Will Parliament spot the real problem with legal aid cuts?

May 26th, 2011
Stumbleupon Twitter Facebook del.icio.us Digg it Linked in

Paul Rumley is a partner in the clinical negligence team at Withy King Solicitors in Swindon. The firm also has offices in Bath, Marlborough, Oxford and London.

There are some who argue that legal aid, which allows low income families access to legal advice and representation, should indeed be scrapped – particularly for those who use it to fund messy divorces, custody cases or personal disputes.

But the proposed plans to cut legal aid, at the same time as proposing changes to no win no fee arrangements, will affect every aspect of the law, with perhaps the biggest impact being felt by patients injured through clinical negligence – people who have died or been seriously injured as a result of misdiagnosis or incorrect medical or dental treatment carried out by the NHS or in private medical care.

Cutting legal aid for clinical negligence cases will affect the most vulnerable people in our society – severely disabled children, the bereaved and those who lack mental capacity. How can this be part of the coalition government’s stated plan to protect the most vulnerable from its cuts?

One of the problems the Government has is that it also funds the NHS – and this represents a major conflict of interest. If you make it impossible for all but the wealthiest patients to sue the NHS by withdrawing public funding, the Government is, in effect, putting itself and the NHS above the law.

No one disputes the wonderful job our doctors and nurses do under very trying circumstances, but it is only right that when things go wrong they are held to account by the courts in the same way that teachers and other public servants including us lawyers, indeed any citizens, are.

No-one in this country – not even the Government – is above the law.

Now is the time for every citizen, led by the legal profession, to stand up for legal aid funding to provide practical access to justice, on the firm basis that the Government needs this more than we need them. Without an effective justice system, they erode the very democracy which puts them into power and keeps them there.

As members of the legal profession, we need to lead the fight against these cuts and lay bare the truth behind the oft-quoted spin of ‘compensation culture’ and ‘self-serving lawyers’. We are simply the servants of our clients and the justice system, just as MPs and ministers are servants of the people.

  • Lee

    It seems to me that the government have chosen to ignore the big issue at the centre of this. That of human rights. We have, as part of our law, legally protected rights. One of these is the right to a fair trial. Access to legal representation and advice CANNOT be based upon wealth. ‘Reforms’ like this will drive our society back a century, and widen the already gaping chasm between the richest and poorest people.

  • mike farrell

    I think the question is not whether they will spot the problems, its whether they actually care. I submit that they do not care. Legal aid is an easy target, its one of those things that no one realises they need until they need it. Beyond that it is seen as simply something that costs the taxpayer money. I think however in terms of our Government, there is more involved with cuts than simply austerity. Cutbacks in so many other social areas for example may leave the government open to legal challenge by individuals, individuals who would by necessity require legal aid to assist. Without legal aid, such claims are effectively vanquished before they could even start allowing the Government to continue with its program of cuts unconcerned of the potential legal ramifications from and against individual citizens. I was shocked when I read the green paper by the fact that many of the cuts target those areas of law which would be called upon by the more vulnerable and poverty stricken areas of society, cuts in areas to do with housing for example. The basis behind it is probably similar to the basis behind the fact that nearly all local authorities facing large cut backs in budget are northern labour supporting councils where the current executive has no vote, while those experiencing next to no cut back are southern county Conservative rich councils. That in itself shows that THEY DO NOT CARE.

    I suspect the legal aid battle will be a long and difficult struggle, but it is wholly necessary to avoid the immorral legal disenfranchisement of effectively a majority of society and to protect their interests against those not of the state but of the Conservative Government and their heartlands. The law should be open to and within the reach of anyone who may need it, not just those who can afford it.

    I fully support the stance against these cuts, at the moment however I am not a lawyer, merely an English law student based in Scotland with an intention to practice in England, so can do little from here on these issues from here other than to vocally support ongoing efforts.

    Kind regards,

    Mike.

  • Sarah Miller

    Its interesting to note that Mr Rumley, who deals with clinical negligence cases, is very quick to brush to one side the need for legal aid in family disputes. I completely agree with the vast majority of what he says and beleive that legal aid should continue in cases such as those he deals with. However, to say that family cases should not be covered is a very narrow and unrealistic approach given the real and serious emotianal trauma suffered by adults and children alike at the point of family breakdown.

  • Geraldine O’Connor

    MPs got free legal aid for fiddling their expenses which is why it’s being kept for fraud cases. However, it’s going to be cut for medical negligence cases. The govt has invested in a large pharmaceutical company. If members of the public get free legal aid to take a company they have invested in to court and win, the companies share prices will go down. The govt is faced with a choice: either they get rid of free legal aid for medical negligence cases or they end ‘UK TRADE & INDUSTRY’ funding of a certain French pharmaceutical company. The Human Rights Act prevents the MOJ from getting rid of all free legal aid and they’ve done a deal with the pharmaceutical company. Woops! I think they call this a conflict of interest????