Peers concerned about legal aid cuts and their impact on Law Centres

The House of Lords debated yesterday (31st January 2012) the implications of planned legal aid cuts for Law Centres, following an oral question by Lord Bach

Julie Bishop, Director of the Law Centres Federation, responded to the points made in debate:

“Contributions from peers from all parties, including the coalition benches, showed deep concern about two fundamental principles central to the British justice system; access to justice and equality before the law.

“Law Centres are disappointed that Lord McNally, yet again, did not address the question but simply referred critics to the Ministry of Justice impact assessments. Yet the Impact Assessments already show that vulnerable groups will be disproportionately disadvantaged by the removal of social welfare law from the scope of legal aid. It seems Lord McNally thinks this is acceptable collateral damage.

“While we are concerned about the future of Law Centres, in particular those that are likely to close, the crucial issue for Law Centres remains, what will happen to the people we serve? Where will they get the legal assistance that they desperately need to save their homes, their jobs, their families?

“The experience of Law Centres is that demand for social welfare law advice has been rising during the current economic crisis, while the supply of this advice has been eroding. Considering the UK’s current economic performance and predictions of its further deterioration, this is not the time to abandon people losing their jobs and homes through no fault of their own. Lord McNally must not pretend that this is not happening.

“Replacing legal aid funding for whole areas of work with one-off transitional grants to plug immediate holes is grossly inadequate. The transitional funding referred to by Lord McNally is less than a third of the sum that the MoJ means to cut (£350m). While this year’s help is welcome, what about next year and the next five years?

“There will be £1.7bn left in the legal aid budget after the cuts. Those hardest hit by the recession deserve a portion of what is left. Ken Clarke and Lord McNally must make ongoing provisions in the legal aid budget for our communities, for legal assistance in employment, welfare benefits, immigration, family law, education and debt.

Additional coverage of this response in the Law Society Gazette: http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/law-centres-warn-legal-aid-cuts

ENDS

Notes to Editors:

The debate

  • Lord Bach (Lords shadow justice minister) asked what assessments Government had conducted on implications of the legal aid cuts for Law Centres. He followed his question by stressing the vital role of Law Centres; that early legal advice solves problems and changes lives. Cutting legal aid for social welfare law would cut 85.8% of Law Centres funding. Some would close, and local people would be left with no access to justice. The cuts were not just immoral but, as the Taxpayers Alliance had suggested, may well end up costing more than they save.

  • Lord Mackay (C, former Lord Chancellor) observed that Law Centres are “probably the most efficient and economical way of providing advice” to those who really need it. Removing this means of early intervention will cost government more downstream.

  • Lord Howarth (L) wondered why the Government did not uphold the fundamental principle of equality before the law.

  • Lord Phillips (LD) raised the prospect of advice deserts and concerns that the telephone gateway will leave too many poor and inarticulate people without means of accessing advice.

  • Lord McNally (LD, Justice minister), in response to the question, referred peers to the Government’s Impact Assessments. He seemed irritated at critics for invoking their ‘constant theme’ based on ‘worst case scenario’. He said the government was restructuring legal aid and while he acknowledged this would have an impact on the Not-for-Profit (NFP) sector, he thought that the sector would adjust to the new circumstances. He reminded peers that Government was providing £107m in transitional funds, plus £20m for advice agencies alone, to help them restructure, and Nick Hurd MP was trying to identify more funding to help the NFP sector. Regarding plans for a telephone gateway, he repeated his claim that nowadays people increasingly use electronic means, so it was entirely appropriate to provide advice by phone and internet.

    • The full debate is available in Hansard online, at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201212/ldhansrd/text/120131-0001.htm#120131109000256

    Published: Wed 1 Feb, 2012