Plan for chief legal officer splits local government solicitors
Friday 17 April 2009 by Deven Pamben
A proposal that every local authority be required to appoint a qualified chief legal officer has attracted split responses from 70 different organisations.
The Law Society and Solicitors in Local Government have proposed a change in the law to create the new role, replacing that of monitoring officer, who does not have to be legally qualified. Chief legal officers would be solicitors, barristers or legal executives.
The Association of Council Secretaries and Solicitors and the Local Government Group, the SLG’s training arm, opposed the plans from the outset (see [2009] Gazette, 5 February, 3).
The consultation also drew criticism from England’s largest local authority. Mirza Ahmad, corporate director of governance at Birmingham City Council, described the proposal as ‘poor-quality and lacking in real understanding of issues facing monitoring officers’.
But the Institute of Legal Executives said it would ‘be in the public interest’ for councils to have a chief legal officer answerable to a professional regulatory body.
A paper on the proposal will go before the Law Society’s legal affairs and policy board in the next two months, Mark Stobbs, the Law Society’s director of legal policy, said.
Meanwhile, local authorities are being urged not to pass the cost of practising certificate fees on to their legal officers as a cash-saving measure. Guy Goodman, SLG’s chair, says he was made aware of one council considering passing on the £995 fee to its solicitors. ‘This would be a backward step and is not a move we would support.’
---------------------
2 comments:
The London Borough of Camden were my Corporate Parents between 1988 and 2000, I was six when I came into their care after being placed under a full care order at the age of 10 or 11. I remained in care until I was 18.
Throughout my experience with LAC and LCT, I can only say very bad things happened to me, I am still trying to get over them; I am now 27.
At 18, when I left care, I should have been provided with advice and assistance in accordance with the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000, including a PA, Pathway Plan, Financial and General Assistance until the end of programme of study, I was not.
Camden Council's Leaving Care Team Manager Afzal Ahmed is adamant that I do not qualify for the status of former relevant young person and I qualify as a qualifying young person over 16, this is not what the Explanatory Notes to the Children Leaving Care Act 2000 says, nor the Department of Health Executive Summary.
Afzal and Camden's Complaints Department including Chantelle Williams-Bekoe are probably used to dealing with Children and Young People whose lives they have ruined and defamed so badly, they no longer have the will, power, spirit or desire to fight against oppresive and illegal practises; this is not me.
For one to have the status of a qualifying person over the age of 16 would mean the individual was in care for less than 13 weeks and are therefore entitled under s.24 of the Act 2000; gain, this is not me.
Even if I was only entitled to this assistance, the Department of Health's Summary says:
"Local Authority care leavers are entitled to assistance with education and training up to the age of 24."
Camden Council did not provide me with assistance of any kind while I was a lone parent in full-time higher education, communication of all kinds ceased (without my knowledge) when I reached the age of 21; for me, this just meant Bernadette Fox - my sociaal worker - stopped paying me house visits. This was in 2001.
The 1st November 2005 Report from the London Borough of Camden's Director of Children, Schools and Families Assistant Director Catherine Doran reads:
"6.2 All care leavers engaged in education, employment and training receive a Freedom Travel Pass."
This is not true as I was delivering training to foster parents, managers, Councillors, Members and Councillors between 2001 and 2006, I was also in full-time education between 2002 and 2006 and not once did I receive a Freedom Pass (I swear on my life, this is the truth).
A Freedom Pass entitled an individual to travel free throughout zones 1-6 and beyond on London Transport facilities. This saves an untold amount in expenses as a student; this opportunity ws not provided to me.
The report continues to read:
"...there are currently eight young people attending University."
I hope Camden have not tried to claim me as one of "their young people" attending University because the LCT did more harm than good in my life.
I have the stress of taking legal action against them.
Camden Council blatant depiction of corporate parent neglect and inconsistant parenting strategies are a cause for concern.
They are like parents who smack their children on Xmas night and give them presents on Boxing Day, in front of home video cameras to capture their smiles, but induce their frowns, tears and fears.
Some parent.
As it stands, I am now a specialist Criminologist and PA in a Commercial and Civil Litigation Firm and I can truly say -factors such exhibited by Camden Council "professionals" promote the prevalence and persistence of anti-social and criminal behaviour in children and young people in care; including poor mental health (i.e. self harm) and social exclusion.
Young people - speak up, speak out; make complaints, break the barriers, because it takes 4 years at University and some experience to be in their position; how would you change things?
Adejumoke,
You sound a very strong, determined moral woman - an inspiration to us all.
Take good care
Post a Comment