Legal aid naivety on display
Lord McNally gave his first speech last week on legal aid since taking over the legal aid brief in the reshuffle. Hats off to him for braving the lion’s den that was the Legal Aid Practitioners Group annual conference – something of a baptism of fire. Legal aid practitioners were never going to be his biggest fans, given his leadership of the government’s much-despised legal aid reforms through the Lords.
McNally clearly wanted to move on from the period prior to the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act receiving royal assent, saying the bill’s passage had been ‘bruising for everyone concerned’.
His speech was more of an attempt to restore bridges with the profession than to provide a detailed timetable of changes. McNally pledged to listen and engage with practitioners and representative bodies during the act’s implementation.
So, he got his speech out of the way OK, but the trouble came responding to questions from those pesky legal aid practitioners, who wanted to know awkward practical details, for example, about who would pay for experts’ reports to establish whether someone has suffered domestic abuse (no one seemingly), or what contingency money there is in the legal aid budget for unexpected large class actions.
Here both McNally and his colleagues from the Legal Services Commission were left sometimes scratching their heads a few times.
But it was when a Bristol solicitor asked about the adequacy of the number of firms able to do education law (three apparently) that McNally caused a collective sharp intake of breath from the assembled delegates.
The Liberal Democrat peer questioned why a disabled child would need a ‘lifetime of legal help’, suggesting that they would not need a lawyer in order to get their special educational needs met. The assembled crowd was, to a person, shocked by the justice minister’s naivety.
Once the questioner, Beverly Watkins, had retrieved her chin from the ground, she pointed out that as children grow up and develop their needs change. But cash-strapped local authorities do not willingly bend over backwards to use their resources to ensure children with disabilities and a myriad of special educational needs get their needs meet in a manner that will allow them to thrive. And, is it only those children with the most doughty and indefatigable parents who stand any hope at all without the help of a lawyer.
Local authorities, she pointed out, do not consider giving people their rights or public services a priority, but are more focused on saving money.
Watkins cited instances of children who have spent years out of education because local authorities had failed to meet their specific educational needs, and a 13-year-old still languishing in primary school because appropriate schooling had not been provided.
Lawyers, she said, are never parents’ first option, they only come to them, if they still have the will, when they have no other option.
McNally said that he wanted to listen and there will be no shortage of people willing to take him up on that. This could be a steep learning curve.
Catherine Baksi is a reporter on the Gazette
Follow Catherine on Twitter
Comments
naivety
"The Liberal Democrat peer questioned why a disabled child would need a ‘lifetime of legal help’, suggesting that they would not need a lawyer in order to get their special educational needs met. The assembled crowd was, to a person, shocked by the justice minister’s naivety"
I am not saying that I disagree entirely with the sentiments of the delegates present - just that it is an interesting comment from the Minister worthy of sensible discussion rather than complete dismissal.
I accept local authorities are hellbent on saving money rather than paying it out. However, I do know people who have a disabled child and are reliant on special educational and other services from their local authority. Although I understand it is always a fight to obtain what they are entitled to year on year, these people are quite determined and have learned and adapted on how to get around the system to get the help they need. As far as I know contacting a solicitor is not something they have ever had to contemplate and these proud people who cope admirably themselves might even feel a little insulted that they require a lifetime of legal help.
It is all very well being shocked at what the Minister said, but is it not reasonable to ask the question? Why does a disabled child need a lifetime of legal help?
I would be interested in peoples views.
Education Law
I am not an education law specialist but am a school governor. The local authority concentrates on saving money and therefore obtaining a statement for a child has become much more difficult . The effect of this combined with the cuts in funding to schools for pupils with special needs means that an increasing amount of the schools budget and staff time has to be devoted to this area and the understandable concern of parents is that the education of the average child will suffer.
The amount of money from the legal aid budget spent on education law is small but the benefit this gives the individual child and other children at the same school is uncalculable.
David Lawton
Special Educational Needs and legal aid
I am not surprised that Kelly Matthews (and indeed Lord McNally) know of people who have been able to get the support their child needs without any legal support. Some people who are articulate, well informed and determined will manage to push through the system regardless of the obstacles. But this is by no means universal. I have been practising education law for private individuals for 18 years, mainly in the field of special needs. During that time, I have in fact acted for many lawyers and other professionals who have not been able to find a way through the system, no matter how hard they try. They are fobbed off by local authorities informing them what their policies are, and then misled into thinking that this automatically means that the decision cannot be challenged. In the past I have had ex teachers (one of whom was a special needs co-ordinator) working for me, who were staggered when they found out what the law really was, as it was so different from what they had been led to believe by their employing authority. They were then shocked when they realised how many parents they may have inadvertently misled as a result.
But most of those who would be helped under the legal help scheme are not professionals and do not have the resources for a big fight with a powerful authority. Charities are able to help, but they cannot support all who need it, nor do they have the resources to fund the independent expert reports which are almost essential to get a proper diagnosis of what a child needs in school. Many of these parents will have learning difficulties themselves.
If Lord McNally really does believe that all is for the best in this the best of all possible worlds, he is indeed seriously misinformed and needs to talk urgently either to those of us who practise in the field or alternatively to a charity like IPSEA.
legal aid
no money I'm afraid.
unfortunately it all comes out of the same pot - the taxpayers wallet.
if legal aid [taxpayer] is granted to a lawyer to fight the case then the local authority must spend money [again taxpayer] fighting it which means less moeny for other special needs children. The pot is now smaller concentration should have been put on cutting the fraud within legal aid in the past now there is no money it is an easy excuse just to slash.
Judicial Review would not be granted as the LA have a complaints procedure which is what a lawyer should tell the parents to do in the first palce and go to their councillor as the councillors have to act as a coporate parent in some cases, don't they?.
Legal Aid
It is naive to think that children with special educational needs and/or disabilities automatically have their needs met or in certain cases even have access to education, let alone appropriate education. Why should a parent be battling to secure full-time education for their disabled child, when this is their right? Why does a Local Authority then refuse to provide a full-time education when approached by a parent? Why does it only change when legal advice is sought?
The 'problem' is not legal aid or legal aid lawyers, but the Local Authority that refuses to deliver a service and has no intention of doing as it should until challenged legally; they then repeat this pattern time and time again.
Parents seek legal advice as a last resort, usually after 4-5 years of fighting on their own or with support from local advice groups or charities; they have often already made complaints to the Council and the ombudsman but the problems have not been resolved.
It is also worth remembering that the Local Authority always has access to its own legal team, should parents not also be entitled to the same?