Government ignoring public opinion on civil legal aid

A report published today (5 March) by Legal Action Group (LAG) finds that public opinion strongly supports the provision of legal services paid for by the state.

LAG’s report, Social welfare law: what the public wants from civil legal aid, details the findings of an opinion poll of 1,000 members of the public which was conducted for LAG by GfK NOP, the market research company, in January this year.

The report’s findings include:

- 82% of respondents believed that free advice on common civil legal problems should be available to everyone, or at least to those with income on or below the national average wage.

- Support for legal services paid for by the state was consistent across social classes.

- People in social class DE were the least likely to be willing to use the internet or telephone to obtain advice.

- There was rising support across all social classes for employment law advice to be paid for by the state, which we conclude is caused by people’s anxiety over their employment rights due to the economic slowdown.

LAG believes the message to the government from the results of this opinion poll is very clear. People believe it is fair for the state to pay for advice on the everyday legal problems which life can throw at them and by proposing to cut much of civil legal aid, the government is in danger of completely ignoring the views of the public.

In October 2010, GfK NOP carried out the same poll for LAG. The results in the current poll practically mirror those of the first poll. This indicates that despite the government’s arguments around the need to reduce the deficit, support from the public for legal advice services paid for by the state has remained consistent.

The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, known as the Legal Aid Bill, reaches the report stage in the House of Lords today. If it is not amended, people will lose access to advice on most civil legal problems to do with housing, employment, benefits and debt, and other areas of civil law, often referred to as social welfare law. We are calling on parliament to persuade the government to reverse its decision to withdraw civil legal aid for advice on the sorts of problems which many people are now facing due to the economic slowdown.

Copies of the report are being sent to parliamentarians and policy-makers. It makes the following recommendations:

- The proposed cuts to legal aid for housing, employment and benefits cases should be reversed (at a cost of £40m).

- Custody cases and other legal issues that directly impact on children should continue to be covered by the legal aid system, reflecting the public’s main priority of protecting children.

- Provision should be made in the bill to allow for the extension of legal aid to other areas of law. This would be in keeping with previous legislation and would give future governments the flexibility to respond to demand for services caused by developments in the law, shifts in demand and public opinion, as well as other factors.

- The government should adopt a 'polluter pays' policy, which should include other arms of the state paying for the knock-on costs to the legal aid system.

- Plans to filter cases through a telephone gateway should be dropped, as the people who qualify for legal aid are the least likely to use such services.

After the report stage, the Legal Aid Bill will move on to its third reading in the Lords. Unlike in the House of Commons, amendments to a bill at this stage are often taken in the Lords before it is sent to the Commons for final approval. LAG, Justice for All and the other campaign organisations opposed to the bill have pledged to continue fighting to persuade the government to amend it until the last possible opportunity. This opinion poll shows that the public instinctively believes that civil legal aid is essential to ensure access to justice. It's time for the government to show that it understands this as well.

Steve Hynes,
Director of LAG

Politics is local

In our democracy people expect to be able to enforce the laws which politicians like to boast about having made. They need access to legal and advice services to do this. LAG has produced new sets of figures to demonstrate the impact of the legal aid cuts at a local level.

On our website you will find a document which breaks down the reductions in legal aid for housing, debt, benefits and employment cases. Figures are shown for each area of the country (or 'bid zone' as referred to by the Legal Services Commission).

Local MPs need to be aware of these figures. So do local councils, as the next phase of opposition to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill is to bring it home to politicians what the impact of these cuts will be. In an article in the July edition of LAG's magazine Legal Action, we give the examples of Bolton and Ealing. Very different areas of the country, both with marginal seats - one with a Conservative marginal and one with a Labour marginal. Both will be hit by cuts in legal aid which the public should be made aware of. While this might not be as decisive in an election as cuts in education or health, it can contribute to a general feeling of dissatisfaction and disillusionment with a government.

Above all politics is local. A local Citizens Advice Bureau cutting back or closing completely has an impact, particularly if the government is seen to be at fault. Solicitors are often reluctant to publicise withdrawing from legal aid work, cutting back or closures, but publicity about this can get the public to make the political connection between government policies and their local community.

Making the case at local level against these cuts is part of a dual strategy to resist this bill. We would urge advice agencies and solicitors to publicise the impact of these cuts at a local level using the figures above. The second part is to persuade parliament to agree to amendments. The Liberal Democrat peer Lord Carlile speaking at the last All Party Parliamentary Group on Legal Aid made a number of salient points on this.

The government is up against a tight timetable. It has to get the bill through both houses by May next year. Concessions will need to be made. The government has already recognised the strength of the not for profit sector's case with the announcement of the £20m fund last week. We would stress, though, that the details of this have to be worked out and we cannot be detracted from ensuring that amendments to the bill articulate a vision for the legal system that ensures access to justice.

This blog is adapted from a speech by LAG's director Steve Hynes given at LAG's recent social welfare law conference. A full copy of the speech is available here.

Cash for social welfare law announced

During the debate on the second reading of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, the Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke announced a fund of "up to £20million" to pay for Citizens Advice Bureaux and other not for profit advice agencies to provide advice on housing, debt, employment, benefits and other common civil legal problems (known as social welfare law). LAG welcomes this announcement, but has some concerns about the proposed fund and the provisions on legal aid in the bill.

Over recent months LAG, along with The Baring Foundation, has been working with the Cabinet Office to try and influence government thinking on social welfare law. Progress has been painfully slow. Hopes were raised when at short notice a summit was organised jointly with the Cabinet Office in February to look at the problems faced by the providers of social welfare law services. We were disappointed by the bland statement from ministers in response to the issues raised at the summit, but believed it was worth persevering as we were assured that these issues had been considered at the highest level of government.

We have been reassured by sources close to Ken Clarke that the cash announced today is new money, which will be available in the current financial year to help advice services such as Citizens Advice Bureaux, Law Centres and other independent advice centres. LAG is grateful to those who argued for this in government. Spending is tight and this is a significant sum of money which we estimate would pay for 500-700 posts in the sector and means over 100,000 members of the public will receive advice services.

However, it is only transitional funding and so not permanent, though Ken Clarke said that they will look at continuing the fund beyond this year. The common problems faced by people on low incomes are not going to disappear in a year. Legal aid for advice will though. Advice on benefits and employment problems will go completely by next year or, at the latest, 2013. This amounts to a cut of £26m which mainly goes to not for profit advice providers. A further £23m is being cut in advice on housing and debt cases. £12m is being cut from immigration cases. Again, this is mainly money which funds services in the not for profit sector.

LAG is concerned that many of the provisions on legal aid in the bill before parliament seek to restrict people’s rights to legal aid. The bill also gives too much power to the government to restrict access to justice with no vote in parliament. We believe the bill should be amended to restore people's rights to legal advice on common legal problems and to ensure that parliament is consulted before further changes to legal aid are introduced.

Delegates at LAG's conference on Monday (4 July) will get the opportunity to hear from justice minister Jonathan Djanogly MP about the government's plans for legal aid and from the Shadow Justice Secretary Sadiq Khan MP, as both are giving keynote speeches at the event.

Find out more about LAG's conference and book places

Read more news on LAG's campaign to save social welfare law services:

LAG calls for joint review of social welfare law services

Choices and compromises

The impact of legal aid cuts

To coincide with the Justice for All day of action last week, Legal Action Group has published figures which show that over 50,000 Londoners will lose out on advice on common legal problems if the government goes ahead with its plans to cut civil legal aid.

Currently, 78,480 Londoners with problems in housing, benefits, employment, debt and education receive advice paid for by legal aid. According to the government’s own figures, if the cuts planned in the legal aid bill (due to be published next week) go ahead, nearly 52,000 Londoners will no longer get help. LAG calculates that advice providers in London, mainly Citizens Advice Bureaux, Law Centres and other not for profit organisations, along with some solicitors firms, will be cut by just under £10m, forcing many to either close their doors for good or cut back drastically on their services to the public.

LAG’s director Steve Hynes, speaking at a rally outside the Supreme Court in London on Friday, said, 'It is pointless for parliament to pass laws if people are denied the means to enforce them. The government needs to think again about its plans for civil legal aid or thousands of ordinary people will be denied justice.'

Overall LAG has estimated that more than 650,000 people will lose out on access to civil legal aid services if the government implements its plans for legal aid. LAG believes these cuts will lead to a rights deficit between what the law says people are entitled to and access to the advice and expert help often needed to enforce their legal rights. A full report on the figures is available on LAG's website. This also includes the details of the number of social welfare law cases for each area of the country and how to calculate the services which will be lost.

Image: LAG: Protesters outside the Supreme Court. More pictures are available at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/45928311@N08/sets/72157626772756703/.

Justice Committee slams government’s legal aid plans

In a report published today, the Justice Committee is critical of the government’s plans for the reform of legal aid. The committee is concerned that 'vulnerable groups of people will be disproportionately hit by the changes'. The report stops short of calling on the government to abandon the planned cuts in legal aid. It instead calls on the government 'to look again' at other ways in which cash can be saved and to better evaluate the impact of the cuts before implementing them.

LAG gave evidence to the committee detailing the likely consequences of the proposed cuts, which will see areas of work such as advice on family, housing and debt problems severely cut back. Help with some legal problems such as employment and education will be cut completely. LAG fears that the number of providers will be cut from just over 2,000 to less than 900, which would create advice deserts, even in the areas of work which the government proposes to keep in scope, such as domestic violence and child protection cases. The committee accepted that the government needs to undertake a more thorough evaluation of the impact of these cuts in the provision of legal aid services across the country.

The definition of domestic violence is recognised by the committee as an important issue. It calls on the government to widen this definition to include cases of non-physical abuse and to await the results of the Family Justice Review Panel's work before finalising any changes to the family legal aid system.

In another recommendation supported by LAG, the committee asks the government to consider more support to help organisations such as Citizens Advice Bureaux, Law Centres and other advice centres to deal with the impact of both legal aid and other cuts. The committee heard evidence from Nick Hurd, the minister for civil society, on the government’s Transition Fund for voluntary organisations and calls on the government to consider a second round of this funding to help these organisations cope with the cuts.

Part of the committee’s report which is most critical of the government concerns its failure to consider the impact of the withdrawal of services in social welfare law. It accepted the evidence from organisations such as Citizens Advice, which argued that the provision of advice at an early stage resolves problems before they become critical and cost the state more to resolve. The committee requests that the government evaluate the impact of early advice on other government departments before going ahead with the proposed cuts.

Another welcome recommendation is that departments of state, such as the Department for Work and Pensions, are given financial penalties if they fail to get their decisions right first time. LAG believes that the introduction of such a 'polluter pays' policy could be used to fund legal services and would lead to many more decisions being made correctly first time round, which is what the public wants.

*An article on LAG’s response to the Justice Committee report will be included in May’s Legal Action magazine.

Picture (LAG): Sir Alan Beith, chairman of the Justice Committee.

Reprieve for debt advice

The government announced on Saturday (12 February) that it has found £27 million to continue funding face-to-face debt advice in Citizens Advice Bureaux and other charitable advice centres. The cash will pay for another year of the services, which were under threat of closure due to the end of the Financial Inclusion Fund, which had been confirmed three weeks ago.

Announcing the new funding, the Secretary of State for Business Vince Cable said: 'It's vitally important that everyone has access to free debt advice, and I am pleased to announce that the Department for Business will provide the £27 million necessary to maintain the programme of face-to-face debt advice.'

Vince Cable deserves praise for his role in securing this reprieve for debt advice. He is a strong supporter of Citizens Advice Bureaux and was named Citizens Advice Parliamentarian of the Year in 2008. It would have been an embarrassment for him if 500 debt advisers plus support staff funded by his department had been made redundant on his watch.

LAG welcomes this news, but points out that next year legal aid funding for debt advice in many cases will end. This has bought the coalition some respite, but it really needs to consider an integrated strategy for debt advice across government. We would also ask is it not time that the credit industry, especially banks, started paying for debt advice?

Legal aid cuts and the Opposition

In an exclusive interview with LAG, Lord Bach, the shadow legal aid minister, discussed Labour’s response to the government’s consultation on the reform of legal aid which ends today (14 February).

Lord Bach, the former legal aid minister, is touchy about criticism that Labour was slow to respond to the government’s proposals. When the consultation on the cuts was announced, Jonathan Freedland, writing in the Guardian, reflected the views of many when he said that Labour should argue that the timing and scale of the cuts are wrong, instead of 'quibbling about the details'. In response to this, Lord Bach says: 'It would have been hypocritical of Labour to say we would not cut anything. If we had we would have been rightly criticised.' He acknowledges that 'Labour got some things wrong in government and we will use our time in opposition to rethink the legal aid system and where it should go'.

Regarding the cuts, Lord Bach believes, rather like Jonathan Freedland, that the coalition government is planning to cut 'too deep and too quickly'. Labour says the government should implement the plans which Lord Bach helped to develop while in government to reduce the number of criminal legal aid firms in the market, increasing the volume of work for those remaining: 'If they did this we believe that £200m could be saved within the spending review period, with no damage done to access to justice. Indeed, we probably would not have waited until 2013 to find these savings.'

Lord Bach is robust in setting out Labour’s position on the areas of civil law known as social welfare law (benefits, debt, housing, employment and education): 'I don’t think ministers get it. They think only in terms of court work and nothing else. It must continually be repeated that if they cut early advice in these areas of law it will be the very vulnerable that will suffer and it will lead to the exact opposite of what they want. More problems will be brought to court.' Labour, he says, is also opposed to the proposed cut of ten per cent in civil fees which will hit 'social welfare lawyers who work for little reward'. He cannot resist making a party political point: 'In opposition, the Liberal Democrats argued for more funding for legal aid and were great supporters of social welfare law and local advice centres. What happened?'

LAG reminded Lord Bach that while in office he often hinted that the Labour government would have to cut back on legal aid for divorce and custody cases. He admits that this was considered: 'I find it difficult to justify legal aid for divorce. Also, privately, family lawyers have told me they do not believe it is the best use of public funds to fight custody battles in court over children.' He says that Labour agrees with the current government that there should be more use of mediation in family cases as this is 'underused in our system'. LAG put it to him that the difficulty of cutting legal aid for family cases is that some women experiencing domestic violence would be denied help in dealing with the financial and other aspects of a relationship break-up. Lord Bach concedes that the government 'will have to look very carefully at the definition of domestic violence. These are incredibly sensitive cases and the definition has to be wider than just physical violence'.

When asked if he believes that the cuts will go through, Lord Bach offers some hope: 'Many backbench MPs are beginning to get it. They know more people will be coming to their constituency surgeries for help and they will have less places to refer them to if advice centres and law firms are forced to close.' He urges people concerned about the proposed cuts to talk to their MPs, particularly Conservative and Liberal Democrat backbenchers. A good piece of advice, LAG would suggest.

It is welcome that the Opposition is now making the right noises about civil legal aid, but it has no power to do anything. We have to concentrate our efforts on those that do, before it is too late.

Cuts debate in House of Commons

At a well attended adjournment debate in the House of Commons last Tuesday (14 December) Karen Buck MP expressed her fears about the impact of the government’s proposed legal aid cuts: 'People with disabilities are likely to be disproportionately affected. For example, 63 per cent of legally aided clients in the sphere of welfare benefits assistance are disabled.'

Buck, who is the Labour MP for Westminster North and the former chairperson of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Legal Aid, initiated the debate. Adjournment debates give MPs the opportunity to discuss important issues outside the normal business of parliament. In the debate Buck argued that the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux is worried that if legal aid for social welfare law goes, alternative sources of advice are not available for most clients.

Dr Julian Lewis, the Conservative MP for New Forest East, told his fellow MPs that his local Citizens Advice Bureau was afraid that cutbacks would lead to two part-time staff losing their jobs: 'It (the bureau) is wondering where its most vulnerable clients will go if that service is cut back in parallel with cutbacks in legal aid.' Buck welcomed his remarks and also quoted from case studies supplied to her by the Legal Aid Practitioners Group, including that of a father fearful that he will lose contact with his daughter as his former partner intends to move to New Zealand. 'Even in cases in which domestic violence is not an issue, without legal aid there are real dangers that individuals, particularly those who have difficulty in being sufficiently articulate or confident to navigate the courts system, will lose access to children,' said Buck.

Flintshire Citizens Advice Bureau is in danger of losing £170,000 which pays for the equivalent of five posts, according to Mark Tami, the Labour MP for Alyn and Deeside. He said the bureau 'deals with some of the most vulnerable people in our society, who are often the same people who end up coming to see Members of Parliament. It is a worry that cuts will devastate the area'. Stephen Lloyd, the Liberal Democrat MP for Eastbourne, believes advice charities in his constituency could lose funding of around £230,000-£250,000 per year which he said they use 'to support more than 1,500 of the town's most vulnerable residents with complex debt, benefit and housing problems'. He also fears that cuts in legal aid will reduce the number of solicitors firms in his constituency from the current nine to only two, meaning some of his constituents could face a 'round trip in excess of 50 miles' to get help.

Labour’s shadow justice minister Andy Slaughter spoke in the debate. He said that according to the government's own impact assessment of the proposed cuts, they would mean a 92 per cent cut in legal aid funding for the voluntary sector. Slaughter also said that the government is 'living in cloud cuckoo land' if it believes that people would be able to prepare their own appeals against decisions to turn them down for benefits: 'Some 40 per cent of cases going to incapacity benefit appeals are successful with no representation and 67 per cent are successful with representation.' He paid tribute to the former legal aid minister Lord Bach, arguing that while in office he had defended social welfare law in the legal aid system and that if Labour had remained in government it would have continued to protect it.

The Solicitor-General, Edward Garnier, replied to those at the debate for the government as the minister responsible for legal aid, Jonathan Djanogly, was unavailable to do so. Garnier acknowledged that 'in all our constituencies we find areas where there is a huge need for legal representation'. He stressed that while a constituency like his (Harborough) appears prosperous there is still a need for social welfare law advice and that there is the opportunity to express views about the proposals in what 'is a deliberately lengthy consultation process'. Garnier argued that 'to be in government is to have to make decisions and choices. The main factor that we have to address at the moment is the economic difficulties that the national budget faces'.

LAG is urging anyone concerned about the cuts in legal aid to join the Justice for All campaign (see previous blog). Please also write to your MPs and join the lobby of parliament planned for 12 January.

Picture- Justice for All Christmas card sent to MPs.

Justice for All

In a speech today (3 December), Steve Hynes, LAG's director, spoke to the National Association of Welfare Rights Advisers (NAWRA) of the 'crisis engulfing the civil legal advice world'. He believes that the proposed cuts to legal aid for housing, debt, welfare benefits, immigration and employment law cases will hit not for profit (NFP) agencies and their clients hard. NAWRA has many advisers in its membership who are employed in local government and the NFP sector. LAG believes that they need to tell ministers that local government cannot be expected to pick up the pieces if the government chooses to walk away from funding social welfare law advice and urges them to encourage the organisations they represent to respond to the government's consultation on legal aid.

LAG has joined with other organisations, including the trade union Unite, Citizens Advice and the Legal Aid Practitioners Group, to form the Justice for All campaign. The campaign will be officially launched in January. The Justice for All website is already up and running and LAG is encouraging organisations to sign up to support the campaign.

Read the full speech to NAWRA on LAG's website.

Legal aid green paper expected today

According to a story in the Times this morning, and other media sources, the green paper on the future of legal aid will be announced today (15 November) by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ). Included in the paper will be plans to cut at least £350m from the budget. It is believed that the paper will detail suggested cuts in police station advice, but with the bulk of the cuts falling on civil work. It would appear family legal aid for work related to divorce is in the government's sights, along with representation in immigration cases and medical negligence claims. It is not clear if any cut will fall on social welfare law (SWL), though this had been suggested as likely by some sources close to the government over the summer.

Social welfare law: what is fair?

At LAG's conference last Friday (12 November), we released the findings from a nationwide opinion poll on the public’s views on legal advice services with an emphasis on the most common types of SWL problem (ie, problems to do with housing, benefits, money/debt and employment law).

It is heartening that at the core of the research findings is a sense of fair play. The British public overwhelmingly believe that even if they are unlikely to use the services themselves, their fellow citizens should have access to state-funded legal advice when things go wrong in their lives. We accept that cuts in legal aid should not be reduced to a popularity contest between different areas of law as we recognise that some types of legal aid work might not enjoy popular public support, but are essential to guarantee civil liberties and to maintain the rule of law. We do believe, though, that the results of the survey send a loud and clear message to the government that publicly funded SWL services matter to the public and therefore such services should not be seen as an easy option for cuts.

These are the key findings from the research:

1. Around two-fifths of the people experiencing a SWL problem went to a legal advice centre such as a Citizens Advice Bureau and around one-fifth went to a solicitor.

2. The lowest social group (DE) were the most reliant on local advice centres for help with these problems and they were the least likely to use internet and telephone services or to be able to travel far to access advice.

3. A large majority of people, while they might not use advice centres, viewed them as the appropriate place to go for advice on these types of problems.

4. People from the lowest social group were twice as likely as other groups to experience problems with money such as debts and benefits. Problems with employment and housing were the most evenly distributed across all social groups.

Respondents were asked two questions regarding their opinions on what should be a priority for government funding for legal advice. The key findings were as follows:

1. Roughly eight out of ten people (84 per cent) believed that advice on civil law should be either free to everyone or to those on below average earnings. Only one in ten believe that such services should be available only to people on benefits.

2. Support for legal services paid for by the state is very consistent across social classes.

3. Respondents believed that the top priorities for funding legal advice were child protection (70 per cent) and housing (67 per cent). Employment (53 per cent) was the third priority. Benefits and debt advice were seen as the next priorities (36 per cent each) and divorce and relationship breakdown was the lowest priority (17 per cent).

4. There was a remarkable degree of unanimity between social classes about what the priorities should be for advice.

5. While state funding for divorce-related work has least public support, LAG concluded that if there was domestic violence involved, such cases might have enjoyed higher levels of support.

A full copy of the report Social welfare law: what is fair? is available from our website. LAG intends to follow up the research and hopes to publish further reports on the public’s views on civil law legal services as well as developing a set of policy proposals based on the research.

Image: Legal Action Group