Comment: Legal aid cuts are an injustice against the poor
What is happening in parliament will prevent the poor from accessing justice. Its effects will be felt in a range of areas, from clinical negligence, to debt, housing, welfare, employment and family disputes.
By Professor Marjorie Mayo
The legal aid, sentencing and punishment of offenders bill (Laspo) returned to the House of Commons this week. It will severely restrict the scope of aid for civil cases in the future.
The potential consequences have been widely debated, with a series of amendments passed in the House of Lords in response to the concerns that have been raised. One aspect that has received less attention is the fact that, if passed without significant amendments, this bill will have devastating consequences for those whom law centres serve – people in disadvantaged communities who are unable to access legal services by any other means.
The Law Centres Federation has estimated that a third of law centres would be at risk of closure, leaving those who currently rely on their services effectively debarred from access to legal remedies. This at the very time that welfare benefits are undergoing major changes, with corresponding increases in poor people's needs for advice and advocacy as a result.
Research by the Department of Professional and Community Education (Pace) at Goldsmiths, University of London, with funding from the Leverhulme Trust, has explored the problems facing law centres and their clients, demonstrating ways in which the end results of the proposed legislation could prove counter-productive in terms of cost-effectiveness, as well proving damaging in terms of access to justice for all.
Law centres have already been facing major challenges as a result of New Labour reforms to legal aid. The research identified almost unanimous agreement with the view that these reforms under-funded law centres' work with clients, creating additional pressures on management systems and management committees and reducing the time available for clients, for outreach and for community work. In particular, law centres have been finding it challenging to maintain their wider preventative and policy work (including taking up test cases).
However, these aspects of their work have actually been producing cost savings for the longer term, identifying problems and addressing them at an early stage, thereby avoiding costly legislative procedures. A number of local authorities commented on how much they valued this aspect of law centres' roles, citing the prevention of homelessness, for example, as being in their interests as well as in the interests of the clients concerned.
In addition, a number of law centres have developed effective collaborative relationships with the Citizens' Advice Bureaux and with other advice agencies, including local authorities, in addition to voluntary sector providers. These law centres have become the lynch-pins of comprehensive service provision in their areas, backed by web-based access to advice, in some cases, to facilitate access in the most cost-effective ways.
If the Laspo bill is passed without significant amendments, all this is at risk. Law centres
have already been adapting by becoming more like businesses, exploring the possibilities of charging some clients, setting up trading arms or undertaking 'no win, no fee' work.
All of these steps come with their own unique problems. People on benefits are inherently unlikely to be able to pay for legal services – which is why law centres were needed in the first place. Further restrictions on legal aid would put many law centres continued existence in jeopardy.
The research identified widespread evidence of demoralisation as staff struggled to hold onto law centres' ethos whilst becoming more business-like. This has all been exacerbated by lack of security, in face of the current bill.
Despite these challenges, the research also identified evidence of powerful continuing commitments to law centres' ethos and mission, with staff too often working excessively long hours to maintain service provision. There were also examples of imaginative strategies for the future, including the development of collaborative approaches in partnership with other agencies, in order to provide comprehensive access to justice in disadvantaged communities.
Despite their efforts to develop new forms of income generation and attract new sources of funding and volunteers, the research concluded that law centres also need sustainable funding from public resources.
If the Laspo bill is finally passed without significant amendments, a third or more
law centres' futures are in jeopardy. This will undermine people's access to justice in disadvantaged communities – at a time of increasing need. If Law Centres' preventative work is further undermined, Laspo will not prove cost effective in the long run.
Marjorie Mayo is a reader in the Department of Professional and Community Education (Pace) at Goldsmiths', University of London.
The opinions in politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.
