The Big Issue: Gloucester Law Centre on why Government changes will affect you
AT the Gloucester Law Centre, we are still fighting to protect access to justice in the city and look after those in need of help.
Last summer The Citizen gave extensive coverage of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill which, if its proposals become law, will remove the right to free legal advice to more than 3,000 people on low incomes in Gloucester.
The Bill is also a serious threat to the very existence of Gloucester Law Centre, as more than 60 per cent of our income comes from legal aid.
Nearly 50 people had letters published in The Citizen expressing concern about the Bill.
The Bill's proposals, if accepted, will further disadvantage groups in society who are already vulnerable – women, children, young people, disabled people and others on low incomes.
There will no longer be equality before the law.
Rather, there will be one law for the rich and another for the poor.
The majority of people who get legal aid are women.
They will be particularly hard hit.
Disabled people too, as they are more reliant on welfare benefits and allowances and likely to need advice.
Also hit will be 6,000 children throughout England and Wales and 69,000 vulnerable young adults who will lose access to legal aid as a result of the Bill.
The Bill passed through the House of Commons in October, entering the upper chamber in November.
After two readings in the Lords, it is now being scrutinised by a House of Lords committee.
Gloucester Law Centre and colleagues in a wide range of organisations, including charities, lawyers and the Courts Service, have been contacting MPs and members of the House of Lords to explain how damaging the Bill's proposals are for people on low incomes.
It is already clear that there are serious concerns about the Bill from all sides of the House.
Several Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers have spoken against some of its provisions despite its being government policy. We, therefore, expect that when the Bill returns to the Commons it will contain some amendments which will mitigate its worst provisions.
It will then be vital to do everything possible to encourage MPs to accept the amended Bill when it is debated in the Commons.
We hope that all local members of the House of Lords as well as Gloucestershire's MPs will support these amendments and do their best to prevent there becoming one law for the rich and another for the poor.
9 Comments
by Alchemies
Thursday, January 26 2012, 8:52AM
“The sad part is that if this abysmal legislation proceeds, Anne and her team will have even less of a remit to help any many who currently benefit will be left without means of legal redress.”
by AnneWhitworth
Thursday, January 26 2012, 8:37AM
“As senior solicitor at the Law Centre I must respond to the post by L_escalier about his recent contact with the Law Centre as his comments are unfair and inflammatory. Firstly he should note that any email he has received from a staff member at the Law Centre is written entirely in their capacity as an employee of the Centre. Any outside political affiliation, office or other interest of any staff member is completely irrelevant to their work for the Law Centre and has no influence on the way we operate. We are a professional legal practice operating to high standards of ethics and are completely non-political. Secondly, we are a specialist agency and deal only with cases in the areas of housing, employment, welfare benefits and immigration. According to his post L_escalier's enquiry did not fall within these categories which is why we are unable to assist. His suggestion that we would have been "happy to intervene" had different people been involved in the organisation he is seeking to challenge is simply untrue and offensive. The only criteria on which we take on or decline legal cases are (1) The case falls within our specialist areas (2) there is "sufficient benefit" in the matter, and (3) we are funded to carry out the work. L_escalier's query did not meet these criteria and we are unable to assist. Finally, he suggests that we could simply have sent a "query" to the organisation about whether they were following procedures. As a professional organisation we would never meddle in such a way and would only get involved in a case within our specialist areas after taking full instructions and assessing legal merit. We are extremely busy carrying out a wide range of casework in our specialist areas of work and cannot take on matters outside our remit for L_escalier or anyone else”
by Andrew_Powell
Tuesday, January 24 2012, 5:31PM
“Actually MarC11, no they're not on the minimum wage but I do happen to know what the qualified people earn and it's an absolute pittance compared to what they would be paid in the commercial world. They work at the Law Centre out of a sense of social justice.
As to "The reason the legal aid bill is so high is that lawyers have screwed the system for so long encouraging legal action and frivlous Court cases that they have in effect killed the goose that lays the golden egg. ", wrong again.
Legal Aid is not a right and is provided on a case by case basis depending on the strength and type of that case or absolute necessity that an individual should be represented in Court. Legal Aid is also normally only awarded to defend a position and rarely if ever to pursue "frivlous Court cases"
ALL Legal Aid applications are means tested and to say "As they are a charity and receive public subsidy they should still be offering a service without the need to claim legal aid." is misleading. Legal Aid is only ever necessary to pursue litigation, the service that the Law Centre provides in terms of advice and support is invaluable and long may it continue.
Try walking in off the street anywhere else and see if you can get to talk to a qualified Barrister.”
by Alchemies
Tuesday, January 24 2012, 4:35PM
“It seems I have my own personal downvoter LOL”
by Alchemies
Tuesday, January 24 2012, 4:12PM
“I'll point out that the legal staff at the Law Centre could be earning a significantly higher wage elsewhere and are not in anyway incompetent to do so. A little respect for their decision to support the less well-off might be nice.”
by MarkC11
Tuesday, January 24 2012, 1:42PM
“So Gloucester Law Centre that has massive subsidies from the City, employs Labour Cllrs, etc is moaning about a cut in Legal Aid, which can be devisive in who gets it and who doesnt, I bet the lawyers working for the Law Centre are not on the Minium wage. The reason the legal aid bill is so high is that lawyers have screwed the system for so long encouraging legal action and frivlous Court cases that they have in effect killed the goose that lays the golden egg. As they are a charity and receive public subsidy they should still be offering a service without the need to claim legal aid. Or were / are they having it both ways?”
by L_escalier
Tuesday, January 24 2012, 9:23AM
“Two weeks ago, I notified the Law Centre that I might be looking for their assistance in the matter of my local partnership taking disciplinary action against me without following the procedures they're obliged to* (if they wish to continue to receive money from the city council, if nothing else), and that I might therefore be cc'ing the Centre int ofuture correspondence. I received a reply from a Mary Smith (Labour councillor for Matson & Robinswood, I believe), saying that they dealt with 'Welfare Benefits, Housing , Employment and Immigration only'. I replied that, 'Actually, I would have thought this matter was right up the Law Centre's street. Ensuring the proper running of a neighbourhood partnership presiding over the most diverse ethnic population in Gloucester, with, I'm sure, the greatest level of immigration? This surely ticks all six of your Objectives and Activities.'
When I finally, last Friday, called upon the new chairman, and his apparent new secretary, Conservative councillor Saj Patel, to provide me with the minutes required to be kept of the proper procedures (and I've still had no reply), I duly cc'ed the Law Centre into the email, and yesterday had another email from Mary Smith asking me to remove the Centre from my 'mailing list on this matter'. I respectfully declined, because it would be the simplest of acts for an organisation geared towards helping residents of a deprived area to send a partnership in such an area a query about whether they were following the procedures required to continue functioning.
As well as Mary Smith, one of the Centre's trustees is, or used to be, the local Labour party's chair, and I know that's not where Labour's involvement ends. I suspect that if the two active councillors on the partnership's board, who didn't lift a finger to support the rules, were anything other than Labour councillors, the Law Centre would be more than happy to intervene.
Therefore, while I'm sure the Law Centre does valuable work for the needy, they don't do themselves any favours.
*such as even telling me what the action was for...”
by Lecorche
Tuesday, January 24 2012, 9:13AM
“http://tinyurl.com/87eoh68”
by Alchemies
Tuesday, January 24 2012, 8:42AM
“Gloucester Law Centre is an invaluable resource and this piece of legislation is unacceptable.
'Secretary Kenneth Clarke has made the following statement under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998:
In my view the provisions of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill are compatible with the Convention rights'.
Fortunately that is just *his* view and ECHR may well not agree with him.”