|
Government’s proposed
reform of legal aid in
the UK...... |
-
.
Recent Immigration
News
:-
Parliamentary
Debate on
Immigration
:
31
March 2011:-
Cutting funds
for the poor and
vulnerable to
defend their
rights will
simply push the
costs on to
other government
departments proposed
Expenditure
on legal aid
The report notes
that spending on
civil legal aid
has fallen by 6%
over the last
decade, though
it has increased
by 6% in
relation to
criminal legal
aid [p. 9].
Immigration
spending has
remained flat,
though the
nature of legal
issues has
changed – there
are far fewer
asylum cases,
and a larger
volume of
immigration
cases [p. 12].
The report notes
a number of
drivers that are
responsible for
pushing up the
costs of both
civil and
criminal legal
aid. It goes on,
however, to
lament the lack
of evidence and
research in this
area [p. 16],
and notes that
this absence of
information
means that
international
comparisons on
expenditure on
legal aid are of
limited value
[p. 19, p. 68].
The breadth and
depth of the
cuts
The report
highlights the
breadth and
depth of the
proposed cuts to
legal aid. Of
the £350 million
annual savings
the Government
hopes to
realise, the
largest tranche
of this – some
£279 million –
is to be
achieved through
a reduction in
the scope of
legal aid
funding.
In real terms
this would
result in a
reduction of
68%, or half a
million of all
existing Legal
Help cases, and
44% of those
cases in which
Legal
Representation
is granted –
this equates to
45,000 fewer
cases. For
immigration,
this works out
to a reduction
of 37, 300
immigration
Legal Help
cases,
accounting for
41% of existing
cases, and 6,400
cases under CLR,
accounting for
29% of existing
cases.
The real impacts
of the reform
As one agency
quoted in the
report notes,
‘the scope of
the changes will
represent a
disaster for
thousands of
individuals
unable to seek
redress for
issues that
affect their
fundamental
well-being’ [p.
31].
The report notes
concerns from
the CAB and law
centres- these
are all
organisations
engaged
primarily with
providing legal
services to the
poor. According
to Ministry of
Justice
estimates, the
not-for-profit
sector ‘will
lose up 97% of
their legal aid
funding’ [p.
47].
The impact of
the reforms is
likely to be the
creation of
advice deserts,
given the
inability of the
not-for-profit
sector to meet
demands for free
advice and
assistance
outside the
legal aid scheme
[p. 52].
The report also
highlights the
Government’s own
impact
assessment. This
shows that the
‘proposals have
the potential to
disproportionately
affect female
clients, BAME
clients, and ill
or disabled
people’ [p. 31].
The Committee
notes that this
is inconsistent
with the
Government’s
commitment to
protecting the
most vulnerable
in society [p.
32].
Overall, whilst
the report does
not accept that
the reforms will
lead to the end
of legal aid as
a national
service, it
thinks that they
could cause
‘significant
under-supply of
providers’ of
advice and
assistance [p.
61].
Conclusions
Among the
Committee’s
conclusions are
that:
1. It accepts
the need for
some changes in
the light of
budgetary
requirements,
but believes
there should be
a ‘more thorough
assessment of
the likely
effect on
geographical
provision of
each category of
civil and family
law’ [p. 61].
2. It is
surprised that
the Government
is making
changes to the
scope of legal
aid, including
immigration,
without
assessing the
changes’ likely
impact on public
spending in
areas other than
legal aid, e.g.
health, and
recommends that
it does so [p.
54, p. 56].
3. It is clear
that there are
issues about
poor
decision-making
by public bodies
in a number of
different areas.
A ‘polluter pays
principle’ ,
whereby public
authorities
whose decisions
impact on courts
and tribunals
pay a surcharge
in relation to
the number of
cases in which
their
decision-making
is shown to be
at fault, merits
further
consideration
[pp. 26-27].
4. The
Government
should conduct
further research
on the impacts
of
litigants-in-person
on the court
process, as
little is known
about this. This
makes it
difficult to
assess the
impact of the
proposals.
5. The
Government
should consider
the Law
Society’s
recommendations
for addressing
poor
decision-making
by public bodies
and other legal
aid
cost-drivers.
These include,
but are not
limited to: the
use by courts of
‘wasted costs’
orders to
penalise public
authorities and
others who cause
unnecessary
costs, the
identification
in consultation
papers that
introduce new
offences or
rights of the
associated
enforcement
costs and how
these are to be
met, and a cap
of £250,000 per
year on legal
aid profits for
individual
practitioners
[p. 28].
6. In the light
of the removal
of Legal Help
for preparatory
work in many
tribunal cases
across the
board, the
Government
should initiate
consultations on
making tribunals
more
user-friendly
and less
legalistic [pp.
52-53].
7. In principle
the Government’s
proposed fee
reduction is
preferable to
any further
reductions in
scope. £72
million will be
raised through
the proposed 10%
fee reduction.
The Government
should, however,
monitor the
impact of this
reduction [p.
24].
8. Consideration
should be given
to ‘removing
automatic legal
aid for asylum
and immigration
judicial review
applications
which seek
reconsideration
of previous
dismissed
appeals’,
including
emergency
applications
within the
Administrative
Court in asylum
cases. The
Government
should assess
the savings that
might be made
from this
change, and
consult on
whether this
should be
extended to
other areas [p.
26, p. 69].
9. Reductions in
bureaucracy and
the costs of
administering
legal aid are
welcome [p. 24].
10. The DPP’s
proposal that
savings can be
achieved by
greater
efficiency in
the criminal
courts is a
sound one, and
one that the MOJ
should push [p.
25].
11. Whilst
accepting
concerns about
the ability of
some vulnerable
clients to
access services
via the
telephone
helpline, the
scale of
savings,
together with
the benefits
that might
accrue, means
that this is ‘an
option worth
pursuing’. The
Government
should monitor
its effects (JCWI
Publication)
< Click Here for
Further Advice
and
Representation >
|
See Also: |
|
|
|
|