|
|
Post by nickd on Dec 21, 2012 21:10:31 GMT 1
Merry Christmas & a Happy New Year From Mylegal & ilegal Dear all,
Firstly, a merry Christmas and happy New Year to you all, we will continue to do all we possibly can to carry on fighting for what we know to be right. Hopefully you will be able to continue to rely on our support as we appreciate how those facing hard times whilst battling for justice will need some where to be able to turn to for guidance on what's happening in the world of professional social welfare advice. We will continue in 2013 to cast aside restrictive convention and to voice your concerns as loudly and effectively as we can at a time when we fear the availability of specialist social welfare advice will hit an all time low.
Mylegal - 'we will not be silenced' - we'll continue to speak out.
We'd like to express a massive amount of gratitude to all of you who have followed us and believed in our message and echoed it around social media as powerfully as you have done in the past year.
It has to be said I have known better years; none the less it is an opportune moment to reflect back on a year gone by and look back at some of the many achievements we have achieved in pursuit of social justice throughout 2012. Both ilegal and mylegal work tirelessly in trying to ensure - as best we can - that those we represent have some means of accessing justice in areas of social welfare law. It's an uphill struggle when faced with a government which seems absolutely determined to wilfully obstruct individuals in their democratic right to 'hold the state to account'.
Here's a run down of what I recall as some - but by no means all - of the main highlights of 2012......
Enjoy...
|
|
|
|
Post by nickd on Dec 25, 2012 22:01:24 GMT 1
[/b][/center][/size] Paying tribute to the Spartacus campaign was to me an important and the most appropriate way of starting off the year, not least because of the tremendous impact they and other disability campaign groups have had in fighting for fairer welfare reform. Significant victories were secured in the House of Lords'. That government went on to overturn them out on the grounds of 'financial privilege' just goes to expose them as a non - listening government which was willed to do what it wanted regardless of the endless hours spent democratically debating the need for fairer and more 'responsible' welfare reform.
What we must always remember is that many of the most persuasive 'voices of protest' emanated right here; from the world of social media. Government never bargained on their reforms being so closely scrutinised by thousands of disability campaign groups who engaged to show them where it simply would not work and to point out where individuals would face disproportionate cuts which will hit the most vulnerable in society the hardest.
It is a testimony to many that thousands have taken to social media to voice their genuine concerns at a time when the voluntary sector - through having to battle their own corner amidst funding constraints - has perhaps lost its voice. What social media has shown is that people of all persuasions have been able to stand up and tell government where it is going wrong - it would pay government to take heed and listen to the voice of reason.
From our perspective it is absolutely vital that government's far reaching welfare reforms cannot go by without effective challenge in terms of both policy and the practical application of law in our courts and tribunals. Welfare reform can only be fair if it remains subject to a process of rigorous challenge in its practical legal application by holding the State's decision - maker firmly to account.
Why not take a look back at the intensive campaign work we carried out during 2011?, this campaign has been fought long and hard and adds to the considerable work carried out in the year beforehand. |
|
|
|
Post by nickd on Dec 25, 2012 22:02:59 GMT 1
( 2 )
The 'shame of legal aid' revealed on BBC 'An explosion of appeals'
February 2012 It was great to kick off the year with some much needed regional BBC TV coverage of the need for continued legal aid funding for the work I and many other benefit specialists do in their 'day jobs' ; in my case with the South Hams Citizens Advice Bureau in South Devon. It enabled me to highlight how we were then dealing with an 'explosion' in the number of Employment & Support Allowance appeals and effectively illustrated how people like Hester - a young woman in her early 20's - would 'flounder' without our help in battling their complex cases before Tribunals.
Hester's parents came to us after seeing their MP and conceded that the complicated appeals process was way beyond what they could confidently deal with. We went on to Win Hester's case in November 2011 but very shortly afterwards she was again sent another reassessment form - see what happens to Hester later in this article when we take a look a look at the month of December..... |
|
|
|
Post by nickd on Dec 25, 2012 22:04:53 GMT 1
( 3 )
House of Lords' overturn government
March 7th "Someone from the CAB came to brief us yesterday" It was brilliant to see the House of Lords' vote overwhelmingly with a conscience in support of legal aid for benefit appeals in both the lower and upper tier tribunals. Sadly Conservative Lord Newton (pictured) passed away shortly after giving a very passionate speech on the importance of accessing justice when holding the state to account during what will be a huge raft of welfare reforms; warm tribute was paid to him and the work he did in the House of Lords'. Lord Bach led the fight in overturning government in securing what I recall to be a record number of key amendments to a bill passed from the 'other place'.
We didn't catch on video the words of another Lord, Lord Low who went on to say...
"Disabled people are twice as likely as non-disabled people to live in poverty. Welfare law is incredibly complex, as your Lordships know. Few of us could credibly claim to understand it. There is no hope of people on benefit, who would count as socially excluded by many measures, being able to cope with such cases without assistance. Someone came to brief us yesterday from Citizens Advice who illustrated just what those cases can involve by holding up a lever arch file stuffed full of case papers. That was only one of three files and by no means untypical."
Read the full debate here; it was another 'mylegal moment' in briefing the Lords' the day prior to the debate as Patrick of ilegal and I hatched a plan before I hot-footed it to London armed with lever arch files to illustrate the complexity of the work we do - it was great that Lord Low used it to such good effect in what turned out to be a pivotal debate. The same briefing saw Justice for All in attendance and representatives from Scope and the Islington Law Centre - as well as clients who bravely spoke of their need of professional help in fighting the social security system when appealing for their benefits. |
|
|
|
Post by nickd on Dec 25, 2012 22:07:29 GMT 1
( 4 )
My Conservative MP didn't vote
with her Government
April The importance of getting your MP 'on side' is vital in any campaign and in that regard I have regularly kept in contact with my constituent MP Dr Sarah Wollaston and shown her examples of the casework we get involved with, often having cases referred to us from her local constituency office. It was upon this knowledge base of the work we do that my MP was able to make a highly constructive contribution to the House of Commons debate.... Dr Wollaston: "I welcome the significant improvements that have been made in respect of domestic violence, so I shall concentrate on Lords amendment 168.
The Secretary of State says that because welfare appeals often involve arguments about points of fact rather than points of law, welfare appellants should not qualify for legal aid. However, justice is about facts. Many of the people whom we meet in our surgeries have fallen through the gaps in Atos assessments. They may not have ticked the right boxes, but within five minutes it is abundantly clear that the wrong decision has been made. In my experience, the expert and professional advice marshalled by the citizens advice bureaux makes all the difference to whether our constituents receive justice. Cost-shifting might be reasonable, but only if the £20 million per year went far enough to fill the gap that has been created.
Historically, South Hams CAB in my area has received 60% of its funding through legal aid. It was not a question of local authority cuts; the authority had not funded the CAB in the first place. Although some of that £20 million has gone to my local CAB and will make a significant difference, the CAB has nevertheless had to cut staff, and has lost 45 hours per week of high-quality professional time. Of course we all pay tribute to the volunteers, but it is mostly the detailed and specific marshalling of facts by specialists that determines whether the right decision is made at a tribunal.
I believe that the employment of more decision-makers would make a big difference, but I also believe that the work done by CABs saves us a great deal of money in the long term. I ask the Secretary of State to think again about how much more we can do to fill the gap so that our CABs can maintain the incredibly high-quality professional service that they provide for all our constituents."[/i][/size] The contribution was made when the House of Lords' amendments were returned to the House of Commons on the 17th April, it was fantastic moment to see my constituent member of Parliament not only promote the work of my organisation and state the case for specialist welfare benefit legal aid in the first - tier tribunal but also make a decision not to vote with her government when they opposed legal aid in the first -tier tribunal.
An important part of the work we do on mylegal and ilegal is in promoting the detailed side of what the legal aid reforms actually mean to those who stand to be affected. We tweeted out a number of posts in readiness for the all of the key debates, including one explaining the key House of Lords' 'LASPO' amendments.
I was able to 'tweet' and email information from mylegal to my MP actually during the debate, it just goes to show the huge importance of social media in relaying crucial information at the right time and to those in the right place. I remain firmly convinced that maintaining a close working relationship with your MP - whichever party they represent - is vital in showing how the work we do really is very specialist and beyond the scope of generalist advisers. I was complimented by the Justice for All campaign team on briefing my MP so well.
It's about winning the argument by using real evidence. The fact government voted out the amendments on the grounds of 'financial privilege' just goes to show they are not listening and making cuts in social welfare legal aid for purely idealogical reasons. None the less legal aid in the upper tribunals and higher appellate courts was secured along with a firm promise by the Right Honourable Kenneth Clarke who made a serious concessionary promise to look seriously at legal aid in the lower tribunals during the regulatory stages of the legal aid reforms.
We learn of what happened to the promise later on in the year.... |
|
|
|
Post by nickd on Dec 25, 2012 22:09:21 GMT 1
( 5 )
Warm praise for ilegal & mylegal
Lord Bach
May It is always good to get some positive feedback for the work we do on ilegal and Myegal, Lord Bach made a particular point of highlighting the 'very detailed work' we do at a winding up meeting of the Justice for All campaign in the House of Lords'. Despite the winding up of the J4A campaign, ilegal and Mylegal have battled on for what we believe in for the good of those we represent - we've done so in our own time and at our own expense.
Sometimes we question our sanity at spending so much of our free time, in addition to the time we have to spend earning a living , in campaigning for social justice and in particular for social welfare legal aid but we do so because we believe in what we're fighting for and because the mainstream campaigns have all but 'packed up and gone home' - I suppose we're just passionate that those we fight for should have some sort of recourse to law via a proper means of access to justice via our 'judicial' system.
We therefore chose to fight on.... |
|
|
|
Post by nickd on Dec 25, 2012 22:10:49 GMT 1
[/b][/center][/size] 
The reality is few transpired to end up with any 'real' work and allegedly persevered the most appalling treatment after being dropped off at their 'workstations' under London Bridge, to me it was another reminder of why we need to battle on for better rights for those we represent.
The singing of "Rule Britannia! Britannia rule the waves! Britons never, never, never shall be slaves!" rang hollow as I thought of 'willing volunteers' being virtually press ganged in to placements which transpired not to exist; surely what we should be 'striving' for are real jobs for real people which give them a sense of purpose and fulfilment?
Cameron's Big Society has became decidedly more 'BS' than it was when he first kicked it off as the hare brained scheme upon which Britain would thrive - when will he ever learn? The Big Society is becoming increasingly distanced from the true spirit of volunteering to an expectancy that in times of economic difficulty people should do something for nothing.
Our Prime Minister needs to learn that the way to encourage voluntary participation is not to abuse the goodwill of voluntary participation by ensuring that there is sufficient work to go round so that people are able to to freely give their own time.
And hey let's remember that our time on ilegal and mylegal is given on a purely voluntary basis in addition to our paid work being mainly for the not for profit sector - so we know a thing or too about volunteering as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by nickd on Dec 25, 2012 22:17:17 GMT 1
( 7 )
More recognition of ilegal & mylegal
Lord Bach
July Lord Bach aka #Fightbach had really taken to Twitter by now, it was good to hear him again praise the work of ilegal and mylegal as he encouraged people to spread the word via social welfare and carry on fighting the 'wickedness' of welfare reforms - how right he was.The WCA is exposed If anyone ever needed evidence of the sheer wickedness which benefit claimants, often very seriously ill, have to endure it came to light during undercover television footage of the dreaded 'Work Capability Assessments' conducted for the DWP by the French IT firm Atos who went on to be exposed in finding people - very ill people - as 'fit for work'. The assessment is the focal point of around 50% of the case-load of a benefit specialist who typically achieves success rates of around 80% in overturning unjust decisions.
It was great to see the collective work of so many, Spartacus, DPAC, Black Triangle, individuals, the 'Full Facts' (ESA) site and all manner of different forums on social media go on to raise the profile and gain some much needed momentum as we received press coverage before the two prime time television programmes alerted thousands of viewers to the many serious injustices caused by these awful target based assessments.
What we should not forget is that these injustices are precisely why us social welfare legal aid advocates fight so vehemently for better access to justice in overturning these awful decisions in thousands of appeals cases in our social security benefit tribunals each year. |
|
|
|
Post by nickd on Dec 25, 2012 22:24:32 GMT 1
( 8 )
All is well
The MOJ missing appeal video is retrieved!
August Oh really; how could the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) stoop so low? Earlier on in the year they had promoted a video in an effort to 'help' thousands of Employment & Support Allowance benefit claimants with their appeals. Personally I absolutely loathed the MOJ video and gave it a good slating earlier on in the year for the way it so inaccurately portrayed the appeals process.
It bordered on the almost comical when the MoJ promoted the video, then pulled it and subsequently re-instated it in a less than helpful version! However, all is well as we managed to pull the original - it's here safe and sound on the ilegal video channel!
Once upon a time the Tribunals Service used to freely promote an appeals booklet which advised appellants to seek help. Here's what it said:
"You are entitled to have a representative of your choice. Your representative does not have to be legally qualified. He or she could be a friend or relative. But in choosing a representative, you should bear in mind what the role of a tribunal representative is.
A good representative should be able to:
• advise you on what kind of evidence will help your case
• obtain that evidence for you or assist you to obtain it
• liaise with the department or council to see if the case can be settled without going to a Tribunal hearing
• research the law
• prepare a written statement for the Tribunal summarising your case
• advise you on related matters, including other benefits
• deal with the consequences of the Tribunal’s decision, favourable or otherwise.
You are only likely to get such support from a trained representative from a reputable agency. A poor representative can actually damage your prospects of success. If you decide to ask a professional representative to help you with your appeal, do contact them as early as possible. (See page 6 for how to find a professional representative.)"
You should still be able to download the booklet here - although be quick as I'm sure the MoJ wouldn't want to many of these much more informative 30 page manuals flying around!
Why on earth is the Ministry of Justice doing all it can to limit the help a benefit claimant needs when appealing for their benefits?
You could almost be forgiven for thinking they just want to cut off all help....
|
|
|
|
Post by nickd on Dec 25, 2012 22:28:25 GMT 1
( 9 )
Paralympics
Osborne booed by crowds
September Pure gold it was...
The message had certainly reached thousands of people by the time George Osborne got round to handing out medals at the paralympics, the look on his face is an absolute classic as he looks on ashen faced realising he's getting booed rather than cheered in to oblivion by the crowds. The crowd could see right through his government's welfare reform agenda; how satisfying it was to see sheer wickedness exposed and to see so many not being afraid of showing their loathsome discontent at such an out of touch chancellor who used the Atos sponsored event to manipulate the showcasing of the disabled; it was an absolutely disastrous publicity stunt by Osborne - it gives me no pleasure to say he really deserved all he got.
It was brilliant to see the Olympic opening proudly promoting our wonderful National Health Service - how bizarre it was of Osborne to seek 'popularity' by handing out medals to the very same people his government has so callously condemned - the genuinely disabled.
Government has to learn lessons from the Paralympics, those who were able to participate are precisely the kind of people we should be supporting rather than merely using as convenient examples of 'capability'.
We should never forget that disability comes in all sorts of shapes and sizes - where tick box assessments do little, if anything, to recognise the extent of genuine limitation.
|
|
|
|
Post by nickd on Dec 25, 2012 22:29:46 GMT 1
( 10 & 11 )
I came to a stunning conclusion...
Well actually it was well before October that I'd come to a preliminary conclusion that our government was ploughing ahead with a 'welfare reform car crash' on an unprecedented scale. Cutting through all the usual rhetoric the truth is that government's reform programme is simply spiralling out of control....
[/url][/i][/size] It would be pointless to challenge government's welfare reforms without researching our subject. Mylegal and ilegal provides you with a viewpoint from the front - line of those working most closely in social welfare legal advice. You can rest assured that every tweet is backed up by hours of research into various aspects of social welfare law, Mylegal focusses more on welfare benefits because it is the area where thousands stand to be the hardest hit. In my view Government has recklessly gone about its welfare reforms, they are target driven - the implementation timetable for Universal Credit makes this all too clear. Attempts to blame claimants for becoming locked in to a cycle of 'endemic worklessness' over the last decade may earn government some good headlines but the facts make it clear that the incapacity cycle started under the last Conservative government when incapacity claims rose from by over a 1 million to a figure of 2.6 million. In my view maintaining or 'flat - lining' a figure of 2.6 million on incapacity benefits is an achievement when proper consideration is given to an increasing population, higher mortality rates and being able to live through illnesses & disabilities due to enhanced medical treatments. Once a figure has been 'parked' on incapacity related benefits (to use a popular 'IDS' phrase) it is very difficult, if not impossible, to materially reduce it. Government has to change its message on welfare and enter in to a constructive dialogue over supporting those who are able in to to work. It beggars belief that government has withdrawn our funding when we have perhaps the best knowledge gained through our work in successfully fighting thousands of appeals of the real barriers to work faced by those we represent. Mylegal research on ESA backs up our claims:The ESA assessment programme is living proof that despite using the harshest reassessment test (the 'Work Capability Assessment') combined with a ridiculously high rate of reassessment equating to the DWP overhauling no less than 1.5 million ESA claims a year (to quote the DWP's Robert Devereux) the overall number of claimants remaining on incapacity benefits has fallen by a mere 32,900 over four years - how can this possibly back government up in its wild claims that 75% are faking their illnesses? In truth government knew this to be a wild and totally irresponsible overstatement. The reality is that around 75% are perfectly entitled to their benefits despite a much stricter test aimed at working out who is legitimately entitled to claim what they claim. Time and time again the government has been caught out by its selective use of carefully chosen statistics. One claim that government has never sought to refute is how we persistently achieve success rates of around 80% when helping claimants through the ESA appeals process - it's over twice that of the national success rate average. You have to ask yourself: why? The answer is to be found on page 6 of the Tribunal Service 'how to appeal' step by step guide.... "Most people who make an appeal choose to get professional advice and support" What we can say with a fair degree of certainty is that of the 130,000 legally aided welfare benefit cases funded in 2010/2011 around 50% (65,000) would have been ESA appeals. It very closely matches our '80% success rate' claim when you consider that of 176,000 appeals disposed of in the same year around 70,640 (40%) succeeded; it's not rocket science. Nor is is it rocket science to conclude that government is being quite wicked in withdrawing the professional help which it acknowledges is helping claimants win their appeals. What makes government's financial argument all the more absurd is the money it has poured in to providing extra costs to deal with these appeals by increased judicial sittings & appointments with no absolutely no regard to ensuring the appellant has access to the right level of proper help. The absurdity continues right up up until Christmas.... [/size] |
|
|
|
Post by nickd on Dec 25, 2012 22:30:45 GMT 1
( 12 )
Mylegal gets a mention in the Lords'
December
I nearly choked when the government's House of Lords' justice chief Lord McNally mentioned ' an organisation called mylegal' before he went on to reveal his true colours.
McNally next words were truly telling of his government's sheer contempt for democracy and justice, in effect he told the house - much to Lord Bach's obvious disgust - that it mattered not whether Ken Clarke's concessionary promise on legal aid in the first - tier tribunal cost five, fifteen or twenty five million pounds - they had no intention of paying for it.
To me it was a moment when government's modus operandi was laid bare - this was never about the money, it was always about ensuring the benefit claimant had no access to legal help when challenging any decision of the State.
It is little wonder that Lord Bach went on to show his obvious displeasure by calling on his fellow peers to make a stand against a broken promise by calling for a fatal blow motion which would show government how seriously they regarded the issue - the vote was called and government lost.
As I see it government has an absolute duty to deliver upon its promises and to deliver a practical amendment worthy of consideration which would at least ensure a limited number of benefit claimants have some recourse to access to justice funded by legal aid in holding the state to account in first - tier tribunal proceedings. One should not forget that the Tribunal president is predicting that by 2015 there will be 644,000 benefit appeals per year - it is blindingly obvious points of law issues will arise in a large number of those cases.
How can you possibly expect those fighting for the minimum amount of money the law says you need to live on to afford to pay for the services of a benefit specialist? Why should the State not foot the bill for defending an allegation that a claimant is effectively making up their illness or disability?
Government's response is awaited - they will further blot their copybook by coming back with a less than decent proposal.
'Widespread redundancies are announced'
It was with some irony that Lord McNally in his winding up speech went on to speak about 'having to make redundancies in government departments', - it struck a raw nerve when in the same month my team of four and I learned of our impending redundancies with effect from 1st April 2013.
It seems nothing short of crazy that I am now looking at the prospect of standing in the same Jobcentre queue as those I should be helping whilst government ploughs on paying Atos millions of pounds to continue to carry out its inept medical assessments, the tribunals will be 'choc a block' with thousands of benefit claimants floundering at the mercy of the appeal system as the biggest serial litigant of them all - the DWP - carries on completely unchallenged as it blunders its way through more decisions than it can safely handle.
To pretend the work I do can be done by volunteer generalist advisers of little experience in challenging the state in a judicial setting is not a proper answer to the needs of those who need our expert knowledge in the complexities of the social security system, such advice is only accessible through properly trained and experienced specialists such as was once afforded by legal aid or via some other equally funded remuneration mechanism.
The complexities of properly challenging the law surrounding the benefits system require the kind of attention to detail as you see in the many posts right here on mylegal and ilegal, these are the posts of dedicated professionals who seek social justice on behalf of their clients as a profession rather than out of a sense of goodwill such as appears to be expected of this government's obsession with its hard to configure Big Society.
Government says legal aid should be reserved for those cases which are the most 'serious' to which I maintain that getting the disability status of a claimant wrong can and does have very serious; if not fatal consequences.
It also remains my contention that the liberty of an individual is in peril when they find themselves wrongly accused of being a faker and a fraud - it is all too often the fastidious work of a benefit specialist working in liaison with criminal defence lawyers that proves the clues needed to establish the innocence of someone facing a custodial sentence and the prospect of paying back thousands of pounds which in reality often transpires to have been paid out to them as a result of official error rather than the alleged criminal intent of our clients.
If the State is going to wag the finger of suspicion and blame at every living benefit claimant as causative of our current fiscal situation it should at least have the decency to afford him or her, where of limited means, access to proper specialist help in refuting such allegations as the Secretary of State chooses to make.
How did our client Hester get on?....
Well would you believe it but whilst the welfare, NHS and welfare reforms have been rushed through Parliament at the speed of lighting, Hester's case has proceeded at a somewhat slower pace....
She first claimed ESA on December 16th 2010, it was on March 30th 2011 that she was subsequently assessed as having no limitation by Atos before an appeal Tribunal overturned the decision on November 18th 2011. Within 10 minutes and with the help of comprehensive written submissions and evidence from us the Tribunal decided that she qualified for Employment & Support Allowance 48 weeks after she first made her claim.
On January 17th this year - 4 weeks after the Tribunal had confirmed Hester's ESA award in writing and 52 weeks after she first claimed Hester was sent for another assessment. It took until October 1st 2012 before she was told again by the DWP that she did not qualify and guess what? ....
She is still waiting for another appeal date - so much for helping her back in to work then?
What about another of my clients
called 'Tom'?
Tom's case for Disability Living Allowance has been going on since 2008. It features in a story covered by the New Statesman in 'Tales from the frontline', we won Tom's case in the first - tier Tribunal on the 9th February 2009 after which the DWP (who didn't even attend the hearing) appealed the case to the Upper Tribunal. Tom is severely autistic and can barely speak let alone deal with his own appeal, Government says legal aid in the Upper Tribunal is a sufficient answer to resolving benefit disputes. Try telling that to Tom who in 2013 will have been waiting 4 years from when the the lower tribunal said he was entitled to the higher rate of the mobility allowance - what happened to protecting the most vulnerable?
I have no intention of giving up on the battle for social justice
My hope is that I will continue to do this highly
valuable work well into
2013 and beyond.....
|
|
|
|
Post by nickd on Dec 25, 2012 22:31:45 GMT 1
From ilegal and mylegal I leave you with this... The words of government's constituency MPs.. Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con): "I was a legal aid family lawyer for 23 years before becoming an MP, and my husband continues to run our firm in Croydon. I declare an interest in the debate.
The Government’s plans to reform legal aid are brave and bold. The consultation has been taken seriously and important concessions have been made, but I continue to have some serious concerns. The plans rely on people being able to represent themselves, but what about people with learning difficulties, limited English or mental health problems? Those people cannot help themselves; they cannot do it. The plans rely on our hard-pressed voluntary sector dealing with the fallout from the legal sector, but our not-for-profit organisations are already overstretched and under-resourced."
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con): "Does my hon. Friend agree that many citizens advice bureaux—such as my own, South Hams—receive 55% to 65% of their funding from legal aid and are concerned about the time frame with the proposals being introduced in October?"
Mrs Grant: "My hon. Friend makes a good point, and change must be paced. Not for profit does not mean “No funds, please.” Those organisations still need cash just to stand still, let alone to deal with the massive glut of cases that will fall into their laps, but I am reassured and encouraged by what my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Justice said about directing an additional sum of some £20 million towards them. That is very positive indeed."Now read a message from the front - line We are the 'real' big society The big society, if ever there was one, is about making a difference to the lives of those in society with a genuine acceptance that some will be able to manage better than others.
There is no such thing as a truly voluntary sector because nothing in life is for free. The voluntary and advice sector is a mixture of volunteers & paid staff who manage, specialise and supervise - together we are the 'Big Society'.
If the Jubilee or the Olympics was all about the true spirit of government's 'Big Society' no commercial entity would have profited out of it - what did the private sector do for no financial gain?
Real people require real solutions, those on welfare are so often the most vulnerable in society and as such need the protection of access to justice by properly trained specialists to secure their entitlement to benefits according to law - it costs and the money has to be found.
Government has declared its hand, it recognises the need but won't pay for its citizens to challenge the state because it doesn't want to be held to account - that's why it's offered a derisory settlement to ensure that specialist advice funding is cut away from the advice sector.
Challenging something you see as wicked isn't being political so long as you form opinions upon a careful analysis of the facts - it is those who allow themselves to be politically manipulated & silenced by constraint who are being political.
The advice sector has a stark choice to make; whether to forego specialist advice for the sake of only meeting the needs of those seeking more generalist solutions or to realise the importance of more effectively challenging the state by using the specialist knowledge base within its grasp.
In the alternative the legal services industry may hopefully see the virtues of stepping in to the breach by upholding the values of social welfare law protection for its wider and future client base. With some degree of optimism I hope we can find find and afford solutions which adequately fills the justice gap so recklessly abandoned by our current government.
Whatever happens in 2013
It is vital that the Secretary of State remains properly held to account.
|
|
