Post by jman on Sept 21, 2011 6:27:12 GMT 1
Rather disturbing write up of the legal aid event at the Lib Dem conference where in response to a question on the clear adverse effect of the legal aid proposals on disabled people, Lord McNally appears blissfully unaware of what is going on. There is a strong feeling of I was only obeying orders about all this and a clear need to get the briefings in to him as he appears totally out of touch with the human disaster he will be helping to create and what is actually going on.
"Lord McNally speaks at legal aid fringe
The Liberal Democrat fringe event on legal aid, organised by the Law Society and Justice for All, saw senior Lib Dems Lord McNally and Sir Alan Beith joined on the panel by Nick Fluck from the Law Society and James Sandbach from Citizens Advice representing Justice for All. Journalist Paul Waugh was the chair. It began with a slightly adapted version of this excellent video from Brighton Housing Trust to show the impact these changes would have on ordinary people.
A passionate opening speech from Nick Fluck dug into the history of access to the law and legal aid provision, going back to the Magna Carta and the 1949 Legal Aid act. He highlighted the danger of law practices closing, and emphasised the impact this would have on the poorest. James Sandbach followed by outlining many of the facts around legal aid: that the majority of legal aid spending is on criminal law, left virtually untouched in this bill; that the budget for civil legal aid has actually reduced in real terms over the last decade, and that the £672m spent on 400 high-cost criminal cases, and the £120m spent administering the legal aid bill, put the £350m worth of cuts government is making - affecting 650,000 people - seem unfairly, even ‘criminally’ targeted on the poorest. James ended by quoting from government’s own impact assessment, which says that the cuts risk worsening social cohesion, disproportionately affecting vulnerable groups, and costing other government departments more.
Lord McNally, who as Minister of State for Justice is responsible for steering the legal aid bill through the Lords, gave little in response. He suggested that in the context of £700bn of government spending each year, £350m was an insignificant sum, and said that his job was to try and get the bill through the Lords unchanged, while admitting that he expected it to face close scrutiny. Repeatedly returning to the economic situation, he portrayed the changes as a tough decision, forced upon those in government. He also warned his party not to expect motions passed at their conference to become government policy, speaking in reference to the motion against the cuts passed at the Liberal Democrat Spring conference, and this weekend’s vote calling for free representation and advice for those appealing welfare benefit decisions.
Sir Alan Beith, chair of the Justice Select Committee, was less inhibited, summarising his committee’s report from earlier in the year, which called into question many aspects of the bill, including the cuts to social welfare law legal aid. He recognised the threat to local advice charities, and admitted that the £20m of cabinet office funding announced earlier this year was only a temporary measure. He also suggested that the emergence of a self-funding model for advice - on which many are pinning their hopes - seemed unlikely, and that responsibility should still rest with government for this area.
When the floor was opened for questions the MS Society asked about the disproportionate impact the cuts to welfare benefits legal aid will have on disabled people, about which Lord McNally admitted he wasn’t aware, and promised to read the briefing paper.
The event was a good opportunity to demonstrate to the Minister, again, the impact these changes will have on ordinary people, and to hear the Minister’s views. It is clear that while peers can make changes to improve this bill, government including its Liberal Democrat Ministers will be resisting these throughout."
www.justice-for-all.org.uk/News/Lord-McNally-speaks-at-legal-aid-fringe
"Lord McNally speaks at legal aid fringe
The Liberal Democrat fringe event on legal aid, organised by the Law Society and Justice for All, saw senior Lib Dems Lord McNally and Sir Alan Beith joined on the panel by Nick Fluck from the Law Society and James Sandbach from Citizens Advice representing Justice for All. Journalist Paul Waugh was the chair. It began with a slightly adapted version of this excellent video from Brighton Housing Trust to show the impact these changes would have on ordinary people.
A passionate opening speech from Nick Fluck dug into the history of access to the law and legal aid provision, going back to the Magna Carta and the 1949 Legal Aid act. He highlighted the danger of law practices closing, and emphasised the impact this would have on the poorest. James Sandbach followed by outlining many of the facts around legal aid: that the majority of legal aid spending is on criminal law, left virtually untouched in this bill; that the budget for civil legal aid has actually reduced in real terms over the last decade, and that the £672m spent on 400 high-cost criminal cases, and the £120m spent administering the legal aid bill, put the £350m worth of cuts government is making - affecting 650,000 people - seem unfairly, even ‘criminally’ targeted on the poorest. James ended by quoting from government’s own impact assessment, which says that the cuts risk worsening social cohesion, disproportionately affecting vulnerable groups, and costing other government departments more.
Lord McNally, who as Minister of State for Justice is responsible for steering the legal aid bill through the Lords, gave little in response. He suggested that in the context of £700bn of government spending each year, £350m was an insignificant sum, and said that his job was to try and get the bill through the Lords unchanged, while admitting that he expected it to face close scrutiny. Repeatedly returning to the economic situation, he portrayed the changes as a tough decision, forced upon those in government. He also warned his party not to expect motions passed at their conference to become government policy, speaking in reference to the motion against the cuts passed at the Liberal Democrat Spring conference, and this weekend’s vote calling for free representation and advice for those appealing welfare benefit decisions.
Sir Alan Beith, chair of the Justice Select Committee, was less inhibited, summarising his committee’s report from earlier in the year, which called into question many aspects of the bill, including the cuts to social welfare law legal aid. He recognised the threat to local advice charities, and admitted that the £20m of cabinet office funding announced earlier this year was only a temporary measure. He also suggested that the emergence of a self-funding model for advice - on which many are pinning their hopes - seemed unlikely, and that responsibility should still rest with government for this area.
When the floor was opened for questions the MS Society asked about the disproportionate impact the cuts to welfare benefits legal aid will have on disabled people, about which Lord McNally admitted he wasn’t aware, and promised to read the briefing paper.
The event was a good opportunity to demonstrate to the Minister, again, the impact these changes will have on ordinary people, and to hear the Minister’s views. It is clear that while peers can make changes to improve this bill, government including its Liberal Democrat Ministers will be resisting these throughout."
www.justice-for-all.org.uk/News/Lord-McNally-speaks-at-legal-aid-fringe
