (compulsory since 2002), which has a PLE strand, however
teachers delivering citizenship often lack specialism and training in this area but it can
be supported by getting lawyers into schools. There was now a wider debate about
values in education under SMCS (pupils spiritual, moral, social and cultural
development), and Christina Rees noted that the different Welsh education context be
taken into account (the equivalent in Wales comes under the Education for Sustainable
Development and Global Citizenship programme or Addysg Llywodraeth Cymru drwy
ei rhaglen Addysg ar gyfer Datblygu Cynaliadwy a Dinasyddiaeth Fyd-eang sy'n rhan o'r
Cwricwlwm Cymreig). Matthew Smerdon made the point that materials and focusing on

training may not be sufficient and we needed to look at what incentives there are in the
curriculum for teachers to take up PLE on a bigger scale; in addition to looking at how
PLE in schools connects with citizenship and British values, we might look at how PLE
contributes to improved pupil attainment, which is a much higher education priority again it might provide greater incentive for schools to engage.
Julie Bishop suggested that PLE needed to be seen as an approach to addressing
unmet needs and resolving problems before they occur, citing Law Centres work with
migrant worker communities as well as asylum seekers who needed information before
coming to the UK; empowering people to understand the law and act for themselves to
resolve problems was itself a form of casework, and better use of information can also
be key to driving improvements and responsiveness in public services.
James Kenrick noted that levels of legal awareness and capability were lowest amongst
young people and this could also be linked to mental health outcomes; different
approaches are needed for different demographics and Youth Access are looking at
developing youth PLE projects nationally. A general discussion then ensued on different
or priority groups, Prisoners for example were highlighted as a key group who would
benefit from more PLE work in prisons; however Edward Garnier noted that PRT and
PET already lead on this with the support of an All Party Parliamentary Group, so we
shouldnt try and duplicate in this area.
Generally it was felt that the APPG should not be re-inventing the wheel but rather
should build on best practice and existing initiatives (eg the work of Lawforlife). The
group needed, in Lord Lows words a strategic focus appropriate to parliamentarians
such as identifying helpful policy levers at MoJ level, or engaging regulators to work with
the professions in delivering the regulatory objective of the Legal Services Act of
increasing public understanding of the citizens rights and duties. Tom felt it would be
helpful for the group to have a mapping document to better understand what
organisations and agencies are doing currently in the PLE field, the different approaches
adopted and where some of the gaps are. James Sandbach was asked undertake this
task to develop a paper for the advisory board which would be meeting in the next few
weeks.
Matthew Smerdon suggested that a key area where the APPG could make a difference
was through looking at PLE as a potentially assistive casework tool for MPs (and their
staff) in delivering their advice surgeries and other community outreach work. A survey
or analysis of presenting issues and awareness of legal matters amongst constituents
helped by MPs might be a useful project that could be undertaken.
Drawing the meeting to a close, a broad framework for future meetings was discussed
Tom suggested the group should aim to meet approximately once every 2 months (or 6
weeks max) when Parliament is in session, with parallel meeting of the advisory group
guiding the agenda, perhaps with each meeting addressing one individual topic at a time
starting with a presentation on that particular topic.