Letter: Legal aid must stay at the cutting edge

Ms Barbara Roche,Mp
Wednesday 24 March 1993 00:02 GMT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Sir: Your excellent editorial 'One law for the rich, one for the vulnerable' sensibly criticised the Lord Chancellor for rushing into 'the blunt instrument' of cuts in the eligibility of legal aid rather than putting in place a strategy to control legal aid costs. As you point out, restricting eligibility does not cut costs, it merely shifts them from the tax-payer to the poor.

During the brief investigation into the Lord Chancellor's proposals that the Home Affairs Committee undertook recently, it became clear that no one disagrees that there is a need for a reform of the system. Various groups, including the Law Society and Bar Council, have put forward alternative cost-cutting measures, which the Lord Chancellor has not looked at in sufficient

detail.

But as our report states, cuts in eligibility 'do not sit easily with the Government's strategy to make the consumer and the citizen more aware of his or her rights and more tenacious of them.'

If John Major is serious about a classless society in which poverty does not impede justice and in which citizens have inalienable rights, he should instruct the Lord Chancellor to reconsider. A start would be to timetable a full day's debate in the House of Commons in government time, as our report advocates, where Parliament could debate the effects these measures will have on the rights of 14 million of the people we represent.

Yours sincerely,

BARBARA ROCHE

MP for Hornsey and Wood Green

(Lab)

House of Commons

London, SW1

23 March

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in