The King’s College London report ‘Unintended Consequences: the cost of the Government’s Legal Aid Reforms’ was commissioned by the Law Society because of the Ministry of Justice’s reluctance to publish estimates of the knock-on costs of its proposed changes to legal aid policy. Published on Monday, the report shows that the government will produce less than half of the predicted savings through the proposed reforms to legal aid. In his report Dr Graham Cookson, from the Department of Management, analyses the intended changes to family, social welfare and clinical negligence law, which together are expected to produce savings of £240 million. He identified knock-on costs of £139 million per annum, and these unintended costs will largely be borne by other government departments, including a predicted £28 million being shouldered by the NHS each year. This means that the Government will only realise approximately 42 per cent of the predicted savings.

Dr Cookson said: “This research undermines the Government’s economic rationale for changing the scope of legal aid by casting doubt on its claims of realising savings to the public purse.” He concluded: “I echo the Justice Select Committee’s call for the Government to estimate the knock-on costs of these reforms before legislation is passed.”

Desmond Hudson, CEO of the Law Society, said: “The Ministry of Justice has defended swingeing cuts to Legal Aid in civil cases, which will deny justice to thousands, on its need to contribute savings to the Government’s deficit reduction programme. The Law Society accepts the need to achieve savings, but this report confirms that much of the Ministry of Justice’s claimed savings are being achieved at the expense of other parts of Government. This is kamikaze accounting and will do little to tackle the deficit while sacrificing access to justice. Should we be promoting our justice system internationally while denying access to ordinary citizens?”

At the same time, the London Advice Watch report was published. Sponsored by the Legal Action Group, it is based on an opinion poll of 1,600 Londoners who gave their views on advice services such as Citizens Advice Bureaux. It argues that London is unique in the diversity, range and numbers of law firms and advice centres which provide advice on civil legal problems. The city will be the largest loser in the country as London spends around a fifth of the budget for help with common civil legal problems. A cut of just under £10m in civil legal aid for London would see nearly 52,000 Londoners lose out on advice for problems with housing, welfare benefits, debt and employment law. It claims that the planned cuts will have a devastating impact on the specialist advice services which are an important part of the fabric of local communities in the city.

Commenting on the reports, Richard Hawkes, chief executive of disability charity Scope, said: “Legal advice is vital for disabled people if they fall foul of poor decision-making, red tape or administrative error, and this makes it crucial to the success of the government’s welfare reforms. For welfare reform to work disabled people have to get support to appeal decisions relating to their benefits, especially within a system where errors are commonplace. Cutting legal aid for welfare cases at a time when the Government is radically reforming the welfare system will leave disabled people at the mercy of a labyrinth of bureaucracy, and push many further towards poverty.”

The full text of the report ‘Unintended Consequences: the cost of the Government’s Legal Aid Reforms’ can be found at:

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/content/1/c6/08/81/08/UnintendedConsequencesFinalReport.pdf

Lord Bach moved a new clause calling for a pre-commencement impact assessment of the effect of the legal aid changes. After a full debate he said that the Government have clearly not done the work that should have been done before bringing in such controversial and fundamental legislation. “It is not too late for them to start doing it now, and I would encourage them to do so” he said. The amendment was withdrawn. So were two amendments to clause 2 – which deals with arrangements – proposed by Lord Beecham, and the clause was agreed, as was clause 3.

Clause 4, which covers the new post of Director of Legal Aid Casework, was the subject of an amendment moved by Lord Pannick. The amendment arises out of the transfer of responsibility for the allocation of legal aid from the independent Legal Services Commission to the Lord Chancellor’s Department. Decisions on legal aid in individual cases will be taken by a civil servant, who will be designated by the Lord Chancellor. Lord Pannick concluded: “Noble Lords prefer the drafting of Clause 4 to contain clear limits on the powers, in this context, of the Lord Chancellor and clear safeguards of the independence of the director. I hope that the Minister will be able to ask his officials to look again at the wording of Clause 4 so as to achieve these objectives, otherwise we will undoubtedly be returning to this matter on Report. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.” Clause 4 was agreed.

Lord Bach moved an amendment to insert a new clause on appeals following a decision made by the Director of Legal Casework in respect of eligibility for legal aid. He said: “The principle of being able to appeal against a decision made in this case by a civil servant who has been appointed by the Lord Chancellor is very important. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but we may come back to this on Report. If we are coming back to the earlier independence issue, we shall have to come back to this one as well.” Clauses 5, 6 and 7 were agreed.

Sixteen amendments were up for consideration on Tuesday. Eight were not even moved and the remaining eight were withdrawn without being put to the vote. It all had the feel of preliminary skirmishing with the main events still to come. The committee stage resumes on Monday, 16 January, when perhaps some of the red meat will be reached. The Lords may then exercise their muscle as they did with the government’s Welfare Reform bill on Wednesday.

He has put his name down to two, linked amendments that would ensure children, or parents on their behalf, will be entitled to legal aid if they need to pursue medical negligence claims. In relation to depriving claimants under the age of 18 from having access to legal aid for medical negligence claims, he told the ‘Guardian’: “In that area [the bill] may be going too far. I want to hear all the arguments. It’s right that it should be debated.” He had taken up the cause, he said, because: “I have listened and read the arguments …and I think there’s sufficient in it that we ought to [examine]. It’s nice to be on the side of the angels for once.”

At the same time the embattled Ken Clarke contributed an article in the ‘Guardian’ in which, almost apocalyptically, he said: “There should be no doubt that the system is facing an existential crisis.” He went on to say: “So for any reasonable individual it is not a question of whether we reform legal aid, but how. My approach has been to take a methodical, first-principles look at the system. The logic is simple: to determine carefully which types of cases most urgently merit scarce resources, to encourage people to use non-adversarial solutions to their problems where appropriate, and to speed up and simplify court processes where not.” He concluded: “The threat I want my reforms to pose is to a failing system, outdated methods and unreformed working practices, not to the needy.”

He will not have been pleased to hear the right wing former MP for Chingford, a supporter of the government’s draconian spending cuts, say that he feared that some of the economies proposed by the Ministry of Justice may be “going too far.”
The bill came to the House of Lords at committee stage on Tuesday. The debate got no further than amendments to clause 1, which defines the Lord Chancellor’s responsibilities. Four amendments were debated but all four were withdrawn without being put to the vote. Once again, reading the debate, it was noticeable that, apart from the ministerial team, the government had not put up anyone to speak in favour of the legal aid proposals. Committee stage continues on 10 January when further amendments will be discussed.

And finally, may I wish you all a merry Christmas and a happy New Year.

Image courtesy of The Freedom Association’s photostream on Flickr

The revised timetable will be:

Consultation paper published: Autumn 2013

Response to consultation paper: Spring 2014

Tender opens in first competition areas: Autumn 2014

First contracts go live: Summer 2015

In an almost throw-away last paragraph of this statement he went on to say: “I would also like to inform the House that we intend, subject to parliamentary approval of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, to implement all of the legal aid reforms in April 2013. This will include the abolition of the Legal Services Commission under the Bill and the creation of the new agency in its place.” This amounts to a six-month delay to the programme.

The ‘Guardian’ reports that Labour’s shadow justice secretary, Sadiq Khan, said: “This six-month stay of execution due to government incompetence will do little to reassure the millions of people who rely of social welfare legal aid to gain access to justice. Rather than delaying the implementation of their disastrous reforms to social welfare legal aid, which supports some of the most vulnerable people in our society, this government should abandon them completely.”

The bill goes to the committee stage in the House of Lords on 20 December. At its second reading in the chamber last month, the proposed legal aid cuts were savaged by the overwhelming majority of speakers in the debate. Since then Lord Wilson, the newest appointment to the supreme court, and Sir Nicholas Wall, president of the family division, have added their voices to the opposition. Three other supreme justices – Lord Hope, Lady Hale and Lord Dyson – have also expressed concern about the effect of government proposals to save £350m a year by reducing the availability of legal aid.

The Government showed with the Public Bodies bill last month that they are prepared to jettison proposals to ensure the passage of a bill. It will be interesting to see how they react to the Lords’ amendments and what, if anything, is thrown off the sledge to escape the chasing pack.

Part 2 (litigation funding and costs) and part 3 (sentencing and punishment of offenders) did not feature greatly in the exchanges, and were largely approved. Overwhelmingly the debate concerned part 1 of the bill – legal aid. And overwhelmingly the contributors opposed the government’s proposals.

Baroness Scotland said: “Justice should be available in times of good and ill. In times of ill, it is more necessary than ever.” She quoted the late Lord Bingham when he argued “that one of the ingredients of the rule of law itself was that ‘means must be provided for resolving, without prohibitive cost or inordinate delay, bona fide disputes which the parties are unable themselves to resolve.” Lord Bingham went on to say that “denial of legal protection to the poor litigant who cannot afford to pay is one enemy of the rule of law.” Lord Pannick looked back to the speech of Sir Hartley Shawcross, the Attorney-General, when he introduced the Legal Aid and Advice Bill in December 1948. He said: “His concern and the concern of the Labour Government in those days was that the doors of the courts were in theory open to ordinary people, ‘just as the grill room at the Ritz Hotel is open to all’, but obtaining and acting on legal advice were ‘luxuries which were beyond their reach’.”

Viscount Simon was concerned that taking clinical negligence out of the scope of legal aid will prevent vast numbers of people ever having their case properly investigated. “Because the vast majority of clinical negligence victims are harmed at the hands of a state body – the NHS – there is a strong moral argument that the state should ensure that these people have access to justice,” he said. Baroness Gould said: “The Bill is discriminatory and will entrench inequality for women, people from minority ethnic groups, disabled people and other groups facing discrimination, all of whom will be disproportionately affected.” Drawing on some 25 years’ experience of legal aid litigation, Lord Clinton-Davis said: “The real trouble with this Bill is that there will be no savings: indeed, the very reverse. Unrepresented persons will appear before courts and tribunals and many, through no fault of their own, will make false and incoherent points. Time will be wasted.”

Baroness Kennedy expressed concern that “having ready access to a lawyer will be replaced by a telephone hotline, a sort of call centre. We all know the problems that we have with call centres in every other area of our lives; imagine it when you are in distress and in need of decent legal advice.” Lord Elystan-Morgan asserted that “unless a Government of the future pass a one-clause Bill to abolish legal aid completely, the contents of this Bill and the proposals surrounding them must constitute the most savage and most deadly attack upon the institution of legal aid in the 62 years of its existence.”

As chief prosecutor, Lord Macdonald had seen the extent of the scourge of domestic violence, its impact on those who suffered it, who were mainly women, and its impact on the children, who usually witnessed it. He said: “An inevitable consequence of the Bill’s approach to domestic violence is that more people – again, mainly women and children – will be trapped in more abusive relationships with no succour at all from our law. I venture to suggest to noble Lords that that is a situation that would bring shame upon our entire legal system.” On means testing at the police station he said: “Are we really to say that no interview is going to take place before a means test is considered, no charge may be preferred until the financial forms are filled out and passed – mortgage payments, rents, wage slips, debts, assets and all the rest of it? It is – I choose my words carefully – a foolish notion. Who is going to calculate the cost of this in wasted time and disruption to the forensic process?”

Replying to the debate, minister of state Lord McNally said: “It is not true that we brushed aside the Law Society’s wonderful ideas for saving the money in different ways. We considered its proposals very carefully…A great deal of its proposals were shuffling responsibilities and costs around Whitehall or producing new taxes, which is not the same as making savings.”

The Bill was read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House, on a date to be arranged. That’s when the serious business of attempting amendments to the bill will take place.

For the vast majority of dangerous driving cases the maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment provides the courts with sufficient and proportionate powers to punish offenders. The new offence of ‘causing serious injury by dangerous driving’ will carry a maximum sentence of five years in prison and allow the courts to impose tougher punishments on dangerous drivers.

Announcing the new offence, justice secretary Kenneth Clarke said: “Dangerous driving can destroy lives and have a devastating effect on victims and their families and friends. We have listened to the victims of dangerous drivers, their families, MPs, judges and road safety groups and their experiences have directly informed these changes. Making our roads safer is a priority – five people died on our roads each day last year, so we need to do everything we can to further improve safety.”

Road safety minister Mike Penning said: “The vast majority of motorists are safe and responsible but the wilfully reckless minority who put lives in danger must face serious penalties. We are taking action to help the police tackle drink and drug driving, as well as to crack down on uninsured and dangerous drivers, and this new offence will mean the courts can properly punish those who inflict serious injuries.” The change was welcomed by Andrew Howard, Head of Road Safety at the AA, who said: “These law changes should make sentences more proportionate to the devastation dangerous driving causes and should also deter people from driving badly.”

The changes will be taken forward as part of the Government’s Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, which is rapidly becoming a grab bag of last minute proposals. The bill comes before the House of Commons again this week at Report stage. So far the bill, including plans to cut legal aid and curb payouts, which could benefit the insurance industry to the tune of £1bn a year, has been piloted through the Commons by justice minister Jonathan Djanogly. Djanogly has investments worth at least £250,000 in companies with insurance arms. His brother in law, in whose companies Djanogly’s children were shareholders, also stands to gain. Labour’s justice spokesman Andy Slaughter recently wrote to cabinet secretary Gus O’Donnell calling for an investigation into Djanogly. Slaughter pointed to conflict of interest claims, given that the minister had neither resigned nor removed himself from discussions from which he could personally profit.

The outcome was that Djanogly has been stripped of his responsibility to regulate firms that ‘ambulance chase’ the public. According to the ‘Guardian’, in reply to Slaughter, O’Donnell said that while there is “no suggestion of any impropriety in relation” to Djanogly’s brother-in-law’s firms that “for the avoidance of doubt decisions about the regulation of individual (claims management companies) should henceforth be handled by another minister.”

The justice secretary will now be in charge of the industry, but this still leaves Djanogly in charge of legal aid and civil litigation, which means he will be able to identify growth areas for claims management companies. It will be interesting to see what role he plays in the Commons this week.

According to the CAB, last year more than 300 of their specialist case workers – paid for by legal aid funding in social welfare law – dealt with over 40,000 welfare benefit cases, almost 60,000 debt cases, over 9,000 housing case and 3,000 employment cases, accounting for over 20% of all publicly funded cases in these topic areas. They calculated that, if the cuts went ahead as planned, they, along with other voluntary sector providers, would lose up to 92 per cent of their funding for the provision of specialist advice on legal matters. In a survey of 106 Bureaux in December 2010, over half said that the proposed legal aid cuts would pose a real risk to the continuation of their local advice service as a whole.

In February CAB Chief Executive Gillian Guy said: “We are deeply concerned that planned cuts to legal aid will seriously damage access to justice for our clients, and seriously damage our ability to provide specialist advice for the most vulnerable. Every year thousands of our clients need help from civil legal aid services at moments of real need. If people can’t access legal help, the consequences can be dire – spiralling debt, homelessness, family breakdown, domestic violence, depression.” She said that  continuing economic uncertainty, cuts to public services and the biggest shake-up of welfare benefits for decades would all generate an increased need for advice on social welfare law issues in the future. She added: “If the legal aid cuts go ahead, many of the most vulnerable members of our society will be overwhelmed by devastating problems because they will have nowhere to turn for help.”

But here it would seem that the law of unintended consequences had kicked in. At the introduction of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, Ken Clarke acknowledged the validity of these fears and promised to address them. He said: “On citizens advice bureaux and other forms of general advice, I hope to be able to say something on Second Reading—I am making advances, but we will see how much we can come forward with.” He was as good as his word. Referring to the future of not-for-profit advice centres, at Second Reading he agreed that they do important work in providing quality, worthwhile advice of the kind required by very many people. He went on to say: “We are working with the sector and across Government to ensure that the Government reforms help to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the advice services available to the public, and we will provide up to £20 million of additional funding in this financial year to help achieve that. We are also, of course, mindful of the impact of reforms beyond this financial year and will continue to consider the issues arising from that.”

In response to this U-turn CAB’s Gillian Guy gave two cheers. She said: “Ken Clarke deserves real praise for this extra money for free, independent advice services. It will go some way towards ensuring that vulnerable people can continue to get the advice they need.” But she added: “However, Citizens Advice remains very concerned about the legal aid bill…The problem is not just that the cuts are so deep – what’s left of civil legal aid will be inaccessible for too many people and unworkable for too many advice providers.”

But clause 12 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill appears  to say that advice in the police station will in future only be available if the Government decides in the individual case that it is in the ‘interests of justice’ to do so. There would also seem to be a financial barrier to negotiate, requiring both a ‘merit’ and a ‘means’ test to be applied at the point where someone has been arrested and is in police station custody. Writing in the ‘Observer’, Jamie Doward says that legal experts, including Lord Ken Macdonald QC, a former director of public prosecutions, have expressed alarm at the proposal and questioned how it would work in practice.

Richard Miller, head of legal aid policy at the Law Society, is quoted as saying: “When someone is arrested they are in the power of the state, subject to the mercies of the police officers involved. The purpose of having a solicitor acting for them is to ensure their rights are respected, that they are not physically abused, that their confessions are not forged and they are not detained for longer than legally allowed.” He pointed out that the presence of a lawyer also protects the police from a defendant making up allegations about what happened, for instance during the course of an interrogation, and he cautioned the government against interfering in any way with the absolute right to representation in police stations. “It’s there for a very good reason. When we didn’t have it, we saw the consequences,” he said.

But then things are never quite what they seem. An interesting exchange took place in the Commons on Wednesday during the debate on the second reading of the bill. Tory MP David Burrowes declared an interest as “one who has been a duty solicitor in the police station.” He asked Ken Clarke to consult carefully about the practical implementation of proposals to limit legal aid for advice and assistance in police stations, as “losing the benefit of the informed legal advice that one needs in the police station can lead to inefficient justice.”

Mr Clarke’s response is worth quoting in full: “We will look at that and consider it carefully as we proceed. At the moment, the Bill replicates a provision taken from an earlier Bill by the Labour party. It appears to give a power to take away the right to legal aid. It appears to give a power to take away access to legal advice in the police station. The last Government legislated to do that but never did it. We have no current intentions of doing it. We will consider the issue and no doubt my hon. Friend or others will return to it in Committee. I realise that there has been some concern.”

There would seem to be some room for manoeuvre here.

There have been some minor changes to the government’s earlier proposals. The definition of domestic violence in family disputes has been broadened to include providing legal support to those who have suffered psychological abuse. And legal aid to help children with special educational needs has also been restored. Excluding it would have saved the Ministry of Justice barely £1 million and had already caused a political outcry. Jolanta Lasota, chief executive of Ambitious about Autism, said: “For many of the parents we support, using the legal system is the only way to get a good education for their child with special educational needs. They will be hugely relieved by the government’s decision to support their right to justice for their children.”

The bill proposes the abolition of the Legal Services Commission (LSC), a non-departmental public body which looks after legal aid in England and Wales. It will be replaced by direct government administration of the legal aid system under a Director of Legal Aid Casework, who will be a civil servant answerable to government ministers. The bill also plans wholesale implementation of the Jackson reforms of civil litigation costs, which will have implications for small businesses and access to justice.

In the Commons, the justice secretary said that he would not abolish, as originally proposed, the current capital disregards for pensioners and for equity in the main home in assessing an applicant’s eligibility for legal aid. In response to expressed concerns he also dangled a carrot when he said: “On citizens advice bureaux and other forms of general advice, I hope to be able to say something on Second Reading—I am making advances, but we will see how much we can come forward with.” But he went on to confirm: “Legal aid will no longer be routinely available for most private family law cases, clinical negligence, employment, immigration, some debt and housing issues, some education cases, and welfare benefits. It will also no longer be available for squatters resisting eviction.”

Needless to say the proposals have had a thoroughly bad press. Linda Lee, president of the Law Society, said: “The government has failed to consider alternatives which would make bigger savings without removing civil legal aid from some of the most vulnerable people in society.” Stephen Cobb QC, chairman of the Family Law Bar Association, said: “The threats posed by the government’s proposals are real and potentially brutal.” Gillian Guy, of Citizen’s Advice, predicted that those in greatest need would suffer. Richard Hawkes, Chief Executive of disability charity Scope, said: “As the government presses ahead with its welfare reform agenda – which will hit disabled people hard – it is probably more important than ever that disabled people have access to legal aid and advice.”

The Legal Action Group believes the legal aid cuts are penny-wise but pound-foolish. They calculate that £1 of expenditure on civil legal help saves the government around £6 in other public expenditure. As Zoe Williams writes in the ‘Guardian’: “This might be a cut, but it isn’t a saving. It will cost us a fortune.”

The way it happened on Tuesday is as noteworthy as what happened. It is, to say the least, unusual for the introduction and first reading of a major bill to be prefaced – and thoroughly upstaged – by a Prime Ministerial press conference. Having backed the Clarke plans in private, he emerged to trash them in public as the justice secretary was forced by Downing Street to ditch more than 60% of his original proposals. In a brief exchange in the Commons debate, Ken Clarke confirmed that: “The proposals that I presented for consultation and the Green Paper were the proposals of the Prime Minister, the whole Cabinet and I.” The craven capitulation that followed was caused by the outcry from the Tory right and the tabloid press, and falling poll ratings on law and order. David Cameron defended his actions thus: “It is absolutely vital that the public have confidence in a criminal justice system that the state puts in place. Public confidence is not a side issue in this debate. It is the issue.”

The headline policy reversal was the complete abandonment of the proposed 50% sentence discount for guilty pleas, now deemed “too lenient”. Going beyond the scope of the current bill in some cases, the Prime Minister announced plans to impose a surprise tough “two strikes and you’re out” mandatory life sentence. He also announced that anyone guilty of a sexual or violent offence would spend two-thirds of the sentence in prison, rather than the current half.  The justice secretary has also quietly dropped his original plan to restore the discretion of judges on sentencing, which had proposed the scrapping of David Blunkett’s minimum mandatory sentences. A Ministry of Justice impact assessment estimates the redrawn sentencing package will save just 2,650 prison places each year – or £80m – compared with the original 6,450 and £210m saving. So there is a shortfall to be found, and probation looks vulnerable.

Speaking in the Commons, Clarke said: “Public confidence in the criminal justice system is unacceptably low. That is why we want to take forward plans for a new offence, with a mandatory minimum prison sentence of six months, for adults who use a knife to threaten and endanger. We will also consult on proposals to criminalise squatting, and we will bring forward legislation to clarify the law on self-defence. In addition, I can confirm our intention to improve the use of remand and reduce the number of foreign national prisoners in our jails….We are reviewing so-called indeterminate sentences of imprisonment for public protection, with a view to replacing them with a more sensible, tough system of long, determinate sentences.”

Curiously unremarked is clause 12 of the bill. This introduces an “interests of justice test” for police station advice. At the moment, anyone is entitled to free advice in the police station if they are arrested. For minor cases they get only telephone advice, for more major cases they get a lawyer in the police station for any interview. Clause 12 appears to say that advice in the police station will only be available if the Government decides in the individual case that it is in the interests of justice to do so, and there would also seem to be a financial barrier to negotiate. The role of “Director” in this context will be crucial. At best this will be a bureaucratic nightmare, at worst it creates scope for official abuse. Not a good day for Magna Carta or Human Rights legislation.