Post by Colin Henderson on May 26, 2012 7:14:16 GMT
The specialist advice and advocacy charity who assist relatives of those who die in suspicious circumstances flagged up that the London Council's Grant Committee were meeting this week to approve a cuts budget which would affect them and other London organisations:
"The proposed decision to end commissions for specialist services is a significant blow for INQUEST’s beneficiaries and those of the other specialist service providers. We are the ones who pick up the pieces and provide specialist support to many of the capital’s most disadvantaged communities and INQUEST is the only organisation in London providing a specialist service on inquests to bereaved Londoners.
The Grants Committee recommendations mean a cut of £32,500 in 2012/2013 in INQUEST’s funding, but crucially it means INQUEST is not a priority beyond 2013. The cuts relate to specialist services on discrimination and tribunal cases and inquests that give a voice to and assist some of the most disadvantaged Londoners.
It is ironic that just when the government announces the appointment of the Chief Coroner, a significant step in finally achieving fundamental reform of the coronial system, work that INQUEST has been leading for over a decade, London Councils will be considering cutting funding to INQUEST."
The Grants Committee agreed with officer recommendations insofar as setting new principles and priorities for the London Councils grants scheme 2013-15, as well as recommendations for funding extensions (or otherwise) on 24.05.12. Next up, the Leaders Committee will be asked to ratify these decisions at their AGM on 12.06.12.
New priorities are homelessness, violence against women and girls, poverty (related to ESF funding only) and some second tier support - the only advice-specific commissions possible appear under the first two priorities on the face of the papers I have seen.
In terms of the funding extensions, it's a car crash for what little front-line advice provision has been funded by LC until recently. The following commissions all fail to be recommended for extension funding as officers say that it is clear they don't meet the new principles and/or priorities:
• Asylum support appeals project (advice and representation service – discrimination & tribunal cases) • Inquest Charitable Trust (advice and representation service – discrimination & tribunal cases) • Lambeth Law Centre (advice and representation service – discrimination & tribunal cases) • Law Centres Federation (advice and representation service – discrimination & tribunal cases) • Organisation of Blind African and Caribbeans (support advocacy schemes and legal advice to promote take-up of direct payments & benefit entitlements for people with disabilities and carers) • Disability Law Service (support advocacy schemes and legal advice to promote take-up of direct payments & benefit entitlements for people with disabilities and carers) • Disability Law Service (advice and representation service – discrimination & tribunal cases) • The Sickle Cell Society (support advocacy schemes and legal advice to promote take-up of direct payments & benefit entitlements for people with disabilities and carers) • Tower Hamlets Law Centre (advice and representation service – discrimination & tribunal cases) • VoiceAbility (support advocacy schemes and legal advice to promote take-up of direct payments & benefit entitlements for people with disabilities and carers)
I know that Disability Law Service has already registered a formal complaint against the recommendations, and I hope that the London Advice Forum, which Lasa convenes, will agree today to send a broad letter expressing serious concerns about the decision making process.
The papers explaining the decisions make repeated reference to the widespread impacts of welfare reforms and legal aid cuts across London, as well as rising personal debt and high unemployment, with 60% of respondents rating specialist services as important or quite important - so it is mystifying why specialist advice services are being cut in this way.
Post by Colin Henderson on May 31, 2012 21:13:07 GMT
Thanks for that update Paul - it's been hard to follow the developments from afar. Following on from your comments, if the process was contradictory, is there any further scope for a JR?
From what I have heard on the grapevine, various commissions that are not being recommended for extended funding are seeking legal advice as to whether they can mount any kind of legal challenge.
Post by Colin Henderson on Jun 17, 2012 17:56:20 GMT
This report from the Inquest site confirms the cuts have been passed:
"London Councils cuts funding to INQUEST advice services At their meeting on 12 June London Councils’ Leaders’ Committee delivered the final blow and cut 21 commissions from their funding scheme including INQUEST. London Councils and its predecessors have funded INQUEST almost continuously since 1986.
All organisations providing advice and representation services relating to discrimination and tribunal cases and inquests (London Councils committee reference numbers 46, 48 & 51) had their funding cut. They give a voice to some of the most disadvantaged Londoners. Following this latest round of cuts, which amounts to a reduction of the London Boroughs Grants Scheme by 70% over the last 2 years, Councillor Steven Carr reportedly said “there are further improvements to be made in the future”.
With these cuts to discrimination advice and the cuts to the EHRC funding for discrimination and the LSC's decision in the tender round ending today to have only 3 suppliers of face to face discrimination under legal aid (replacing the over 200+ current suppliers of legal aid discrimination advice), it appears that national coverage of discrimination law is at an end.
The seeming total silence of the networks on this, particularly on legal aid with nothing apparently being said publically by LCF, Advice UK, ASA, CitA etc about the end of discrimination advice is stunning. Why are they all not making a big political fuss about this? Why the silence?
