Post by jman on Jul 25, 2011 10:04:36 GMT 1
Article from Community Links on the moral choices being made in cutting legal aid
"Calling our legal aid system ‘the most expensive in the world’ hides the moral decisions we are taking
By Will Horwitz
When the government launched the green paper on changes to the legal aid bill in November last year they partly justified removing whole areas – such as benefits advice, and most debt and housing advice – from the scope of legal aid by saying that not-for-profit organisations and pro-bono lawyers could take up much of the slack. Since then, the pro-bono lawyers pointed out that they rely on a not-for-profit infrastructure to connect them with clients, and not-for-profits pointed out that their benefits, housing and debt advice is often funded by legal aid. That argument doesn’t feature very prominently anymore.
What they’ve been left with is the international comparison – “We have the most expensive legal aid system in the world” claim ministers as they justify cuts to legal aid. Queue heated debate amongst those who know a lot about legal systems (and some who don’t), about the merits of an inquisitorial system, New Zealand’s eligibility criteria, Canada’s partly state-managed system and the rest.
Yesterday’s session before the committee examining the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill took evidence from a range of well-informed individuals who spent much of their time responding to questions about it. Instead of exploring in depth the impact withdrawing legal aid for benefits advice will have on the transition to universal credit, or the way early debt advice costs much less than crisis-intervention once someone is chucked out of their home, experts in their field ended up trying to explain to MPs the intricacies of Australia’s approach to civil litigation.
There’s nothing wrong with a genuine interest in the way legal aid works in other countries, and the last government commissioned a whole report into it, which concluded that legal aid did seem to be more expensive in the UK, but that the “significant differences in methodology and reporting of data associated with justice systems” meant that “all comparisons in this report should be treated with care”. Of course, where we can run things more efficiently, or provide a better service, we should learn from others’ experiences. More importantly, we should ask why demand for legal aid is so high in this country – people don’t queue up outside Community Links’ door for pleasure, and we certainly don’t create demand ourselves. Could it be that our welfare system and our consumer protection laws are significantly weaker or more complex than those in other countries, causing people more problems for which they need advice?
But this debate, important as it is, misses the point. Our citizens’ ability to access justice – to use laws which are put in place on our behalf – is a reflection of our society, and our morality. By arguing that legal aid cuts are justified because we have ‘the most expensive system in the world’, Government is abdicating moral responsibility for its decisions, cowering behind choices New Zealanders have made about their society.
Come clean and say it – if we’re cutting large areas of law from the scope of legal aid it’s because that’s our decision, because we do not value the right of people of moderate means to pursue claims of medical negligence, hold rogue landlords to account, be protected from illegal debt collectors or access the benefits they’re entitled to. It’s because we have decided that some areas of law only count for those who can pay to have someone uphold it for them. And for those who can’t afford it? Well we’ve got a budget deficit to tackle.
It’s a perfectly rational position. If you believe reducing the budget deficit is essential, and cutting legal aid is the make-or-break decision that will either see us topple into Greek-style collapse or crawl slowly back to prosperity, then make that case. If, as government’s impact assessment shows, the price to pay for this will be hundreds of thousands of people without access to legal help and advice on issues that can make the difference between destitution and prosperity, between abuse and escape, then make that case. But don’t hide behind the fact that New Zealand, or Australia, or Canada is even more draconian.
It would be nice if the issues being cut weren’t very serious. If people could probably sort it out themselves. Well Sue, Jane, Jeff and Kay – the first people our advice clients see when they come to us – find their tissues go down fast, as people break down in tears either in distress at what they’re describing or relief that someone is finally listening. One client entered in a suit and in tears, and falteringly described to Jane how he had been leaving for work every morning for several months even though he no longer had work to go to – he couldn’t admit to his family that he’d lost his job, and meanwhile they went on spending, leaving him in terrible debt. After some warm words and some reassuringly expert debt advice, he was able to sort them out and just as importantly, to tell his family. It’s not a rare example.
‘At least it’s not in the public eye’, Jonathan Djanogly must have thought a year ago, when he was given the unenviable task of reducing the legal aid bill. If he did, he was right – other than a few scattergun headlines from journalists fed press releases they plainly can’t put in context (“I wish this paper would make up its mind” said one frustrated Sun reader under their latest story), anger over legal aid cuts is largely confined to the charities and lawyers who provide or come into contact with it. Not out of self-interest mind – civil legal aid, particularly legal help which is taking the brunt of the cuts, is also the least well-rewarded – its practitioners described as being ‘as poor as church mice’ by the Attorney General.
Sadly people only really know what legal aid is once they need it. And even then, for the kind of legal help Community Links provides – which usually ensures problems are resolved before they go to court – people often don’t realise their friendly advisor is being funded by legal aid at all.
If government is determined to push through these changes there’s a good chance it can – hiding behind arguments like the international comparison, and the fact that most people don’t really know what it is. But MPs must not kid themselves in private. These changes send a powerful statement about the kind of society government aspires to – one where equality before the law is disposable, sacrificed once we need to save a few hundred million from the Justice budget."
www.community-links.org/linksuk/?p=2592
"Calling our legal aid system ‘the most expensive in the world’ hides the moral decisions we are taking
By Will Horwitz
When the government launched the green paper on changes to the legal aid bill in November last year they partly justified removing whole areas – such as benefits advice, and most debt and housing advice – from the scope of legal aid by saying that not-for-profit organisations and pro-bono lawyers could take up much of the slack. Since then, the pro-bono lawyers pointed out that they rely on a not-for-profit infrastructure to connect them with clients, and not-for-profits pointed out that their benefits, housing and debt advice is often funded by legal aid. That argument doesn’t feature very prominently anymore.
What they’ve been left with is the international comparison – “We have the most expensive legal aid system in the world” claim ministers as they justify cuts to legal aid. Queue heated debate amongst those who know a lot about legal systems (and some who don’t), about the merits of an inquisitorial system, New Zealand’s eligibility criteria, Canada’s partly state-managed system and the rest.
Yesterday’s session before the committee examining the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill took evidence from a range of well-informed individuals who spent much of their time responding to questions about it. Instead of exploring in depth the impact withdrawing legal aid for benefits advice will have on the transition to universal credit, or the way early debt advice costs much less than crisis-intervention once someone is chucked out of their home, experts in their field ended up trying to explain to MPs the intricacies of Australia’s approach to civil litigation.
There’s nothing wrong with a genuine interest in the way legal aid works in other countries, and the last government commissioned a whole report into it, which concluded that legal aid did seem to be more expensive in the UK, but that the “significant differences in methodology and reporting of data associated with justice systems” meant that “all comparisons in this report should be treated with care”. Of course, where we can run things more efficiently, or provide a better service, we should learn from others’ experiences. More importantly, we should ask why demand for legal aid is so high in this country – people don’t queue up outside Community Links’ door for pleasure, and we certainly don’t create demand ourselves. Could it be that our welfare system and our consumer protection laws are significantly weaker or more complex than those in other countries, causing people more problems for which they need advice?
But this debate, important as it is, misses the point. Our citizens’ ability to access justice – to use laws which are put in place on our behalf – is a reflection of our society, and our morality. By arguing that legal aid cuts are justified because we have ‘the most expensive system in the world’, Government is abdicating moral responsibility for its decisions, cowering behind choices New Zealanders have made about their society.
Come clean and say it – if we’re cutting large areas of law from the scope of legal aid it’s because that’s our decision, because we do not value the right of people of moderate means to pursue claims of medical negligence, hold rogue landlords to account, be protected from illegal debt collectors or access the benefits they’re entitled to. It’s because we have decided that some areas of law only count for those who can pay to have someone uphold it for them. And for those who can’t afford it? Well we’ve got a budget deficit to tackle.
It’s a perfectly rational position. If you believe reducing the budget deficit is essential, and cutting legal aid is the make-or-break decision that will either see us topple into Greek-style collapse or crawl slowly back to prosperity, then make that case. If, as government’s impact assessment shows, the price to pay for this will be hundreds of thousands of people without access to legal help and advice on issues that can make the difference between destitution and prosperity, between abuse and escape, then make that case. But don’t hide behind the fact that New Zealand, or Australia, or Canada is even more draconian.
It would be nice if the issues being cut weren’t very serious. If people could probably sort it out themselves. Well Sue, Jane, Jeff and Kay – the first people our advice clients see when they come to us – find their tissues go down fast, as people break down in tears either in distress at what they’re describing or relief that someone is finally listening. One client entered in a suit and in tears, and falteringly described to Jane how he had been leaving for work every morning for several months even though he no longer had work to go to – he couldn’t admit to his family that he’d lost his job, and meanwhile they went on spending, leaving him in terrible debt. After some warm words and some reassuringly expert debt advice, he was able to sort them out and just as importantly, to tell his family. It’s not a rare example.
‘At least it’s not in the public eye’, Jonathan Djanogly must have thought a year ago, when he was given the unenviable task of reducing the legal aid bill. If he did, he was right – other than a few scattergun headlines from journalists fed press releases they plainly can’t put in context (“I wish this paper would make up its mind” said one frustrated Sun reader under their latest story), anger over legal aid cuts is largely confined to the charities and lawyers who provide or come into contact with it. Not out of self-interest mind – civil legal aid, particularly legal help which is taking the brunt of the cuts, is also the least well-rewarded – its practitioners described as being ‘as poor as church mice’ by the Attorney General.
Sadly people only really know what legal aid is once they need it. And even then, for the kind of legal help Community Links provides – which usually ensures problems are resolved before they go to court – people often don’t realise their friendly advisor is being funded by legal aid at all.
If government is determined to push through these changes there’s a good chance it can – hiding behind arguments like the international comparison, and the fact that most people don’t really know what it is. But MPs must not kid themselves in private. These changes send a powerful statement about the kind of society government aspires to – one where equality before the law is disposable, sacrificed once we need to save a few hundred million from the Justice budget."
www.community-links.org/linksuk/?p=2592