Lonely voices of protest against anti-immigrant legal attack
It's an attack on the most vulnerable people in society so, as expected, very few parliamentarians have been particularly moved by it.
The government is going to introduce a residence test for legal aid, so those who have been in the UK for less than a year will not be able to access it.
There's no evidence it's needed. There's not even any evidence it would save money. Often, cuts to legal aid cost money, because clueless defendants and litigants use up so much court time having everything explained to them.
It's just straight-up, old-fashioned pick-on-the-immigrant politics. Who will be affected? Potentially women who have been sexually abused, people who have been victim of clinical negligence, and children.
The exchange between Andy Slaughter and justice minister Shailesh Vara is particularly revealing.
Vara said:
"Legal aid is a fundamental part of our justice system but resources are limited and it is the job of government to ensure that they are targeted appropriately."
Slaughter asked:
"The minister says it is unfair on taxpayers. What figure do the government place on the cost and/or saving of these measures?"
Vara replied:
"There are no precise figures for the savings that we would make because at present the nationality of an individual is not taken into account when legal aid is granted. As for savings to the British taxpayer, I can assure the honourable gentleman that when I go knocking on doors the way that taxpayers’ money is used is certainly a feature in my constituency, even if it is not in his.
"A clear and common-sense principle underpins the residence test: individuals should have a strong connection to the United Kingdom in order to benefit from taxpayer-funded public services."
There really is nothing in his argument. Even sand would be a firmer foundation for the case he wishes to make. But the days when evidence was required for anti-immigrant policies are gone. Now they are simply the expression of 'common sense' and the imagined views of constituents on the doorstep.
Yesterday the joint committee on human rights (JCHR) warned the measure breached our international obligations. Overseas-born children will be unable to participate in cases that affect them, meaning it contravened the UK's obligations under the UN convention on the rights of the child.
"As long as children have a legal right to take part in proceedings which affect their interests, it is wrong – indeed unlawful – to make it more difficult for a particular group of children to exercise that right," chair Hywel Francis said.
"We do not feel that the government has supplied enough evidence to justify why children should not be excluded altogether from the residence test, and we feel that it has not given enough thought to some of the practical obstacles which children will face. Given the critical conclusions reached by two other parliamentary committees about this instrument, I think the government should withdraw it immediately."
The government doesn't care about any of this. It will push ahead anyway.
Vara said:
"I gave evidence to the joint committee on human rights and I disagreed with that committee. We have looked into this matter and we are confident that the provisions we are putting forward comply with our international obligations."
Karl Turner replied:
"I wonder whether the minister has had advice from the attorney-general on this."
Evidently not, because Vara replied:
"I can assure him that the government have taken advice. I am sure that his party when in government took advice before undertaking various measures. I repeat the point that we are in compliance with all our international obligations."
Lib Dem Sarah Teather – an honourable MP who, by no coincidence, is leaving next year – pointed out how slippery Vara was being.
She said:
"Unfortunately, when questioned about this, he simply repeats the assertion, as he did last week. He has given no evidence. I accept that he may not wish to publish the legal evidence, but he could at least say something to explain his reasons."
Vara replied:
"My honourable friend says that I keep repeating the point. With the utmost respect, I say to her that she keeps repeating her point as well, as she did at the JCHR meeting that I attended."
There is simply no content to that statement. His reply seems merely to affirm that a disagreement is taking place. It is obfuscation of the highest order.
Slaughter's comments in the debate are enjoyable and worth quoting extensively:
"It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship on such a glorious summer morning, Mr Sanders. I am sorry that I may have to sour the mood slightly with the comments I intend to make on this pernicious and provocative piece of legislation, which has been roundly condemned by committees of both Houses, jurists, experts in the field and practitioners. No doubt, the other place will give it a kicking next week, as it does to almost all government legislation arising out of 'Transforming Legal Aid', and as it did the other day to the criminal justice and courts bill – in particular, the parts pertaining to restrictions on judicial review. It gives me no pleasure to say that and to have read the hundreds of pages of evidence-based, educated criticism of what the government have done, which contrast sharply with what the minister said this morning and the comments from the government benches."
Vara, true to his intellectual capacity, replied with another meaningless assumption.
"The honourable gentleman mentions the hundreds of pages of criticism. I gently remind him that millions of British taxpayers out there take a different view."
As Slaughter replied:
"That is pure assertion from the minister. Let us take the point on taxpayers. There is no evidence that the proposals will save money: indeed, they are likely to cost money, because the net effect will be more litigants in person and more hardship and distress cases, which will place a huge bureaucracy burden on small businesses—which is what most lawyers’ firms and not-for-profit firms are—that in any other context the government would condemn as a massive increase in red tape. I will be surprised if the net effect of the proposals is not an increase in costs to both government and small businesses. I do not know the answer to that, but neither do the government. They should have done their job."
And on it goes: mean-spirited policies unravelling the country's better instincts, without evidence or responsibility. The plans are being introduced through secondary legislation, so there's no chance for MPs to amend them. They'll probably be voted through next week.
