Post by Patrick Torsney on Mar 20, 2011 9:38:07 GMT 1
This piece is taken from an article, by Jon Robbins, that originally appeared in the Guardian on 24 February 2011. The link to full article is below
I was wrong to give ministers the benefit of the doubt on legal aid
Campaigners for women's rights and mental health charities have strongly opposed proposals in the legal aid green paper
At the end of last year in a blog about the green paper on legal aid, I momentarily suspended cynicism – never a good idea when writing about legal aid – and searched for a glimmer of hope in the 224 pages of very bad news indeed. It was a mistake and I apologise.
I was discussing the idea of a "single gateway" to what will remain of a decimated, post-cuts legal aid scheme – a "simple, straightforward" telephone service – which (at that point) seemed overlooked by many legal aid lawyers understandably stunned by the scale of cuts both to scope and eligibility. "Some commentators have seized upon this proposal as a lone example of positive strategic thinking," I suggested, among proposals all about detailing the £350m of cuts.
Now, a fully resourced, NHS Direct-style advice line extending access to justice to the poor and vulnerable would indeed be a wonderful thing. This wasn't quite what ministers were proposing. I did go on to say that you "don't have to be overly cynical to detect sinister overtones in the suggestion of 'a single gateway'" and concluded thus: "If the 'single gateway' becomes a 'mechanism for deterring demand', then no thanks."
But with the privilege of hindsight – plus a very long afternoon wading through the responses to the green paper – handily archived on the iLegal site – it probably wasn't the time to give ministers the benefit of the doubt, no matter how slender and qualified that benefit was. In their response, Rights of Women (RoW), which runs its own specialist legal advice line and so knows a thing or two about telephone advice, welcomed the helpline (in addition to face-to-face advice) but "strongly opposed" the gateway.
According to their own study, more than nine out of 10 women (91%) characterised face-to-face advice from a solicitor as "extremely important", particularly for those experiencing violence. "What provision will be made for those without access to a telephone?" RoW asked in their response.
"How are asylum-seekers or those with an insecure immigration status supposed to access advice and representation? How are children – for example, separated children seeking asylum in the UK – supposed to use the helpline? How likely is it that a woman experiencing domestic or sexual violence will be able to disclose this to a (male?) operator?"
Quite.
You can read the full piece on the Guardian, here:
www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/feb/24/legal-aid-benefit-of-doubt
I was wrong to give ministers the benefit of the doubt on legal aid
Campaigners for women's rights and mental health charities have strongly opposed proposals in the legal aid green paper
At the end of last year in a blog about the green paper on legal aid, I momentarily suspended cynicism – never a good idea when writing about legal aid – and searched for a glimmer of hope in the 224 pages of very bad news indeed. It was a mistake and I apologise.
I was discussing the idea of a "single gateway" to what will remain of a decimated, post-cuts legal aid scheme – a "simple, straightforward" telephone service – which (at that point) seemed overlooked by many legal aid lawyers understandably stunned by the scale of cuts both to scope and eligibility. "Some commentators have seized upon this proposal as a lone example of positive strategic thinking," I suggested, among proposals all about detailing the £350m of cuts.
Now, a fully resourced, NHS Direct-style advice line extending access to justice to the poor and vulnerable would indeed be a wonderful thing. This wasn't quite what ministers were proposing. I did go on to say that you "don't have to be overly cynical to detect sinister overtones in the suggestion of 'a single gateway'" and concluded thus: "If the 'single gateway' becomes a 'mechanism for deterring demand', then no thanks."
But with the privilege of hindsight – plus a very long afternoon wading through the responses to the green paper – handily archived on the iLegal site – it probably wasn't the time to give ministers the benefit of the doubt, no matter how slender and qualified that benefit was. In their response, Rights of Women (RoW), which runs its own specialist legal advice line and so knows a thing or two about telephone advice, welcomed the helpline (in addition to face-to-face advice) but "strongly opposed" the gateway.
According to their own study, more than nine out of 10 women (91%) characterised face-to-face advice from a solicitor as "extremely important", particularly for those experiencing violence. "What provision will be made for those without access to a telephone?" RoW asked in their response.
"How are asylum-seekers or those with an insecure immigration status supposed to access advice and representation? How are children – for example, separated children seeking asylum in the UK – supposed to use the helpline? How likely is it that a woman experiencing domestic or sexual violence will be able to disclose this to a (male?) operator?"
Quite.
You can read the full piece on the Guardian, here:
www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/feb/24/legal-aid-benefit-of-doubt