Forum Home → Discussion → Access to justice and advice sector issues → Thread
Legal aid, sentencing and punishment of offenders bill
Supreme court justices have raised concerns about LASPO, according to the Guardian, with the senior judges acknowledging the legislation was a political decision but cautioned that it would nonetheless cause difficulties and add to costs in the courts.
“The court of appeal now is being deluged by litigants in person which is a product of the absence of legal aid and that creates a logjam in itself,” said Lord Hope of Craighead, a Scottish justice who is deputy president of the supreme court.
“It doesn’t affect us [in the supreme court] but lower down the system it has a major effect. I well understand the huge concern about public expense but people who take these decisions must understand that narrowing legal aid has a cost implication on the system and its efficiency and quality.”
Lord Dyson, another supreme court judge, said he was “very worried” about access to justice for those who wanted to take judicial reviews or challenge tribunals. “I don’t see how contingency fee arrangements can work for those sorts of cases,” he said.
The appearance of more litigants in person was “a big concern”, Dyson added. “There are some very good litigants in person but there are an awful lot who, understandably, don’t know what they are doing. They feel frustrated, angry. They are not lawyers. They take masses of bad points. They waste a lot of the court’s time. And it’s a growing trend.”
A very strong piece from Lord Bach on the Guardian website about the 10% cuts in fees which came in this month.
Quietly and almost without notice, a scandal is about to occur that will affect the lives of many thousands of the poorest and most vulnerable in our society, as lawyers who give advice in the areas of social welfare law are to lose 10% of what are already pretty low fees.
Such lawyers – advising as they do on welfare benefits, housing, debt, community care, employment and education – are paid on a fixed-fee basis. The advice or legal help they give is invaluable to solving the legal problems of up to 1 million people each year. And the effect of this cut will be to make it even more difficult for them to carry on practising this type of law. If they don’t, who will?
Who are these lawyers? They are often from the not-for-profit sector, and work in law centres, Citizens Advice bureaux (CABs), and other advice centres. Some are solicitors or barristers in private practices. Many sacrifice more lucrative legal careers in order to practice in this vital area of law for the benefit of the poorest in society.
Obviously, if social welfare lawyers (community lawyers) give up, then it will be the poor and the most vulnerable who will suffer. They will not be able to get that early legal help that so often stops legal problems from escalating and thus costing the state large amounts of money in rehousing, further unmanageable debt, family breakdown and sometimes a descent into crime.
The quiet scandal of legal aid cuts
Today’s Leader in the Guardian is also unequivocal in opposing the scope and scale of the proposed cuts under LASPO.
Things will get very much worse with the legal aid, sentencing and punishment of offenders bill, which is coasting towards a third reading in the Commons next week. With the wholesale removal of state support from whole swaths of law, such as social security, the frail infrastructure of community law centres and advice bureaux could wither away. These not-for-profit outfits should be integral to any “big society”, yet somehow their rent has to be paid, and, in practice, it has often been through legal aid fees. The government’s own impact assessment does not disguise that very many will shut their doors.
A shame, but one that cannot be avoided in these fiscal climes, is the best argument ministers can muster. That really won’t do. The Ministry of Justice might save but the exchequer will not do so, since unaided cases will soon translate into destitution that will continue to trigger costly interventions from various social services. A coalition that talks a good deal about English liberties should reflect on Lady Hale’s reminder of an old saying, which is acquiring a chilling new resonance. “In England, justice is open to all – like the Ritz.”
Lord Bach’s motion was subject to debate in the House of Lords last night.
Moved By Lord Bach
That a Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Community Legal Service (Funding) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2011 (SI 2011/2066), laid before the House on 24 August, be annulled, on the grounds that the reduction in civil standard and graduated fees for Legal Help and Help at Court will seriously undermine access to justice because it threatens the financial viability of already hard-pressed community legal practitioners who carry out an essential service to those least able to afford it, including the most vulnerable in our society.
Lord Bach opened by noting agreement with the need for cuts to the legal aid budget, but that these cuts were too much and too fast. He then went onto a second point:
“One of the areas in which they have chosen to axe legal aid, take it out of scope altogether and make savings in fees, is precisely the wrong area of law. They intend to remove welfare benefits advice and representation at all levels, including up to the Supreme Court; employment advice; much housing advice and even more debt advice; and some community care advice and education advice-in other words, advice to the poor and the vulnerable.”
Acknowledging that this point wasn’t central to this specific debate, he stated that nonetheless in terms of the 10% cut to fees:
“To describe it as a rough and ready figure would be a gross understatement. It is a crude and ill thought-out measure with no evidential justification whatever.”
He pointed out that similar cuts have not been proposed for criminal legal aid. He noted the relatively poor pay levels for legal aid practitioners, as well as knock-on impacts to the not-for-profit advice services who will be hardest hit, as well as raising the case of Law for All going into administration. He finished with a very bold statement:
“The [10%] cuts as they affect social welfare law fees are all of £5 million. That is a figure that the Legal Action Group has confirmed. Of course it is a rough figure but it shows just how much or, rather, how little will be saved by this order. Saving £5 million in fees when Her Majesty’s Government intend to spend £250 million on ensuring that there are weekly rather than fortnightly collections of rubbish is absolute nonsense.”
Baroness Deech, Lord Scott of Foscote, The Earl of Listowel, The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, Lord Beecham, Lord Newton of Braintree, Lord Martin of Springburn all spoke in favour of the motion, with only Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames speaking against.
Responding for the government, the Minister of State for the Ministry of Justice Lord McNally said, in relation to advice services:
“The Government accept that the proposed reforms may be particularly challenging to the not-for-profit sector. That was raised by a number of colleagues. However, it is also the case that the major issue for this sector, generally, is change to other sources of funding; for example, as was acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, from local authority cuts, which may make supply in the areas they cover vulnerable in any event.
This is clearly a matter for concern for the Government as a whole, and the issue of the future of the voluntary advice sector will be considered as part of a cross-Government review on which an expected announcement will be made shortly. In the interim, the Government have already provided transition funding to assist the not-for-profit sector to adapt to the changing financial environment. I understand that overall 45 individual CABs and 17 law centres have taken advantage of this fund. As the noble Lord will be aware, the Government will also be providing a further £20 million of funding for the not-for-profit sector. Specific details of this fund will be made available shortly.”
In terms of access for clients, he claimed that:
“In the context of legal aid services, the issue is whether services will be available for clients rather than whether that service is provided by any particular provider. We assessed the likely impact of the reforms when considering the responses to the consultation and overall are satisfied that the reforms are sustainable and that, although individual providers may leave the legal aid scheme, there will be a sufficient supply of providers of satisfactory quality to provide an appropriate level of service in all areas of law. The Government therefore consider that the fee reductions will be sustainable and will ensure that clients can continue to access legally aided services.
In addition, there is a genuine alternative. The Community Legal Advice telephone helpline is an alternative for those involved in legal aid. I see the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, shaking his head. The other night, I went to a Law Society function giving prizes to successful law firms, and I was amazed by how many of the prize winners were offering online and distance advice. The old idea of face-to-face may not survive. There is no doubt in my mind that the legal profession is a profession in transition in many respects.”
In withdrawing his motion, Lord Bach finished by saying:
“If the noble Lord is right, perhaps he will explain this decimation of social welfare law, with its few savings for the Ministry of Justice, and how it will cost infinitely more to the state as a whole when problems are not solved, people are chucked out of their houses, debts grow bigger, families break down and children commit crime. Other departments will have to pick up the pieces for the paltry savings that the Ministry of Justice will make. Please do not give us that stuff about public spending. The truth is that these Ministry of Justice savings-we have said that we accept that the MoJ has to find a number of savings-will cost the state and the community much, much more.”
BBC News reporting that a coalition of charities including Scope and Mind argue that limiting access to “vital” help in England and Wales would harm vulnerable people. The 23 organisations, which also include Mencap, the RNIB and Leonard Cheshire (and Lasa), want MPs to back an amendment to the Legal Aid and Sentencing Bill - put forward by Lib Dem Tom Brake - reversing the decision when the proposed legislation is debated.
The disability rights groups say the changes mean up to 80,000 people will no longer be able to get access to publicly funded legal advice to help them challenge benefit decisions.
“Legal advice is vital for disabled people if they fall foul of poor decision-making, red tape or administrative error,” Scope’s chief executive Richard Hawkes said. “For welfare reform to work, disabled people have to get support to appeal decisions relating to their benefits, especially within a system where errors are commonplace.
“Cutting legal aid in this area will make it harder for disabled people to get the right support and ultimately could drive more people further away from work.”
Warning over legal aid cuts for disabled people
In terms of the amendments referred to in the above story, the Guardian carried a story on Saturday with more details.
Senior Liberal Democrat MPs have staged a rebellion against coalition government plans to slice £350m a year out of the legal aid budget, warning that it will restrict access to justice.
A series of amendments to the legal aid, sentencing and punishment of offenders bill have been tabled by Tom Brake and Mike Crockart, the two Lib Dem MPs who sat on the committee stage of the bill, and supported by Simon Hughes.
Their proposals are the first significant signs of a split between the two parties in the coalition over the proposed legislation and challenge the most more controversial proposals within the bill.
“I suspect there’s quite a lot of backbench support,” said Brake, the Lib Dem MP for Carshalton and Wallington and formerly his party’s home affairs spokesman.
Lib Dem MPs rebel against proposals to cut legal aid funding
Finally, today’s Guardian highlights a report by the National Federation of Women’s Institutes (NFWI), entitled Legal Aid is a Lifeline, which claims that too narrow a definition of domestic violence will deprive many vulnerable women of the protection they need.
Under the government proposals, although the definition of domestic violence which would entitle individuals to legal aid does include psychological abuse, civil liberties and women’s groups say it is more restrictive than the support currently available and inconsistent with the definition used elsewhere in the legal system by the Association of Chief Police Officers.
“The government must include a comprehensive definition of domestic violence in the bill that adheres to wider government policy, such as the definition used by Acpo,” the Women’s Institute report states.
“The proposed eligibility criteria for women to access legal aid in family cases fails to reflect women’s experiences of domestic violence. Many women do not disclose domestic violence, and certain types of abuse such as psychological and sexual violence are extremely difficult to prove.”
Abused women will suffer from legal aid cuts, charity claims
Today sees a joint meeting of the All Party Parliamentary Groups on Domestic Violence and Legal Aid taking place in the House of Commons Committee Room 8 at 1pm, with the LASPO debate scheduled to start at 2.30pm.
Briefly, at the APPG, we heard about the WI’s many years of campaigning on issues of domestic violence, followed by moving testimonies from 3 DV survivors. Emma Scott from Rights of Woman raised three key objections to the approach contained within LASPO - (1) definition of DV in the Bill is not the agreed cross-governmental definition (part of the National DV Strategy); (2) the Gateway to eligibility has ‘dangerously restrictive criteria’ that don’t reflect womens’ experience of DV; (3) evidential 12-month threshold is dangerous because it doesn’t recognise the ongoing nature of much DV following relationship breakdown. She also expressed concerns over the approach to immigration cases where DV is a factor. (You can download a copy of the WI report ‘Legal aid is a lifeline: women speak out on the legal aid reforms’)
I later attended a St Mungo’s launch of thei new report Battered, broken, bereft, which amongst many findings, showed that 35% of women rough sleepers were on the streets because of domestic violence. Meanwhile, in the Commons, the Report stage debate had kicked off, with the first subject for discussion being a raft of amendments relating to domestic violence. Djanogly gave a very fractured (and long-winded) overview of government proposals, with Andy Slaughter intervening at 6pm to highlight the above meetings and to say:
Mr Slaughter The Minister was slightly dismissive when he said that a number of the amendments on domestic violence had been dealt with in similar terms in Committee. They were indeed, and they were dealt with in some of the Committee’s most heated sittings. He has again
31 Oct 2011 : Column 652
shown a rather dismissive manner today, although Labour Members gave him a very clear expression of what they think of the Government’s attitude in the Bill to domestic violence. Perhaps he needs to get out more to see what is happening in the real world.
Helen Goodman went onto say:
‘We have demonstrated
31 Oct 2011 : Column 659
that under his definition, some 20,000 victims of domestic violence will not get legal aid each year who would get it currently. That is the problem.
I remind the Minister of what the Bar Council is saying:
“The narrow definition of domestic abuse, which is more restrictive than that used by the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers and will limit legal aid to victims of certain ‘types’ of abuse”.
It states that there are:
“Excessively narrow referral mechanisms for victims of domestic abuse, who will not be eligible for civil legal aid if, for example, they have been admitted to a refuge but have chosen not to bring proceedings against their abusive partner”.’
The debate subsequently moved onto clinical negligence claims, with the domestic violence amendments being voted down, as scheduled at 10pm. Noticeably, many Lib Dem MP’s who had variously spoken against these and other proposals in LASPO all voted with the government.
Thus, the amendments related to social welfare law were not debated at all as time had run out:
Mr Slaughter: It is good to hear the Minister talking about possible future concessions in this area. To be fair to him, he has always said that the Government’s aim is to protect the most vulnerable. How does he square that with the fact that he has orchestrated the talking out of the main group of amendments today, which affects many of the lowest-income and most vulnerable people in this country? Why are we not getting on to talking about other areas of social welfare law? Is it to protect
31 Oct 2011 : Column 712
the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), whose law centre is losing all its funding? Is it to protect the Minister’s coalition allies from withdrawing—
Mr Speaker: Order. I think that we have got the gist of it.
Mr Djanogly: I say to the hon. Gentleman that I have enjoyed listening to my hon. Friends and to some of his hon. Friends this evening, in what has been a very informed debate. We have heard some expert contributions, not least from my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham, who started by saying that he had acted in 100 clinical negligence cases. I do not think that there has been any time wasting at all—not nearly as much time wasting as when the hon. Gentleman held a three-hour debate on the first group of amendments on the first day in Committee.
Mr Slaughter: We spent the first 10 minutes of this debate talking about the Minister’s declaration of interests, which was very substantially overdue. All I would say to him, as a last contribution, is that many people will be watching this debate tonight, particularly in another place. They will draw their own conclusions from his unwillingness to debate those issues.
Mr Djanogly: I hope those many people will be as unimpressed as I am by what the hon. Gentleman just said.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
[ Edited: 1 Nov 2011 at 12:07 pm by Paul Treloar ]Oh, forgot to mention that there is a briefing session taking place this afternoon in the House of Lords, on social welfare issues. Speakers include:
• Dame Professor Hazel Genn, Dean of the Faculty of Law, UCL
• Steve Hynes, CEO, Legal Action Group
• Sue Bent, Director, Coventry Law Centre
• James Sandbach, Director of Policy, Citizens Advice Bureaux
• Elizabeth O’Hara, Policy Officer, Shelter
I will try and type up some notes from yesterday’s briefing for Lords in due course, but here’s a very strong letter to the Guardian from Vera Baird QC in response to Djanogly’s statements on legal aid and domestic violence.
The victim may have been to her doctor, battered and bruised. A&E may be used to seeing her with boot-marks on her face. This is no evidence, says Djanogly: “Although they may witness injuries, it may be difficult for them to determine how they occurred.” But that isn’t honest. If they are certain how the injuries occurred, since she isn’t in one of the eligible categories, she still won’t get legal aid. Nor is there any point in evidence from a neighbour, who may have heard blows, sheltered her or run in and rescued her. Nor from police who arrested an abuser.
If the abuser is charged and goes on a perpetrator programme to avoid court, neither the charge nor his presence on the programme will cut any ice. Judges tell perpetrators to save the costs of a hearing by undertaking to stop the abuse. It is contempt of court if he breaks this undertaking. But it will not get her legal aid. Someone may have reliable eyewitnesses, police and medical evidence, photos of injuries, have fled to a refuge, have undertakings not to assault, have a partner on a perpetrator programme – but they will not get legal aid.
This is nothing to do with ensuring that “genuine victims” get help; it is a dishonest, circular and cruel way of ensuring that the minimum number do.
Legal aid bill threat to abused women
Also, disputes breaking out between Labour and Lib Dem MP’s about Monday night’s vote, as noted in a previous post.
Liberal Democrat MPs who tabled a series of amendments that would have overturned key aspects of the government’s legal aid reforms have provoked a furious row over their voting record.
Labour has accused them of trying “to have their cake and eat it” by declining to push their amendments to a division and then voting against similar opposition motions.
Liberal Democrat push to amend legal aid reforms provokes fury
LASPO has now ckeared the Commons stages and moves through to the House of Lords, It was voted through by 306 votes to 228, a government majority of 78. As far as I understand things, the first Lords debate is scheduled to take place on 21 November,
BBC report notes that Labour, the Lib Dems and Plaid Cymru all expressed concerns about cuts to legal aid during the bill’s three-day debate. They argued that thousands of domestic violence victims would be left to “suffer in silence” because they would only be able to receive funding after reporting their abuse to the police.
They also said disabled people would lose out and be unable to challenge unfair benefit decisions made against them.
Thanks to Gail from Justice for All for highlighting this statement from Djanogly in relation to advice service funding.
2 Nov 2011 : Column 1005
Mr Djanogly: In addition, the Lord Chancellor announced £20 million for this financial year to support not-for-profit agencies delivering front-line services. Both citizens advice bureaux and advice centres more widely will be able to bid for that. Work between Departments on the administration of the fund is proceeding well. I hope and expect that the Cabinet Office will make an announcement shortly to provide the detailed terms of the fund. A review of free advice centres will be launched to ensure that we are doing all we can to support the sector. The review will start in early November and conclude early in the new year. It will look at the future funding for these services and likely levels of demand, and will focus on what Government can do to help the sector.
Further along, he comes out with this load of tosh on welfare benefits:
2 Nov 2011 : Column 1006
The hon. Members for Hammersmith and for Makerfield spoke about welfare benefits law being complex and asked how claimants could prepare their own tribunal applications. In most cases individuals will be able to appeal to the first tier social security and child support tribunal without formal legal assistance. The appellant is required only to provide reasons for disagreeing with the decision in plain language. According to the 2007-08 report by the president of the tribunal, it is a regular theme at the tribunal that DWP decisions are most commonly overturned because the tribunal elicits additional information from the appellant, rather than through legal arguments. So success is clearly not generally dependent on the appellant receiving legal advice. (My bolding)
[ Edited: 4 Nov 2011 at 01:19 pm by Paul Treloar ]Paul
I know you commented on his lack of sharpness in another place (pun intended) but you can’t fault his level of disingenuousness. He has few rivals.
The Law Gazette reports that proposed cuts to legal aid threaten to undermine a decade of pro bono work, at the start of the tenth national pro bono week.
A Law Society survey in the spring revealed that just under half of solicitors in private practice had undertaken pro bono work in the previous 12 months, conducting an average of 55 hours each, with an estimated total value of £518m.
But the leaders of the Law Society, Bar Council and Institute of Legal Executives have warned that the government’s proposed funding cuts could limit the ability of the legal profession to continue providing pro bono assistance.
Thanks to Gail from Justice for All for highlighting this statement from Djanogly in relation to advice service funding.
2 Nov 2011 : Column 1005
Mr Djanogly: In addition, the Lord Chancellor announced £20 million for this financial year to support not-for-profit agencies delivering front-line services. Both citizens advice bureaux and advice centres more widely will be able to bid for that. Work between Departments on the administration of the fund is proceeding well. I hope and expect that the Cabinet Office will make an announcement shortly to provide the detailed terms of the fund. A review of free advice centres will be launched to ensure that we are doing all we can to support the sector. The review will start in early November and conclude early in the new year. It will look at the future funding for these services and likely levels of demand, and will focus on what Government can do to help the sector.]
Is this the transition fund, which has already been dished out or is it separate funding?
There was a separate Transition Fund, administered by BIG, and which has allocated all of the available £100m.
Whereas, the £20m referred to here is what was announced by Ken Clarke in June.
Thanks Paul,
I was a bit concerned because there was confusion on this issue a few months ago when a junior minister referred to extra money but it turned out he was referring to the already spent transition fund.
Scope launched a report yesterday, Legal aid in welfare: the tool we can’t afford to lose which was commissioned by Justice for All
The report follows the experience of five people as they appeal against incorrect decisions, with and without the help of legal aid. It shows the vital role legal advice plays in helping people navigate a complex system. Thus, it aims to show how removing help with welfare benefit appeals could undermine government’s reform of the benefits system.
Disabled people make up 58 per cent of those who receive legal aid for welfare benefits cases. This translates to over 78,000 disabled people each year who will be denied specialist legal advice if these measures go through.
To accompany the launch of the report, there was a House of Lords briefing event, to inform Peers and Lords of the potential impacts and effects of proposed legal aid reforms upon disabled people. Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to make this event so I don’t know how it went.
Here’s a copy of the Justice for All briefing for Peers in the Lords.
The House of Lords Constitution Committee has published a report on Part 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, that is the part of the Bill which deals with legal aid. The Committee states that the extent of the proposed cuts to legal aid, and the manner in which they are to be delivered, raises issues around important constitutional principles of access to justice.
14. Clause 1 provides that “The Lord Chancellor must secure that legal aid is made available in accordance with this Part”. There is no reference in this provision to the overarching constitutional principles which, in our view, should frame decision-making about legal aid. The law currently provides that the Legal Services Commission is under a statutory duty “within the resources made available” to ensure that “individuals have access to services that effectively meet their needs”.[11] Clause 1 should be amended to read: “The Lord Chancellor must secure that legal aid is made available in order to ensure effective access to justice”.
Lords Constitution Committee criticises plans to reduce access to legal aid
The Second Reading of LASPO took place on Monday in the Lords.
If you can’t face reading through the whole of the debate (which covered 8 hours in all), the Guardian printed a helpful summary of various statements from Lords, “Is this possible?”
I would add to their summary, this from Lord Beecham, which pretty much hits the nail on the head around the withdrawal of legal aid for welfare benefits:
Lord Beecham: 21 Nov 2011 : Column 932
If there is no legal aid for welfare benefit advice, some of the biggest losers will be people with disabilities. These people often need legal advice to obtain the benefits they have a right to. The figure of 78,000 disabled people who will be denied specialist legal help for complicated welfare benefit problems is staggering. But the Government say, at the moment, “No, these people do not need legal advice. They can do it themselves. It is all general stuff. It is all comparatively easy”. Actually, the DWP guidance now runs to, as I understand it, 9,000 pages: a good deal more than the CPAG guidance that my noble friend first wrote. As the president of the Social Entitlement Chamber, Judge Robert Martin has said that where people have not had legal advice, about 10 per cent of hearing time at welfare benefit tribunals is spent just explaining what is going on. No wonder that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, said in her Henry Hodge Memorial Lecture, and I quote:
“The idea that the law in some of these areas is simple and easy to understand is laughable”.
Fair play to the man.
I loved the following.
“Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, one of the three great universal lies is, “I am from the Government and I am here to help you”. “
Went to a session on Wednesday evening on ways to lobby Lords, with Lord Bach in attendance. He was optimistic (in his own words) that some further concessions may be possible in the Lords, including welfare benefits.
Law Gazette are also reporting similar opinions, including the possibility that Ken Clarke has already agreed to bring clinical negligence back into scope (although unconfirmed at the moment).
Hopes are emerging that the government will amend at least some of its legal aid reforms after peers voiced overwhelming criticism this week.
Indeed the Mirror has today reported that justice secretary Ken Clarke has ditched the proposal to remove legal aid for clinical negligence claims.
The Ministry of Justice neither confirmed nor denied the story, saying: ‘That’s not an announcement that we’ve made and so the bill as it is, stands.’
The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill passed its second reading in the House of Lords after an eight-hour battering on Monday. Only three of the 54 peers who spoke offered support.
Labour’s former legal aid minister Lord Bach told the Gazette that the debate was ‘a good start for those of us who want to see changes made’. There was an ‘overwhelming feeling’ that the government has got it wrong on part 1 of the bill, which introduces the legal aid reforms, he said.
Bach was ‘fairly hopeful’ of some concessions, because criticism of the bill was so widespread. ‘It wasn’t Labour versus the Conservatives, but the whole house against one government minister, and that is very powerful,’ he added.
I loved the following.
“Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, one of the three great universal lies is, “I am from the Government and I am here to help you”. “
Why’s that then? Was he not in government?
I loved the following.
“Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, one of the three great universal lies is, “I am from the Government and I am here to help you”. “
Why’s that then? Was he not in government?
No, he’s never been in government.
the govt has announced that the legal aid scope changes have been put back to april 2013 ...
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-vote-office/9.Justice-LegalAidReform.pdf
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/ken-clarke-postpones-legal-aid-reforms-and-tendering
What this affects in a nutshell is the following:
• The abolition of the Legal Services Commission
• Introduction of new contracts for the delivery of civil legal aid reflecting the future scope of the scheme
• Implementation of a mandatory telephone gateway to access civil legal aid advice; and
• Introduction of revised eligibility criteria to access civil legal aid
There is a new Justice for All briefing for Lords been made available, on legal aid and welfare benefits.
The next meeting of the APPG on Legal Aid is on Tuesday 13th December 4.30-5.45pm. Even if you cannot attend, please could you cut and paste the details to your local MP (and any Lord you are in touch with) and ask them to attend.
The venue is the Grand Committee Room, Westminster Hall. Enter by the main entrance at Cromwell Green (go down the ramp, past the statue of Cromwell, go through security, follow the signs for visitors and when you walk into the large and rather austere Hall that is Westminster Hall. If you do not spot the signs for the Grand Committee Room, just ask the guides and they will point out where it is. There may or may not be a queue for security so you may want to aim to arrive about 4.15 to make sure you are on time.)
The topic is ‘Children and Young People: how are they affected by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill?’ The government’s own estimate is that 75,000 children and young people will lose civil legal aid each year. Research indicates this is likely to lead to increased homelessness, mental health problems and crime.
Confirmed speakers are:-
* Baroness King of Bow
* Dr Maggie Atkinson, The Children’s Commissioner
* Enver Solomon, Children’s Society
* Barbara Rayment, Director, Youth Access
Guardian has an article by Robert Buckland, the Conservative MP for South Swindon, a Crown Court recorder and a former criminal barrister on LASPO. Predictably, he’s in favour of the reforms but also makes a call for proper funding of law centres and CABx to be put in place. Some interesting comments at the end of the piece also.
Are the legal aid reforms controversial? Yes. Will they lead to a fundamental change of direction for public funding of legal work? No. I believe that these proposals are simply part of a wider move away from a “mixed economy” of legal aid cases - where public and private law matters alike attracted funding - towards a system of legal aid that concentrates upon funding public cases only. In other words, the system is increasingly concentrating its resources upon cases where people with insufficient means challenge the acts or omissions of the state, in its various forms.
There is significant concern too about housing, welfare and benefits advice, which is often only available from a law centre or appropriately accredited Citizens Advice Bureaux. The government’s decision to spend £20m on the not-for-profit legal sector in the first year after the changes is very welcome. I want to see a system of funding for these organisations much like the one operated by the Australian federal government to its law centres, with an emphasis on help and intervention before the “litigation point” is even reached. The Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Justice must work together more effectively to create the conditions in which local law centres and CABx can provide these services across the country.
I may be very unpopular on this forum for saying this, but having worked under the LSC contract for years, I broadly agree with his point of view. I hate the bureaucratic nature of the LSC contract and the silly criteria imposed on service providers which often hinders us in acting in the best interests of the clients.
The problem is not that WB will be taken out of scope, the real problem is that there is nothing else in place for funding it properly or not on the same scale anyway. £20m for the whole advice sector nation wide is just a drop on the ocean and people WILL be left without valuable advice as a result of LASPO.
But I do agree with the point that the government should also focus on making better decisions and that WB advice can be perfectly administered by CABx and Law Centres…provided REAL funding is in place, that is.
I would hope that you wouldn’t be “very unpopular” for posting anything here, to be honest.
I also don’t think that anyone would argue that the LSC beauracracy is what any right-minded individual would want as a backdrop to a free legal aid system - however, the issue of the working methods, procedures and protocols of the LSC do not, in my opinion, provide any justifiable basis for completely removing welfare benefits from the scope of free legally aided advice, particularly at a time of welfare reforms of an unprecendented scale.
Yes, the £20million fund is a completely unstrategic way to prop up organisatiopns struggling with losing statutory funding. It’s a necessary step though, in that not-for-profit advice services have been actively encouraged to undertake social welfare legal aid work since 1999, and pulling away the rug in this fashion (with estimates that at least 65% of the impact of funding cuts will be on the NfP sector, possibly as much as 80-90%) is completely reckless and destructive.
It’s all very well Mr Buckland saying things need to change, the problem is that he offers no solutions, nor does his party, to either the sustainability and the value of a healthy independent advice sector, nor to the thorny issue of DWP/HMRC/LA decision making - in fact, one could posit a view that their policy making taken as a whole is actually making the situation a huindred times worse. In the absence of any such solutions, one does feel that the phrase “the lady doth protest too much” could well be applied to his article.
[ Edited: 16 Dec 2011 at 01:17 pm by Paul Treloar ]