Weekly Worker 577 Thursday May 19 2005

Legal aid under fire

New Labour’s voracious appetite for criminalisation and social control is now notorious. Every queen’s speech, including the latest, has contained new measures to bring ‘yobs’ under control, to ‘introduce a sense of decency’, to target drug dealers, late-night drinkers, nuisance neighbours, parents who cannot keep their children under control … The list of those targeted seems endless.

‘Respect’ has become the latest New Labour buzz word. Blair has promised to make social conformity a central plank of his new government. At his monthly news conference on May 16, he said: “I want to send a very clear signal from parliament, not just the government, that this type of disrespect and yobbish behaviour will not be tolerated any more.”

Linked to this is another attack - on the right to free legal representation. Legal aid has already been hit hard over recent years, having already been withdrawn in cases where the alleged offence does not seem likely to attract a prison sentence. Many more people, as a result, now find themselves having to defend themselves before the courts. The environment of a magistrates court is well known for being intimidatory and is particularly difficult for those who are the subject of anti-social behaviour orders (Asbos), as the rules dictating whether you are allowed representation are complex and help is very hard to access.

With magistrates enthusiastically ordering tens of thousands of new Asbos every year, those on the receiving end are often too young or confused to resist their imposition. The sentencing guideline for breach of an Asbo is custody. With no representation easily available, those who are subject to orders often do not even properly understand what they are prohibited from doing or where they may not go.

And now new moves are underway to make the right to free legal representation even more difficult. The government is in the process of introducing compulsory competitive tendering between legal firms. Consultation is underway and a pilot scheme is due to be tried out in London from January 2006, where firms will attempt to outbid each other to provide the cheapest service. It will mean unqualified staff providing advice to those arrested and major cuts in the amount of work done on cases that do go to court.

It is a formula designed to clear out small firms and award those who are willing and able to do the minimum for the lowest price. If the government is successful in forcing this new money-saving scheme through, it will face those who find themselves at the mercy of the ever extending arm of the state with huge new problems.

But there is opposition from the majority of criminal law firms in London, with talk even of strike action. Such militancy is of course unusual from the ranks of the professional middle classes and may not come to anything - there are already rifts, with larger firms ganging together to get the best deal for themselves. There is talk of redundancies, as unqualified staff will be drafted in to replace newly accredited solicitors. Hours are to be extended and workloads doubled. The last thing firms will want to lose are profits. There is little or no unionisation and therefore some firms, particularly bigger ones, see an opportunity.

It may be dog against dog - and a dogfight is exactly what the government is bent on staging. But all is not lost.

There are enormous stresses and strains being created by the introduction of yet more criminal legislation. Some crown court staff in London have already refused to implement measures introduced in the recent Criminal Justice Act because of implicit attacks on their working conditions and job descriptions. The majority of court staff are unionised - with the PCS being the main union.

Urgent moves must be taken to unionise all law firms and bring together both sets of workers - court staff and those working for law firms. On top of that links can be made by those campaigning to resist the government’s attacks on both staff and people brought before the courts. The campaign by firms themselves to resist the government should get critical backing.
Orla Connolly

Print this page