David Cameron unveils sweeping welfare reforms

Details

Category: The World

Created on Monday, 25 June 2012 00:00

Hits: 3892

David Cameron unveils sweeping welfare reforms

Housing benefit ban for under 25s and welfare linked to wages among plans as PM signals new focus beyond Tory-Lib Dem coalition

Patrick Wintour

David Cameron has laid down a barrage of new ideas to cut the welfare budget, including linking benefits to wages instead of inflation, a specific £20,000-a-year cap on housing benefit and exploring if more benefits can be paid in kind rather than in cash.

{sidebar id=11 align=right}The prime minister also suggested young people might not be entitled to benefits until they have paid contributions and asked whether requirements to seek work should be more intense for those who have not made lengthy contributions to the tax system.

In a vast array of proposals delivered in a speech in Kent on Monday, Cameron pointed out that in some countries claimants are required to undertake work in return for benefits within six months of becoming unemployed and said it might be necessary for those on sickness benefits to do more to improve their health.

He also suggested some single mothers with children as young as three should be required to prepare for work by writing a CV in return for income support.

In a further proposal he suggested that all such reforms, including removing access to all housing benefit for anyone aged under 25, should be considered to apply to existing claimants rather than just future claimants. Traditonally the Department of Work and Pensions implements major reforms through pilots that apply to new claimants first.

The prime minister's spokesman also said a review will look at the idea of regional benefit levels adjusted to the cost of living, although the idea was one of the few not included in the sweepingly ambitious speech. An element of regionality already exists within welfare payments.

{sidebar id=10 align=right}The speech represents a shift in the Cameron's political management of the coalition, with the prime minister openly acknowledging that some of the proposals cannot be delivered in concert with the Liberal Democrats, and will have to wait for a Conservative majority government after 2015. He said he was looking ahead to the programme he plans to set out to the country at the next election.

The Lib Dem Treasury chief secretary, Danny Alexander, gently rebuffed the plans, saying the focus should be on introducing universal credit within this parliament.

Ministers have signalled that they are looking for a further £10bn in welfare cuts, mainly after the next election.

In a widely trailed excerpt from the speech, Cameron said it was "time we asked some serious questions about the signals we send out through the benefits system", arguing it had been encouraging working-age people to have children and not work when it should have been enabling working-age people to work and have children.

"If you are a single parent living outside London, if you have four children and you're renting a house on housing benefit, then you can claim almost £25,000 a year. That is more than the average take-home pay of a farm worker and nursery nurse put together. That is a fundamental difference. And it's not a marginal point."

He said that at a time of austerity, it was "right to ask whether those in the welfare system should not be faced with the same kinds of decisions that working people have to wrestle with when they have a child."

The prime minister insisted that compassion should not be measured by the size of a welfare cheque. He will also turn his fire on young people aged under 25 on housing benefit. "For literally millions, the passage to independence is several years living in their childhood bedroom as they save up to move out; while for many others, it's a trip to the council where they can get housing benefit at 18 or 19 – even if they're not actively seeking work."

Labour's Liam Byrne said the prime minister was taking the "wrong approach".

The shadow work and pensions secretary said the Labour party didn't disagree with the "basic principle" that work should be encouraged, but argued that the Conservatives' cutting of tax credits was the wrong approach for the long-term.

"We don't disagree with the basic principle that you should be better off in work. That's why Labour introduced tax credits that helped get millions back into work.

"That's why we're angry at the way they're cutting tax credits, which means that thousands of people are actually better off on benefits than in work. I think he's coming at it from the wrong approach for the long term."

Source: The Guardian UK

No comments

The pitfalls of free online legal advice

Details

Category: Law & Justice

Created on Wednesday, 20 June 2012 00:00

Hits: 11179

The pitfalls of free online legal advice

Law on the Web's guide to landlord and tenant law is at least in part practically useless, and in part downright wrong

Giles Peaker

As we move down through the hellish circles of 'free legal content', and as your reluctant Virgil, I must insist we jump a few circles to go directly to the centre of the pit.

{sidebar id=11 align=right}The Pit – 'Free Legal Information'

Law on the Web proclaims itself to be a 'Free Online Legal Information And Find A Solicitor Service'. What is more, the site claims to be 'The UK's Biggest Source Of Free UK Legal Information' (on a page headed 'Legal Advice'). In fact they say, under 'About Us':

The mission of Law on the Web is to help people get access to justice by helping them find the right legal advice. We want to help people understand their legal rights and find a good solicitor if they should need to do so.

We aim to be the best place to go in the UK to find a solicitor and to get helpful legal information.

Before we get to the content, let us just note that the site is owned by Everything Legal Limited, who are now owned by DAS UK Group, a large legal expenses insurer. The managing director of Everything Legal Ltd is Brad Askew, a former practising solicitor (no longer listed on the Law Society site). His linkedin profile still describes him as a 'lawyer'.

Let us also note that Everything Legal owns Claims Financial – a PPI claim farming site, amongst others.

{sidebar id=10 align=right}Now, suppressing a slight shudder, to take a look at this 'helpful legal information'. There is a section for 'Landlord Law', which seems a good place to take a sample.

Under 'Evicting Tenants', there is this helpful information:

As a landlord, there may be occasions when you need to ask the tenants occupying your property to leave. If, however, the tenant refuses to go after the agreed notice period, you will have to take legal action. You must first serve your tenant a 'notice of intention to seek possession' to inform them that if they do not leave, you plan to go to court to obtain possession of the property. This notice must be given before you can apply to court for the possession order.

Once you do go to court, the court will decide whether or not to grant you a possession order based on evidence from both parties. If the order is granted, the court will set a date on which the tenants must vacate the property. If the tenant still refuses to leave, even after you have the possession order, you will have to go to county court and apply for a warrant of eviction, where the court will arrange for bailiffs to come and remove the tenants from the property. If a possession order is not granted, the court will allow the tenant to stay in the property as long as they stick to the guidelines set out by the court.

Which obviously provides everything a landlord would need to obtain a possession order. Well, apart from being both vague and sort of wrong. For example, it is unlikely that the Court would give 'guidelines' if a possession order is not made, but may make conditions on a suspended possession order. Even then, this would not apply for mandatory grounds of possession or the accelerated possession procedure, where no suspended order would be made.

And better (or worse) yet, under 'Accelerated Possession':

If your tenant has an assured short hold tenancy agreement, which is now the most common tenancy agreement, you will be able to use the accelerated possession procedure, which will enable you to get possession of your property much quicker and will not require you to have a court hearing. This procedure can only be used if the tenant has a written tenancy agreement and you have given them at least two months notice that you require the property back. You cannot give notice before the end of a fixed term tenancy.

So not only vague, but actually wrong. Notice can be given at any time, but the date on which possession is required cannot be before the end of the fixed term. Following this information could lead to a two month delay for a landlord.

And under a page on Tenancy Deposit Schemes (which has actually been updated since mid April 2012 – I'll come back to this) we find this:

Under a deposit protection scheme the landlord in charge of the property must protect the deposit paid to them using either a custodial scheme or an insurance based scheme. The landlord has free reign over which of these two options they choose to use, but they must do it within 14 days for deposits made between 6 April 2007 and 6 April 2012, or within 30 days for deposits made after 6 April 2012. Meanwhile, the tenant should always make sure that they and the landlord have carried out and agreed on an inventory when the tenancy starts.

Under the provisions of any deposit protection scheme, the tenant can apply to the county court for a legal order that forces the return of the deposit if the landlord has failed to either return or adequately protect the deposit. The county court can also order the landlord to pay compensation to the tenant is sufficient wrongdoing has been committed.

For those deposits made after 6 April 2012, the tenant has guaranteed recourse even after the tenancy has ended, and the compensation the landlord must pay out will be between one and three times to deposit paid.

This is just wrong in ways that may well leave a landlord relying on it in something of a mess – look at that last sentence, for example. All deposits taken after 6 April 2007 are, since 6 April 2012, subject to the amended rules, so that a tenant can claim after the tenancy has ended, so long as it ended after 6 April 2012. Any landlord relying on this inaccurate information would lose their case. The page also makes no mention that deposits taken between 6 April 2007 and 6 April 2012 had to be protected by 6 May 2012 or it would be too late to protect them and avoid a claim.

Or as a last example, from a page on 'Tenant's rights under Landlord Law':

Tenancy agreements

The tenants' rights should be detailed in the tenancy agreement. The tenancy agreement is a formal written contract between a landlord and tenant which detail the rights and responsibilities each party has. Any rented property that doesn't have a tenancy agreement leaves the tenant completely vulnerable. Any individual looking to rent a property and become a tenant should ensure there is a tenancy agreement in place and that it provides the relevant protection they require.

Again, with a heavy sigh, this is just wrong. While a formal written tenancy agreement is a very good idea, the absence of one does not leave the tenant completely vulnerable. Unless the tenancy falls under one of the exceptions, it will be an assured shorthold tenancy, with the same protection as a written agreement. In fact possibly better, as the landlord will find it difficult to use the accelerated possession procedure without a written agreement.

So, even from this sample, it is clear that the 'legal advice' provided is sometimes vague and imprecise to the point of being useless. At worst it is downright inaccurate in ways that may cause substantial problems for anyone, landlord or tenant, who relied upon it. I should be clear that these were just articles that I chose to look at. I wasn't searching for ones with problems. There are other pages with errors or serious lack of clarity. I'll leave you to find your own favourites.

Lawontheweb also provides 'Free Legal Documents'. Some landlord and tenant ones are on this page. I have only looked at a couple, but the Letter of Claim for failure to protect deposit is out of date and now wrong, and the assured shorthold tenancy agreement is, well, both basic and confusing, for example talking about notice periods in weeks for a monthly tenancy (and depending on which deposit scheme is used, quite possibly wholly insufficient for the scheme's requirements).

It is interesting that there have been some changes to the site since I started considering it in mid April 2012. The deposit scheme pages have been updated – they were wholly out of date after the 7 April 2012 changes – although as we've noted, they are still wrong.

Some of the 'articles' have an author name attached and there are 'author bios'. These are devoid of any useful information, like the legal experience of the author, for example. Each of the bio pages contain a link to contact the author. However, all those links go to a single email – This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. (yes, that is the Claims Financial PPI claim farmer) – who was not one of the named authors. For example, see 'David Mason' bio or 'Alistair Dursley'. [Guardian law editor's note: these pages have been taken down since the time of writing.] None of the bios actually state that the author has any legal qualification or experience whatsoever, although apparently all are full of 'enthusiasm' for the law.

In a recent addition, there is a now a link for people to submit their own 'High Quality Original Articles'. We saw something of what 'high quality original' content might mean in Part 1. But for a site that holds itself out as providing legal information, it is a surprise to see submission open to all. Who, one might ask, checks these submissions. In fact, who is responsible for the standard and accuracy of the information on the site. As one might ask, I did so.

Back in mid April, I emailed every email address I could find on the site – the contact page, the press info address, dbishop at claims financial – with some questions:

Hello

I am the editor of a housing law website at http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/ which has a substantial readership, including landlord organisations and managing agents.

I am considering writing a piece about the law on the web 'legal advice' landlord law pages at http://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/Landlord_Law

And linked from that page.

I have a few questions. I would be grateful for a response.

1. Who wrote these pages? The authors are credited as a Paul Mason, Colm Wolstencroft and Alistair Dursely. However, the 'contact the author' links all result in an email to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

2. Whatever the answer to 1. what are the legal qualifications and experience of the person or persons who wrote these pages?

3. Does this person or persons have experience in landlord and tenant law?

4. Please explain law on the web's procedure for ensuring that the information on these pages is correct, including the legal qualifications and experience of whoever is responsible for the procedure.

5. How often is the information on the pages updated?

6. The site describes the information in these pages as 'legal information' and 'legal advice'. It also provides 'legal documents'.

Does Everything Legal accept that visitors to the law on the web site may rely upon the information and documents being accurate, and act on that basis?

7. If a visitor relied upon the information and it was incorrect, is law on the web or Everything Legal insured against any claim against the site that may result?

I may have some further questions in the future.

I should make clear that any response may be published, in whole or in part.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours

NL

I never got a response, of any kind. I tried contacting Brad Askew via twitter (@Bradaskew) and also via @lawontheweb (strap line "Its ALL about access to justice"). Again, no response. I wasn't the only one asking questions either. Nobody got a response that I know of.

And here is the real issue. The 'legal information' provided is at least in part practically useless, and in part downright wrong. There is no indication whatsoever (at least on the current site) of the source of the information, or whether it is provided by someone experienced or knowledgeable in the subject (although that seems very doubtful).

Yet by insisting that it is providing 'helpful legal information' and helping people 'understand their legal rights', the site gives the clear impression that it is providing information that can be relied upon – the main information page is headed 'legal advice' after all. The documents, perhaps even more so, are held out to be relied upon. But some, at least, are out of date and/or inadequate. The suspicion has to be that the 'legal information' is there for search engine purposes, to attract people to the site to use the solicitor referral service (or be directed on to the PPI claims site or similar). Certainly, it does not appear that a great deal of expertise was invested in the information. This appears to be cheap free stuff.

But for the visitor or user, the cost of free is potentially much more than just being directed to a referral site – if the information is wrong, as in part it is, and people rely on it, as they are encouraged to do, where is their redress?

I suspect such a person would not get very far with the 'contact us' box on the law on the website. And there is nowhere else for them to go. For these reasons, and for announcing that it is 'all about access to justice', Law on the Web and Everything Legal Ltd go on the naughty step.

Source: The Guardian UK, 12 June 2012

No comments

Irish deserters get justice 70 years after WWII

Details

Category: Law & Justice

Created on Thursday, 21 June 2012 00:00

Hits: 3852

Irish deserters get justice 70 years after WWII

Ireland was neutral in the war. But nearly 5,000 Irishmen deserted to fight against Hitler’s Germany. Upon their return they suffered discrimination. Some 70 years later, the Irish government is rehabilitating them.

On June 12, 2012, the Irish Minister of Defense, Alan Shatter, issued a statement: "On behalf of the State, the Government apologizes for the manner in which those members of the Defence Forces who left to fight on the Allied side during World War II, 1939 to 1945, were treated after the War by the State." These are words Patrick Martin and his family were waiting for for a long time. The statement means that Patrick Martin's grandfather gets justice at last. Time was running out: Philip Farrington is over 90 years old. He fought with the British army against Nazi Germany. He even took part in the Allied invasion of Normandy, a bloody battle that claimed thousands of lives. He had just got married and wanted to make a difference, says his grandson. "When he came back he suffered, but he still worked all his life to provide for his wife and his seven children and then his grandchildren when he got older."

{sidebar id=11 align=right}Trauma remains with him

Even today, Philipp Farrington never shows off the medals for bravery that he received from the British army. Nearly 70 years later, he's still afraid of the Irish authorities. Philip Farrington deserted the Irish army to fight for the British. That led to his being sent to prison when he returned to Ireland.

The trauma has remained with him. Strangers make him nervous, confirms his grandson. For decades now, his grandfather has been afraid that someone from the government would come knocking on the door again and punish him some more. "I want just something to make up for that," says Patrick Martin.

The statement by the Irish government comes a year after families of Irish soldiers who fought with the British forces launched a petition calling for a pardon for the veterans; among the signatories was Pat Cox, the former president of the European Parliament.

Officers were spared

Only ordinary soldiers were punished, however. Officers who did the same were quietly re-integrated into the Irish forces after the war - a blatant injustice, according to Paddy Reid. His father was among the first to desert and join the British army. He spent four years in India fighting the Japanese and was highly decorated.

But after Reid's father came back to Ireland, the family had to live in poverty. In reality a war hero, Paddy Reid senior was suddenly treated as an outcast. Nobody would hire him - the big local companies, the transport companies, the dock, shipping companies. "I am the oldest in the family and my early memories of growing up were not enough food, no money coming in," recalls his son. "He wasn't able to work because he just couldn't get a job."

He couldn't find a job because his name was on a list which the Irish government published in 1945 as the Emergency Powers (No. 362) Order 1945. Its aim was to penalize named deserters from Ireland's armed forces who went to fight with the Allies - principally with the British army. The list came to be known as the "Starvation Order" in Ireland.

Name on list = no job, no money

Almost five thousand names were on the list. There was a copy to be found in all government and personnel offices, and anyone on it would not be given a job. Patrick Reid was on the list with his full name, his date of birth, and the last address the Irish authorities had been able to find. "Psychologically for the family, for my mother, it was very difficult", recalls his son, who spent a lot of time as a child going to the pawn shop. His mother would send him with whatever she could get, he says. "She would send me around to the pawn shop with a pair of shoes or something, and that would be food for a day or two."

Irelandhad gained its independence from Britain two decades before. It did not want its men fighting for the former colonial overlords. For centuries the Irish had rebelled against British rule. There is even a monument in Dublin to remember those who died in the struggle.

The Starvation Order "was one of the most vindictive measures ever introduced by any Irish government," says Gerald Nash, a Member of the Irish Parliament for the country's Labour Party. He says it's important to keep in mind that "the relationship between Britain and Ireland when the state was formed in the 1920s to the recent times was quite tense."

Today, relations between Ireland and England have improved. For many, the pardoning of the onetime deserters is a further step in the right direction. And advocates of the pardon stress that deserters actually joined the war for the right reasons, while their own country remained neutral, and many Irish even sympathized with Germany.

But there are also some who still oppose the pardon, claiming it cannot be in Ireland's national interest. Eunan O'Halpin is a historian at Trinity College in Dublin and says states have to look after their own interests and think of the people who didn't desert. "Even though they would have made more money and might have got a medal, they still did their duty by the state. And I think to honor deserters is to insult the people who didn't desert."

Reconciliation at last

Harry Callan, for instance, did not desert. As a member of the Irish Merchant Navy, he was captured by German forces and was sent to the Farge concentration camp outside Bremen. He experienced many horrors there, but he survived. Today, only one thing matters for him - reconciliation, and that includes the deserters. "Politics is very hard for us to understand", he says. The Irish are known to like their fight, "and that was a fight for the Irish and they were there and they fought, that was that. I hope they'll get their pardon very soon, if not sooner."

Now the Irish government has officially apologized, and the defense minister has pledged to pardon all deserters officially this year. At last, after 67 years, Irish war veterans like Philip Farrington no longer need to be afraid.

Author: Veit-Ulrich Braun / nh Editor: Michael Lawton

Source: Deutsche Welle

No comments

Rawlings Commends Political Unity In Kenya

Details

Category: DateLines

Created on Tuesday, 19 June 2012 00:00

Hits: 3703

Rawlings Commends Political Unity In Kenya

Ghana’s former President, Flt Lt Jerry John Rawlings, has counselled Kenya’s political leadership to take advantage of the unified political front that has governed the country since the devastating post-electoral violence of 2007.

He criticised the winner takes all mentality which sees no good in the opposition and said Africa needs governments that tap the best from all parties in forming governments. “That is what Africa needs.”

{sidebar id=11 align=right}President Rawlings said whoever wins the next election due to take place early next year should not hesitate to establish a government of national unity because the current unified political setting has brought “a certain spiritual elegance’ to Kenyan politics.

The former President, who is also the African Union High Representative for Somalia, made these comments when he delivered a tribute on Saturday at the burial service in Kitengela, Kenya of the late George Saitoti, Minister for Internal Security of Kenya who died in a helicopter accident on Sunday, June 10.

{sidebar id=10 align=right}President Rawlings likened the Kenyan political situation to two football teams who go at each other in fierce competition but afterwards the best players are selected from all teams to the national team and these different players then defend the national pride as if they had not played competitively against each other.

He said: “In Kenya circumstances have foisted two or three parties together and this seems to be bringing the best out of you.”

Describing Professor Saitoti as a smart and intelligent politician, the former President said: “Nothing used to oppress me in office when good, highly skilled personalities died. I wish that person’s brain, power of articulation, intelligence could be taken out and given to someone.”

He urged the political class to emulate the late Prof Saitoti’s values. “If we could imbibe the good manners it would reduce the animosity that is transmitted downwards,” he said.

Earlier on Friday President Rawlings in a tribute during the requiem mass held at the Holy Family Basilica in Nairobi described Professor Saitoti as a man of precision.

The AU High Representative said he was inspired to attend the funeral of the late Minister because he heard extremist elements celebrate the death of Minister Saitoti stating, “We are united in showing appreciation to Professor Saitoti.”

Professor Saitoti, his deputy Orwa Ojode and four others died in a helicopter crash on Sunday June 10.

As Internal Affairs Minister he was instrumental in Kenya’s decision to wage war on Al Shabab in Somalia after a series of cross-borderincursions by the extremist group which adversely affected Kenyan tourism and national security.

For thirteen years he was the Vice-President during the presidency of Daniel Arap Moi. Aside the Internal Security portfolio, Professor Saitoti had also served in the Foreign, Education and Finance portfolios.

A mathematician and economist, Professor Saitoti was the Executive Chairman of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund in 1990-91.

Source: JJR WordPress

No comments