Paul Treloar
Policy Officer, London Advice Services Alliance, London
Member since 21st Jan 2004
|
RE: justice in a new improved one size fits all straightjacket.
Fri 04-Feb-05 08:46 AM |
Off topic but in relation to legally aided representation at tribunals, I can't see there is any possibility of this being considered at present - the recent White Paper, Transforming Public Services: Complaints, Redress and Tribunals made the following statement:
10.14 The government does not accept that blanket availability of legal aid in this way is necessary. It is important to bear in mind that funding is already available for representation at certain tribunal proceedings, including the Employment Appeal Tribunal, any Mental Health Review Tribunal, the Immigration Appeal Tribunal or proceedings before an adjudicator, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, or the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission. In addition, proceedings before the Protection of Children Act Tribunal and certain proceedings before the VAT and Duties Tribunal and the General and Special Commissioners of Income Tax, are also in scope of the Community Legal Service. For other tribunals our intention is to reduce the need for representation by the provision of alternative approaches to dispute resolution, which do not require representation, by improved advice and assistance for the preparation of cases and by better trained and more highly skilled panel members. This will help the majority of citizens who can present their case effectively. There will still, however, be a need for representation in some cases, where an individual cannot represent his or her own case and the tribunal is resolving a matter of great importance to the individual. Funding is already available for such exceptional cases under the Access to Justice Act 1999 s.6(8)(b).
10.15 The government believes that the current scope and structure of the Community Legal Service’s contribution to supporting users in the administrative justice and employment field is about right for the current process but there is also a case for looking at these issues in a more flexible way. The case for representation and advocacy is based on assumptions about the nature of the tribunal process. As the process changes, so does the need for support.
In my opinion, these statements demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding as to why appellants need representation at SSATs - it is not the tribunal process, per se, that they cannot manage; rather it is understanding the complexity of social security legislation in respect of welfare benefits appeals, and knowing how to argue the relevant points in an appropriate manner.
|