Unlikely bedfellows

At an event held at the House of Lords yesterday (14 June) the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers and the Young Legal Aid Lawyers revealed the findings of their commission of inquiry into legal aid.

The commission comprised the former Liberal Democrat MP Dr Evan Harris, Diana Holland, the assistant general secretary of the trade union Unite and the Reverend Professor Nicholas Sagovsky, a former sub-dean at Westminster Abbey. This independent panel gathered evidence on both sides of the argument about the future of legal aid and heard testimony from former legal aid clients. These included Mrs Whitehouse who had been threatened with eviction by her landlord after being a tenant in her flat for nearly 50 years.

'What happened to my husband and I could happen to anyone. You can lose your home especially if you are renting, but also if you are buying.' She lost her case at the first court hearing and was concerned about the amount of public money her case was costing in legal aid, but was successful in the Court of Appeal. 'What was most important to me was that costs were awarded against the landlord which meant all the public money was paid back.'

An unlikely attendee at the event, which was graced by a good few left-leaning lawyers and was hosted by the shadow legal aid minister, Lord Bach, was the former Conservative Secretary of State for Social Security, Lord Newton. He made the point that three sets of interconnected proposals, the Welfare Reform Bill, the Localism Bill (especially with regard to its provisions on tenure) and the legal aid reforms, will have a major impact on advice providers and the people they serve. He said: 'I am not satisfied that what is proposed is protecting vulnerable people' and, as the former chairman of the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council , he was concerned about 'the costs of some processes if people do not have help and advice. Some people going to tribunals need to know what points to argue'.

The findings of the commission included:

'Legal aid is vital in protecting the righs of vulnerable people ... many of those who receive legal aid are among the most vulnerable in society. They include the elderly, the disabled, the abused, children and the mentally ill. They each have legal rights which they would not have been able to enforce without legal aid.'

'Legal aid is vital in upholding the rule of law ... There can be no semblance of equality before the law when those who cannot afford to pay a lawyer privately go unrepresented or receive a worse kind of representation that those who can.'

'Legal aid is essential to holding the state to account ... It would be wrong in principle for the state to tolerate bad decision-making while at the same time removing the ability of ordinary people to hold those bodies to account for their mistakes by reducing legal aid.'

'Cutting legal aid is a false economy ... When coupled with the human cost to the vulnerable and socially excluded of reducing legal aid, the panel finds these increased economic costs are unacceptable.'

In closing the launch event, Lord Bach said that he understood the government's response to the consultation on the legal aid changes would be published within the week and 'despite over 90 per cent of those who responded to the consultation disagreeing with the government’s plans, in general it will go ahead with the scope cuts. This should not be seen as just a legal problem for lawyers. Legal aid cuts are an issue for everyone as it is about fairness and morality'.

View pictures from the event by Ripon Ray:http://www.flickr.com/photos/haldanesociety/sets/72157626971471916/show/

Image: LAG

Proper evaluation of BVT 'vital' says Tory shadow

An All Party Parliamentary Group on Legal Aid was launched at a meeting in the House of Commons last Tuesday (2nd June). A packed meeting was chaired by Karen Buck MP who will also chair the group which aims 'to promote parliamentary and public understanding of the importance of the role of publicly-funded legal services as a pillar of the welfare state and in reducing inequalities in society'.

Legal aid minister Lord Bach spoke at the meeting. Welcoming the establishment of the group, he said it would 'promote understanding of legal aid within parliament' but he warned that 'the legal aid system has got to be sustainable and help as many people as possible. This involves tough choices if we are to keep legal aid within budget'. This comment seemed to be aimed more at his shadow minister, Henry Bellingham MP who was sitting by him, than at the audience which was composed mainly of legal aid lawyers angry at government cut backs. Bach also reiterated his message about 'rebalancing money towards social welfare law as the legal aid system should be there for the people at the bottom of the pile. I don’t think it is practical to ask to double the budget'.

Roy Morgan, chairperson of the Legal Aid Practitioners Group (LAPG), argued that the move to reduce face to face advice in police stations would lead to miscarriages of justice. Morgan echoed the concerns of many in the room about best value tendering (BVT) for police station and magistrates' court work when he said: 'Why is this reform necessary now? Why not, as promised, have a pilot followed by an evaluation? Instead of just evaluating the tender process?' Interestingly, Morgan seemed conciliatory in tone towards Lord Bach, saying he believed he was listening to practitioners' concerns but the Legal Services Commission (LSC) was not.

Bellingham had said in his speech: 'It is vital that BVT has a proper evaluation.' Clearly then, the pressure is on the government from all sides to think again on BVT or at least carry out a proper evaluation before rolling it out. LAG’s conference next Thursday (11th June) will give an opportunity to question Lord Bach again and to hear from Shadow Justice Secretary Dominic Grieve about the Conservative party’s plans for legal aid (see:LAG's website for more information on the conference).

There were many good contributions from the floor at the meeting from practitioners including Kat Craig from Young Legal Aid Lawyers (YLAL) who complained about there being 'so little to show for answering every consultation from the LSC'. In her view 'the current system does not allow for quality work'. Many speakers also paid tribute to the work of LAPG and YLAL in establishing the group.

LAG believes the group will act as an important conduit for informing MPs about developments in the legal aid world. LAPG and YLAL deserve much praise for getting the initiative off the ground as does Karen Buck MP, who is a great campaigner on access to justice issues in parliament. We’d warn, though, that the group will lose any influence if it is perceived to be dominated by practitioners and their worries about the impact of legal aid changes on their incomes, instead of focusing on the concerns of clients.