New
Living Diary
Index

New  participatory democracy

Taming the Corporations

My Welsh socialism

My New Socialist Settlement

Globalise the left!

Bevan  re-visited

1014  17 June 2004  

But the probability is that you will nevertheless have to turn to "your society", or "your State", for collective for support, in various phases of your life. 

1. Ill-health, disability  If you, or any of your dependents, are injured, or fall seriously ill: for the overwhelming majority, it is only “the State” that can give the assurance of care and support.  If you become very wealthy, you will of course be able to buy-in all these services for yourself – but that is not likely; in any event, you may not wish to accept the constraints of earning “loads’a money”, which brings with its own restrictions.

2. Low income  If you choose low-paid employment in the market-place, you may need supplementary financial support, particularly if you have children.   And with children (again, unless you are very wealthy) you will need the assurance that “your State” will meet the costs of their education and healthcare, as they grow to maturity.  In States where these assurances are absent (such as modern South Africa) the future can seem very bleak indeed, for millions upon millions of people.

3. Unemployment  If you lose your job, you may need support for yourself and your family while you look for other employment; these risks are virtually uninsurable in the private market, and the State is the only port you can turn to, in such storms – it is your interest to ensure that “your State” has good support systems in place, for that eventuality;

4. Changing course, re-training  If you find you have made a wrong choice in your training or your education, you may need the opportunity to re-train or change course at a later stage of life: “lifelong learning” is much more than an manifesto slogan – “your State” should afford you the assurance of changing course if your initial choices for any reason prove unsatisfactory – without support, many in earlier generations have lived out constrained and unfulfilled lives, because of the impossibility of escaping from the rut of their early-life choices;

5. Freedom of movement, communication  More generally, you will seek the freedom of personal mobility, and easy communications with others – both vehicular and electronic: you have a keen interest in the quality of public transportation facilities, notably the highway system; without a strong commitment to facilitating vehicular mobility, your options in life will certainly be inhibited; and it is only “your State” that can ensure that you have access to those parts of the world where you seek to go.

6. Pensions  Finally, when your earning days are over, you should be assured that you will not face an impoverished old age, without imposing undue constraints upon the lives of your children or grandchildren; true, graduates are more likely to reach the higher salary-levels in life, and you may in the event have no need of State Old Age Pensions - but don’t bank on it.  The private pension system is proving fragile and unreliable.  It is only the State which can offer a satisfactory pension of last resort, and you should be campaigning for such provision in the UK, where it does not currently exist.

I say that these are six good reasons for taking an interest in politics, and for choosing the Labour Party.  You may also be moved personally by the great causes which have driven personal political initiatives in all organised societies - the relief of the poverty of others, human rights and personal freedoms, redressing individual wrongs, asserting religious freedom, constitutional reforms of all kinds - these may strengthen your political concerns. 

I do not pretend that my Party has yet “got it all right” – far from it. 

But in the UK, Labour is the Party most likely to…  

With your help.”

What do you think of my "Student Manifesto"?  Drop me a line

1015  18 June 2004  

Applying for asylum: unlikely, because that must be done immediately upon arrival, preferably at the port of entry, and ordinarily no Solicitor-links have been established at that initial stage;

At the Home Office "Interview": this is the initial interrogation, with full interpreter services, conducted either at Croydon or one of the Home Office regional offices - the Applicant is entitled to be accompanied by a Solicitor at that interrogation, but I have not yet come across such a case - and the Government is considering withdrawing this entitlement altogether.  This is the key interrogation, (i) because the Home Office decision is based upon it, and (ii) the written record "stays with the file", and is constantly the subject of cross-references, or challenges in later cross-examination at oral hearings.

Appealing to the Adjudicator, a sort of lowly "judge" appointed by the Home Office from panels of local volunteers, though paid £700 per day for their work.  It is common for Solicitors to be approached after the arrival of the initial Home Office "Refusal Decision", and asked to submit at appeal: the Adjudicator has full powers to re-hear the matter, and to grant asylum if appropriate.  It is also common for Solicitors, having been paid for the initial persual process, to conclude that the appeal has less than 50% prospects of success, and unilaterally to withdraw from the case, pleading that it is their statutory duty to do so.  And the asylum applicant is left without legal advice or support: the Hearing quickly looms up (with the Home Office providing the Interpreter) - and the appeal may be heard either in the presence of the Appellant alone, or in the Appellant's absence.

Appealing to the Immigration and Asylum Tribunal in London, a senior three-person court chaired by a senior lawyer: an appeal lies only for "errors of law", and it the Tribunal will ordinarily either "cure the irregularity" (if it can) or remit the case for a fresh hearing before a different Adjudicator.  It is very common for Solicitors to withdraw at this stage, leaving the Applicant in person with the option of either filling in the grounds of appeal themselves (virtually impossible, without legal advice and UK-law expertise) - or just giving up.

Now:  this "self-certification" procedure is deeply flawed.  I have argued before Adjudicators (unsuccessfully, to date) that the Solicitor's "duty to withdraw" renders the Scheme itself illegal, as a breach of the Article 6 (ECHR) right to a "fair hearing".  Even if the reason for withdrawal is not communicated to the Adjudicator (and it should not be), these Adjudicators know perfectly well what has happened - they know that the Appellant's own Solicitor has decided he has no case - how can there be a fair trial, in such circumstances?

But there is more.  When it comes to payment, even the most conscientious Solicitor is treated unfairly, by this Scheme.  For as a quid pro quo for the the right to self-nominate for legal aid, these firms are subject to regular and tough audit checks - and if the auditor considers that they have spent more time than they should on a case (i.e. spent too much "public money" on it) they can have their fees docked by a percentage deduction for all their work in the relevant period.  Solicitors live in fear of the LSC auditor.  It is that audit process which has produced the new report condemning a rogue minority of solicitors: that may well be justified, but the overall effect of the rule is dire, upon the virtuous majority as well as the rogues. They will drop a case like a hot potato, rather than risk an adverse audit review...

• None of this was explained, in that scurrilous Guardian article.  I hope I have done something to redress the balance.

Created by GMID Design & Communication

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
The originating content of this website is my own work, and subject to my copyright. But on one condition only, I hereby give my consent to its unrestricted reproduction for any purpose: the condition is that its source is subject to proper acknowledgment, giving my name, my assertion of copyright, and the name of this website as its source, namely: www.warrenevans.net - is that a deal?  Roger WE