The importance of good manners

Since Young Legal Aid Lawyers began in 2005, we have attempted to respond to virtually every consultation on legal aid: We have been VERY BUSY and VERY DISAPPOINTED.

The Access to Justice Act allows the legal aid system to be changed without recourse to Parliament, despite the fact that access to justice is essential to the constitutional role of the law as a check and balance on the executive. Instead, these vitally important changes are being implemented following consultations.

2,372 responses were sent to the DCA and the LSC to inform the latest Government paper on the changes for legal aid, The Way Ahead. The paper notes that most respondents to the consultation expressed at least some opposition to fixed and graduated fees. Nevertheless the paper concludes that “the firm view of both the Government and LSC is that the principle of fixed and graduated fees is the right one.”

The 2,372 responses were analysed in Legal Aid: A Sustainable Future – Analysis of Responses published in November 2006 and referred to in a footnote in The Way Ahead. Careful consideration of the paper shows that there were well-reasoned and avid objections to fixed fees. Yet the only recompense we get is that the paper concludes that the LSC “welcome the interest, dedication and engagement that all stakeholders have shown throughout both the process of Lord Carter’s review and subsequent consultation and events.” The reality is best portrayed by the blanket statement in The Way Ahead that Government disagrees. It is simply not good enough.

The recent Green Peace Judicial Review has highlighted the problems with consultations that are not administered in a full, frank and meaningful way. The current process of consultation is insulting – many practitioners have painstakingly sought to engage with Government and the LSC throughout the process to virtually no end. We have devoted time and energy only to be ignored or accused as a profession of succumbing to incentives to filibuster work for more money. The notion that legal aid should be a profitable business by virtue of the philosophy of swings and roundabouts is demeaning and offensive.

As June Venters QC pointed out in a recent speech in defence of legal aid, she is “a legal aid solicitor – not the manager of a fairground”. The Minister for legal aid has frequently sought to rebut the argument that the current consultation is inadequate by reference to her meetings with practitioners from all areas of legal aid work throughout the summer. Yet, it is the experience of many practitioners that these events have sometimes descended into a rather unruly and defensive battle with accusations of bad manners from both sides. Sadly, our recent Question Time event revealed little rapport between Government and legal aid practitioners.

After months of dedicated work from our membership, the event was almost entirely overshadowed when at the last minute it emerged that the Minister would only stay for the first half of the Question Time panel discussion –it was obviously crucial for her to be there to account for Government decisions. Yet, while the Minister did remain, she made it perfectly clear that the Government’s mind is made up and asked the audience to focus instead on the reality of the new arrangements.

While the event proved a heated and lively discussion on the question of the future for legal aid, it was the Minister’s early departure that captured the eye of the Law Society Gazette in the ‘obiter’ column under the title “An early exit”. Our host, Jon Snow, referred to “ministerial gremlins” that must have got into her diary. Yet our YLAL gremlins on the registration desk were surprised to see the Minister enjoying a glass of wine in the lobby as she waited for her car, while the Question Time continued without her.

On 1st April, the first tranche of Carter’s changes came into force alongside a growing sense of despair amongst the legal aid community. The insinuations that our campaign and our criticisms have been motivated by greed are demoralising: we stand to lose a crucial pillar of the welfare state so that access to justice will be but a skeletal lip service operation.

It is society that will lose – not lawyers. When we founded YLAL, part of the incentive was to provide a voice for the next generation, a vehicle through which to channel our representations and views. That promise was on the assumption that we would be listened to and that our views would be considered.

It is becoming increasingly hard to have any confidence that this Government is reciprocating our efforts on any level. The consultation process is beginning to feel like a sham and if the powers that be cannot engage on a meaningful or even polite level, the only resort is to up the ante: to demonstrate and fight back.

Lawyers are trained in the art of reasoned argument to be adjudicated before a fair tribunal. Yet there appears to be no such opportunity in this debate and Government should not be surprised if the wilful refusal to listen and act results in direct action. The first mass lobby of parliament was held on 19th March, where lawyers made a public show of our belief that access to justice is essential if we are to have any justice at all. Several MPs addressed the crowd, promising that if the issue ever came to the floor of the House we could rely on their vote. Sadly, the Government to date has shown so little respect for the views of the legislature that the changes have been implemented prior to the report of the Constitutional Committee on their impact. The Committee is due to report soon and it is hoped that the report will come up with some constructive recommendations and that this time the Government will have the good manners to listen.

We will continue to engage and respond to government proposals but, as Fred Astaire said, “the hardest job kids face today is learning good manners without seeing any.”

Laura Janes is chair of Young Legal Aid Lawyers.

This article can be found in the print edition of Socialist Lawyer number 46, April 2007.