Post by nickd on Mar 19, 2011 22:28:14 GMT 1
On the 17th March I attended an event in London where Mr Djanogly (minister for Legal Aid) made himself available on a panel; - taking questions from a packed audience of those concerned about Government's plans to seriously restrict the availability of legal aid.
I was delighted to get this opportunity to personally question Mr Djanogly and challenge him on his plans to effectively bring about the end of the Community Legal Service.
I was particularly pleased to be able to speak of my concerns amongst some very prominent speakers. It was great to be able to put my question as someone who is on the frontline as a legal aid supervisor in my work with South Hams CAB in Devon. This is the level Mylegal teams members are going to in voicing our concerns and those of the people we help ; - the public who so often benefit from the help we provide.
Here's my account of how the day went........
______________________________________
Wow!
...was my initial thought as I approached the offices of Allen and Overy in Bishops Square; a stone's throw from Liverpool Street Station. I got there a little early and went for a coffee in nearby Starbucks. I looked out of the coffee shop at the ultra modern 10-storey building, with it's gleaming plate glass windows and wondered what to expect. As I entered the airport terminal style reception I was soon to find out. Any one of the eight or so high speed brushed aluminum lifts would swallow up your average CAB interview room - I kid you not.
The lift propelled me skywards quicker than a space shuttle. Before long I was shown to the ultra modern and impressive space the event was to be held in. As I registered, I was told I had been selected to ask one of my choice of questions; I asked which one had been chosen and was told it was my number one choice - that's brilliant, I thought!
The room was adjacent to a rooftop terrace from which the views of the London sky line were truly breathtaking. This is how city lawyers see it I thought. It's definitely a million miles from the world of the average legal aid practitioner, that's for sure and, a trillion miles from our little office in South Devon I can tell you.
I had an interesting chat with a Criminal barrister; he'd been chosen to ask a question too. He told me how he'd just defended someone on a benefit fraud charge. His client has been acquitted of failing to tell the DWP she lived with a partner, the jury believed her story but she still faces a £70,000 overpayment. He asked me what could be done and I explained the overpayment needed to be appealed separately. He was surprised to hear that CAB and other independent advice agencies provide publicly funded legal aid advice. I told him we'd been doing so for ten years. I also explained that's why I was glad my question had been chosen. The message over our part in legal aid has still not sunk in, even after a decade.
The room filled up, there were no spare seats, people stood around the perimeter, it's always great to see a good turn out. Be in no doubt, there is plenty of growing interest in the numbers of those voicing concerns over these ill thought out reforms to legal aid.
And so the panel took up their places: Jonathan Djanogly MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (HM Court Service and Legal Aid), Lord Bach, Shadow Justice Secretary, Diane Burleigh, Chief Executive, ILEX, Desmond Hudson, Chief Executive of the Law Society of England and Wales, Peter Lodder QC, Chairman of the Bar Council - the event being chaired by Joshua Rozenberg, Legal Journalist and Commentator.
And so the questions started, no one was backwards at coming forward.
I have to confess that although I was listening and following; - it's difficult to concentrate when you know you're in the line up and soon to get your own turn, so forgive me if this post is a little too focused on the question I raised.
And so my turn came. You're helped because your question appears on a big screen at the front of the room. My question was this:
Does the panel agree that the proposed reductions in social welfare law legal aid effectively brings about the end of the Community Legal Service?
I added to the question by saying how our own contract had run perfectly well for the last 10 years, and was an effective community partnership with other CAB, Shelter and local solicitors from both the criminal and civil sectors.
Each member of the panel gave their respective replies; the overwhelming view was that yes, these reforms will bring about the end of the Community Legal Service if they are allowed to go ahead.
Lord Bach gave a passionate response on the value of social welfare advice and, quoted how it would be "ludicrous" to remove legal aid at this current moment in time. I know where that quote came from.
Mr Djanogly's response was less supportive. He talked along the lines of a script, with the usual references to 'inefficiencies' and reference to the addition of a 'significant number' of scope areas since the Community Legal Service was set up.
Djanogly started to go down the all too predictable 'general help' argument and associated it with problems with 'advice sector' funding.
I confess to becoming somewhat incensed whenever I hear this and so my hand shot up; I wanted to exercise my right to reply and I ensured I got it.
I explained there's a world of difference between the general help generally provided in the main by our volunteers and the work we do under our legal aid contract as paid specialists and solicitors.
I reminded Mr Djanogly of how it was that the Access to Justice Act which, as part of an 'innovative reform' programme, considered the voluntary sector to be best placed to provide specialist help in welfare benefits and debt advice. It makes sense because it's what we've dealt with for years. We were considered best placed to provide it and what's more it was an essential part of any community to ensure it's accessible to those in need of it.
Furthermore, I extended an invitation to 'Jonathan' to come to South Devon, where I'd be happy to show him the difference between general help and any number of cases, particularly those at the tribunal stage, which are clearly specialist advice. I also explained that I'd offered a similar invitation to other local South Devon MP's and was still waiting.
Mr Djanogly responded by thanking me for the invitation and said he'd be happy to take it up when he was "in the area". He also seemed to concede that there were 'difficulties' over the division between the areas of general help and specialist advice. I was delighted that the question got a good round of applause - as did Lord Bach's reply.
And so the meeting went on.
Mr Djanogly scored an own goal when he praised another speaking for keeping their client informed of legal aid fees every six months. Without thinking over what he was saying, he recalled how when he was in practice he was often asked to update his client's every two or three days. He'd not realized the significance of his humorous reply until someone reminded him that the concern over fees was likely to exist far more when you're a high charging, high flying corporate lawyer! To be fair, he seemed to take it in good spirit. The fat cat lawyer argument fell at Mr Djanogly's feet, rather than at those in the audience.
My overall impression is we have already won the argument, it's so plain to see, there's no contesting it. Although, it doesn't mean Government is going to let us win the battle.
The problem is, it's part of a wider agenda. I am convinced that we can win, there was a good few prominent people at this event and I felt quite humbled to be able to be amongst them and to tell it like it is from the front-line; because that's where I'm coming from.
This isn't about posh talking fat cats lawyers, it's about common sense. It's about seeing legal aid reform as a political choice when logic is telling everyone it is ludicrous to take away essential help to people in genuine need.
If there were 100 people in the room (it looked as though there were considerably more) the overwhelming impression was there were 99 people against these reforms and only one in support.
I'll leave it to you to work out who the odd one out was.
Sometimes you just look a person in the face and ask yourself if they really believe in everything they say. In all honesty, the impression I got when standing about 3-metres from Mr Djanogly was that he knows he's trying to sell a dead horse. I think he knows he will have to give way on some of this, particularly in the area of social welfare law.
I had a good chat with a good few people in the drinks reception after the event. I was touched when I received words of praise from Diane Burleigh of Ilex - she's asked me to forward an article for their magazine.
The overall consensus appears to be that we can win.
Let me make it clear that in saying this in no way can allow our momentum to stop. We need to keep chipping away at this without thoughts of giving up, we need to keep the accounts coming in of how we help people (mylegal.org.uk), the overwhelming message is these are our best argument.
Everyone has a part to play in this. At ilegal and MyLegal we are a committed lot fighting this campaign, but we do it without any funding and, our time is limited too, so I make a plea for all of you to do something to keep this up. It's in your hands as much as ours.
I came away from the event feeling elated. I felt like punching the air as I walked down the road to Liverpool Street. This was a good day and no;- it's not too many wines doing the talking!
I've asked Kathie Clarke of Lawworks to let me have the event transcript when it becomes available. Thanks go to all those who arranged this event and to Allen and Overy for providing such an impressive venue.
Thanks also go to ilegal for being the place where I found out about the event in the first place; there's a huge wealth of information in the ilegal network and I'm glad to be a part of it.
My gratitude also goes to my own Bureau for allowing me to attend! It's good to be part of an organisation which can see the value of fighting these reforms, we do so to protect the future and to ensure we continue to do all we can to make sure we are still able to help our clients.
See also my posts on the HoC event on the 16th March, coming up soon.
Mylegal viewers would be surprised at how much work goes on behind the scenes, we are vigorously fighting these reforms on behalf of the public; - for it is those who stand most to lose. Please feel free to post anything which may help us fight these plans to practically abolish legal aid. You'll probably only miss it when you need it; - and by then it just may be too late!
I was delighted to get this opportunity to personally question Mr Djanogly and challenge him on his plans to effectively bring about the end of the Community Legal Service.
I was particularly pleased to be able to speak of my concerns amongst some very prominent speakers. It was great to be able to put my question as someone who is on the frontline as a legal aid supervisor in my work with South Hams CAB in Devon. This is the level Mylegal teams members are going to in voicing our concerns and those of the people we help ; - the public who so often benefit from the help we provide.
Here's my account of how the day went........
______________________________________
Wow!
...was my initial thought as I approached the offices of Allen and Overy in Bishops Square; a stone's throw from Liverpool Street Station. I got there a little early and went for a coffee in nearby Starbucks. I looked out of the coffee shop at the ultra modern 10-storey building, with it's gleaming plate glass windows and wondered what to expect. As I entered the airport terminal style reception I was soon to find out. Any one of the eight or so high speed brushed aluminum lifts would swallow up your average CAB interview room - I kid you not.
The lift propelled me skywards quicker than a space shuttle. Before long I was shown to the ultra modern and impressive space the event was to be held in. As I registered, I was told I had been selected to ask one of my choice of questions; I asked which one had been chosen and was told it was my number one choice - that's brilliant, I thought!
The room was adjacent to a rooftop terrace from which the views of the London sky line were truly breathtaking. This is how city lawyers see it I thought. It's definitely a million miles from the world of the average legal aid practitioner, that's for sure and, a trillion miles from our little office in South Devon I can tell you.
I had an interesting chat with a Criminal barrister; he'd been chosen to ask a question too. He told me how he'd just defended someone on a benefit fraud charge. His client has been acquitted of failing to tell the DWP she lived with a partner, the jury believed her story but she still faces a £70,000 overpayment. He asked me what could be done and I explained the overpayment needed to be appealed separately. He was surprised to hear that CAB and other independent advice agencies provide publicly funded legal aid advice. I told him we'd been doing so for ten years. I also explained that's why I was glad my question had been chosen. The message over our part in legal aid has still not sunk in, even after a decade.
The room filled up, there were no spare seats, people stood around the perimeter, it's always great to see a good turn out. Be in no doubt, there is plenty of growing interest in the numbers of those voicing concerns over these ill thought out reforms to legal aid.
And so the panel took up their places: Jonathan Djanogly MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (HM Court Service and Legal Aid), Lord Bach, Shadow Justice Secretary, Diane Burleigh, Chief Executive, ILEX, Desmond Hudson, Chief Executive of the Law Society of England and Wales, Peter Lodder QC, Chairman of the Bar Council - the event being chaired by Joshua Rozenberg, Legal Journalist and Commentator.
And so the questions started, no one was backwards at coming forward.
I have to confess that although I was listening and following; - it's difficult to concentrate when you know you're in the line up and soon to get your own turn, so forgive me if this post is a little too focused on the question I raised.
And so my turn came. You're helped because your question appears on a big screen at the front of the room. My question was this:
Does the panel agree that the proposed reductions in social welfare law legal aid effectively brings about the end of the Community Legal Service?
I added to the question by saying how our own contract had run perfectly well for the last 10 years, and was an effective community partnership with other CAB, Shelter and local solicitors from both the criminal and civil sectors.
Each member of the panel gave their respective replies; the overwhelming view was that yes, these reforms will bring about the end of the Community Legal Service if they are allowed to go ahead.
Lord Bach gave a passionate response on the value of social welfare advice and, quoted how it would be "ludicrous" to remove legal aid at this current moment in time. I know where that quote came from.
Mr Djanogly's response was less supportive. He talked along the lines of a script, with the usual references to 'inefficiencies' and reference to the addition of a 'significant number' of scope areas since the Community Legal Service was set up.
Djanogly started to go down the all too predictable 'general help' argument and associated it with problems with 'advice sector' funding.
I confess to becoming somewhat incensed whenever I hear this and so my hand shot up; I wanted to exercise my right to reply and I ensured I got it.
I explained there's a world of difference between the general help generally provided in the main by our volunteers and the work we do under our legal aid contract as paid specialists and solicitors.
I reminded Mr Djanogly of how it was that the Access to Justice Act which, as part of an 'innovative reform' programme, considered the voluntary sector to be best placed to provide specialist help in welfare benefits and debt advice. It makes sense because it's what we've dealt with for years. We were considered best placed to provide it and what's more it was an essential part of any community to ensure it's accessible to those in need of it.
Furthermore, I extended an invitation to 'Jonathan' to come to South Devon, where I'd be happy to show him the difference between general help and any number of cases, particularly those at the tribunal stage, which are clearly specialist advice. I also explained that I'd offered a similar invitation to other local South Devon MP's and was still waiting.
Mr Djanogly responded by thanking me for the invitation and said he'd be happy to take it up when he was "in the area". He also seemed to concede that there were 'difficulties' over the division between the areas of general help and specialist advice. I was delighted that the question got a good round of applause - as did Lord Bach's reply.
And so the meeting went on.
Mr Djanogly scored an own goal when he praised another speaking for keeping their client informed of legal aid fees every six months. Without thinking over what he was saying, he recalled how when he was in practice he was often asked to update his client's every two or three days. He'd not realized the significance of his humorous reply until someone reminded him that the concern over fees was likely to exist far more when you're a high charging, high flying corporate lawyer! To be fair, he seemed to take it in good spirit. The fat cat lawyer argument fell at Mr Djanogly's feet, rather than at those in the audience.
My overall impression is we have already won the argument, it's so plain to see, there's no contesting it. Although, it doesn't mean Government is going to let us win the battle.
The problem is, it's part of a wider agenda. I am convinced that we can win, there was a good few prominent people at this event and I felt quite humbled to be able to be amongst them and to tell it like it is from the front-line; because that's where I'm coming from.
This isn't about posh talking fat cats lawyers, it's about common sense. It's about seeing legal aid reform as a political choice when logic is telling everyone it is ludicrous to take away essential help to people in genuine need.
If there were 100 people in the room (it looked as though there were considerably more) the overwhelming impression was there were 99 people against these reforms and only one in support.
I'll leave it to you to work out who the odd one out was.
Sometimes you just look a person in the face and ask yourself if they really believe in everything they say. In all honesty, the impression I got when standing about 3-metres from Mr Djanogly was that he knows he's trying to sell a dead horse. I think he knows he will have to give way on some of this, particularly in the area of social welfare law.
I had a good chat with a good few people in the drinks reception after the event. I was touched when I received words of praise from Diane Burleigh of Ilex - she's asked me to forward an article for their magazine.
The overall consensus appears to be that we can win.
Let me make it clear that in saying this in no way can allow our momentum to stop. We need to keep chipping away at this without thoughts of giving up, we need to keep the accounts coming in of how we help people (mylegal.org.uk), the overwhelming message is these are our best argument.
Everyone has a part to play in this. At ilegal and MyLegal we are a committed lot fighting this campaign, but we do it without any funding and, our time is limited too, so I make a plea for all of you to do something to keep this up. It's in your hands as much as ours.
I came away from the event feeling elated. I felt like punching the air as I walked down the road to Liverpool Street. This was a good day and no;- it's not too many wines doing the talking!
I've asked Kathie Clarke of Lawworks to let me have the event transcript when it becomes available. Thanks go to all those who arranged this event and to Allen and Overy for providing such an impressive venue.
Thanks also go to ilegal for being the place where I found out about the event in the first place; there's a huge wealth of information in the ilegal network and I'm glad to be a part of it.
My gratitude also goes to my own Bureau for allowing me to attend! It's good to be part of an organisation which can see the value of fighting these reforms, we do so to protect the future and to ensure we continue to do all we can to make sure we are still able to help our clients.
See also my posts on the HoC event on the 16th March, coming up soon.
Mylegal viewers would be surprised at how much work goes on behind the scenes, we are vigorously fighting these reforms on behalf of the public; - for it is those who stand most to lose. Please feel free to post anything which may help us fight these plans to practically abolish legal aid. You'll probably only miss it when you need it; - and by then it just may be too late!