Post by nickd on Jan 31, 2011 23:18:48 GMT 1
'Legal Aid Under The Microscope'
Well done to MP Kate Green for recognising the importance of the work we do under Legal Aid. Her brilliantly summary:
"Cuts to the legal aid budget have caused alarm across the political spectrum, and could help build up problems for a later date. The Commons debates the contentious issue later this week.
My colleague Yvonne Fovargue has secured an important debate in the chamber this week on the future of legal aid, and I expect it to be well attended. There's widespread - and cross-party - concern at the impact of the government's cuts, not just to the legal aid budget but to funding for the advice sector more generally. That's no surprise: MPs are all too aware from the casework that we see in our surgeries of a wide range of complex and challenging advice needs, particularly among the poorest and most disadvantaged.
Legal aid is often proclaimed by Labour politicians as one of the founding pillars of the welfare state, created after the second world war along with the NHS, social housing and the social security system. And that's exactly right, though in truth Labour's support for the system often seemed rather meagre and grudging during the past decade. Nonetheless, the present government's proposals, removing from the scope of legal aid whole categories of social welfare law (such as welfare benefits, education and employment), and drastically cutting others (such as housing and family law), far surpass any of the cuts and restrictions introduced under Labour.
Criticisms are levelled at the cost of the legal aid budget, and unfavourable comparisons made with other European countries. But let's remember that criminal legal aid swallows the vast bulk of the budget; funding for civil matters, which is taking the hit, is on a much more modest scale. It should also be recognised that comparisons between the UK's adversarial legal system and the inquisitorial approach of many other European jurisdictions may not be valid - when decisions are arrived at through a process of two parties arguing it out between them, with the court acting as arbiter rather than interrogator, it's important that both parties enjoy 'equality of arms'. And what's to be ashamed of in any case in providing adequate financial assistance to the poorest to protect their legal entitlements?
Early access to good quality advice makes good value for money sense too. It can divert those whose cases are not strong from pursuing hopeless challenges, it cuts the cost of court time, and in ensuring, for example, that the poorest are decently housed, receiving their financial entitlements, protected at work, and that children's interests are properly looked after, it reduces the cost of myriad social problems further down the line.
And let's remember problems don't arise in isolation. A woman fleeing domestic violence (remaining - to some extent at least - within scope under the present proposals) may also need support to deal with problems that are not to be covered in future: child contact claims from partner, the need to access welfare benefits to support herself and her family, securing admission for her children to a school in a new area. But it seems there will be no scope under the new proposals to offer holistic solutions to such clusters of needs.
None of these arguments cuts much ice with the government, whose cut-price approach to advice provision is a cause of real concern. And it's not just legal aid that's under threat. Last week, we learnt the financial inclusion fund, which funded the provision of independent debt advice, will close at the end of March, worrying news at a time when spending cuts and the economic squeeze are already increasing the threat to jobs and homes. Cuts to local authority budgets meantime have put council welfare rights units and independent local advice agencies at risk. Face-to-face advice is often needed to untangle the most complex problems, or by the most vulnerable and excluded, yet the government appears to believe that much advice need can be met in future by a national telephone service.
But leaving the poorest and most vulnerable largely to fend for themselves in legal and quasi legal matters is a recipe for unfair decision-making, more people missing out on their entitlements, and increased social exclusion. Yet there's been no word of compunction or concern so far from ministers, despite concerns from across parliament. Last week, legal aid practitioners covering a range of social welfare law addressed the all-party group, highlighting shocking and distressing examples of casework that they'd previously undertaken with legal aid which in future they'd be unable to do. I'm sure those harrowing examples are set to feature in Thursday's debate - and I passionately hope that they will make the government think again."
31 Jan 2011 09:45
Thanks to progressonline for highlighting this.
www.progressonline.org.uk/columns/column.asp?c=587
Well done to MP Kate Green for recognising the importance of the work we do under Legal Aid. Her brilliantly summary:
"Cuts to the legal aid budget have caused alarm across the political spectrum, and could help build up problems for a later date. The Commons debates the contentious issue later this week.
My colleague Yvonne Fovargue has secured an important debate in the chamber this week on the future of legal aid, and I expect it to be well attended. There's widespread - and cross-party - concern at the impact of the government's cuts, not just to the legal aid budget but to funding for the advice sector more generally. That's no surprise: MPs are all too aware from the casework that we see in our surgeries of a wide range of complex and challenging advice needs, particularly among the poorest and most disadvantaged.
Legal aid is often proclaimed by Labour politicians as one of the founding pillars of the welfare state, created after the second world war along with the NHS, social housing and the social security system. And that's exactly right, though in truth Labour's support for the system often seemed rather meagre and grudging during the past decade. Nonetheless, the present government's proposals, removing from the scope of legal aid whole categories of social welfare law (such as welfare benefits, education and employment), and drastically cutting others (such as housing and family law), far surpass any of the cuts and restrictions introduced under Labour.
Criticisms are levelled at the cost of the legal aid budget, and unfavourable comparisons made with other European countries. But let's remember that criminal legal aid swallows the vast bulk of the budget; funding for civil matters, which is taking the hit, is on a much more modest scale. It should also be recognised that comparisons between the UK's adversarial legal system and the inquisitorial approach of many other European jurisdictions may not be valid - when decisions are arrived at through a process of two parties arguing it out between them, with the court acting as arbiter rather than interrogator, it's important that both parties enjoy 'equality of arms'. And what's to be ashamed of in any case in providing adequate financial assistance to the poorest to protect their legal entitlements?
Early access to good quality advice makes good value for money sense too. It can divert those whose cases are not strong from pursuing hopeless challenges, it cuts the cost of court time, and in ensuring, for example, that the poorest are decently housed, receiving their financial entitlements, protected at work, and that children's interests are properly looked after, it reduces the cost of myriad social problems further down the line.
And let's remember problems don't arise in isolation. A woman fleeing domestic violence (remaining - to some extent at least - within scope under the present proposals) may also need support to deal with problems that are not to be covered in future: child contact claims from partner, the need to access welfare benefits to support herself and her family, securing admission for her children to a school in a new area. But it seems there will be no scope under the new proposals to offer holistic solutions to such clusters of needs.
None of these arguments cuts much ice with the government, whose cut-price approach to advice provision is a cause of real concern. And it's not just legal aid that's under threat. Last week, we learnt the financial inclusion fund, which funded the provision of independent debt advice, will close at the end of March, worrying news at a time when spending cuts and the economic squeeze are already increasing the threat to jobs and homes. Cuts to local authority budgets meantime have put council welfare rights units and independent local advice agencies at risk. Face-to-face advice is often needed to untangle the most complex problems, or by the most vulnerable and excluded, yet the government appears to believe that much advice need can be met in future by a national telephone service.
But leaving the poorest and most vulnerable largely to fend for themselves in legal and quasi legal matters is a recipe for unfair decision-making, more people missing out on their entitlements, and increased social exclusion. Yet there's been no word of compunction or concern so far from ministers, despite concerns from across parliament. Last week, legal aid practitioners covering a range of social welfare law addressed the all-party group, highlighting shocking and distressing examples of casework that they'd previously undertaken with legal aid which in future they'd be unable to do. I'm sure those harrowing examples are set to feature in Thursday's debate - and I passionately hope that they will make the government think again."
31 Jan 2011 09:45
Thanks to progressonline for highlighting this.
www.progressonline.org.uk/columns/column.asp?c=587